Problems with a prominent editor's book put the topic of plagiarism smack in the middle of the news.

By William Dunkerley

Recently the former executive editor of the New York Times got caught up in a plagiarism scandal. What's that to us? I'll tell you -- but first the sordid details.

Here are some of the headlines about the editor in question:

--"Former Times Editor Jill Abramson Accused of Plagiarism" --New York magazine

--"I Was Plagiarized by Jill Abramson" --Columbia Journalism Review

--"7 Things Journalists Should Never Do (But Jill Abramson Did Anyway)" --Huffington Post

The latter story admonishes that, "Jill Abramson, former New York Times executive editor, should be every journalist's cautionary tale." Among HuffPost's allegations:

Item: "At the very least, Abramson didn't cite sources within her body of work when she 'borrowed' from another journalist."

Item: "She allegedly plagiarized other journalists' work."

Item: "Abramson didn't follow-up with her sources to fact check details."

Proof

Michael C. Moynihan, a correspondent at HBO's Vice News Tonight, cited the following example.

From the Ryerson Review of Journalism:

"In August 2003, McInnes wrote a column in the American Conservative, a magazine run by Pat Buchanan. In the magazine, he called young people a bunch of knee-jerk liberals (a phrase McInnes and his cronies use often) who'll believe anyone with dark skin over anyone with white skin. He laments the liberal views of most of the people who pick up his magazine, saying they're 'brainwashed by communist propaganda.'"

From Abramson's Merchants of Truth book:

"He wrote a column in the American Conservative, a magazine run by Pat Buchanan, calling young people a bunch of knee-jerk liberals (a phrase McInnis and his ilk often used) who would believe anyone with dark skin over anyone with light skin. He lamented the liberal views of his magazine's readers, saying they were 'brainwashed by communist propaganda.'"

What Abramson wrote is obviously not a verbatim quote. But it would seem somewhat of a stretch to call it even a paraphrase. Nonetheless, if it were a paraphrase it should have been directly attributed on the spot to its source. Instead it looks to me like sloppily veiled plagiarism.

Here's another example offered by Moynihan:

"In December 2006, Mojica and two friends traveled to Chad with a camera to explore why Darfur couldn't be saved. The result was the 2008 documentary Christmas in Darfur."

Versus:

"In December 2006 he and two friends traveled to Chad with a camera to explore why Darfur couldn't be saved. The result was the 2008 documentary Christmas in Darfur."

The first paragraph, Moynihan says, is from a 2010 Time Out article. The second is from Abramson's book.

Equivocation

When confronted with this and other similar evidence, Abramson just made matters worse. Instead of owning up to her transgression, she equivocated. The Washington Examiner reported, "Former New York Times executive editor Jill Abramson was defiant in the face of plagiarism allegations Wednesday." The report continues, "'All I can tell you is I certainly didn't plagiarize in my book, and there's 70 pages of footnotes showing where I got the information,' Abramson said during an interview with Fox News."

The "footnotes" Abramson mentions are simply compiled notes found at the end of the book. While reading along in her text the reader has no clue that the material is borrowed.

Later, according to CNN, "Abramson conceded that some portions of her book do include language that is 'way too close for comfort' to its source material 'and probably should have been in quotes.'"

The Impact?

So what's the import of all this for the rest of us?

It is simply not good for our profession when a prominent editor recklessly disgraces herself in such a public way. This is particularly disadvantageous in light of the growing competition we face from the plethora of instantly accessible online content.

Think about it. As editors, our job is to curate content per our understanding of readers' interests. But now everyone has the ability to seek and find virtually whatever information they might want online in the blink of an eye. The result is that curated information may seem less valuable to many current or potential readers of our publications.

We have one big advantage over the search-ready content that's easily found online, however. I call it editorial integrity.

The online world is fraught with misinformation and fraud. If our publication brands are well managed, they will epitomize reliability and a dedication to the reader unlike much of the random content found online. That's our leg up in the face of uncurated content.

Stories like the Abramson scandal can erode public trust in our profession and consequently in the integrity of our content. She deserves our condemnation.

William Dunkerley is principal of William Dunkerley Publishing Consultants, www.publishinghelp.com.

Add your comment.