Slate editor-at-large Jack Shafer has been covering the plagiarism beat for some time and he's found that throughout every scandal the excuses remain the same. On the heels of two plagiarism scandals last month, he talks about a list of twelve common plagiarism excuses he calls "the dirty dozen."
- the media biz
Tags:
Related
Supported by
-
A Week of Scandals, Catholic Whistleblowers, and More
-
Conservative Bloggers Vindicated, Advice for Leakers, and More
-
An 11-year-old and his 3D printer
-
Who’s gonna pay for this stuff?
-
OTM Staff Picks, Volume 52
-
Brooke Gladstone + Cyndi Lauper
-
The Totally Legal Subpoena
-
A New Incentive for Cord Cutters
-
A Journalistic Civil War Odyssey
-
A Source for Sources
-
Conservative Bloggers Vindicated, Advice for Leakers, and More
-
A Week of Scandals, Catholic Whistleblowers, and More
-
The Totally Legal Subpoena
-
Catholic Whistleblowers
-
Who’s gonna pay for this stuff?
-
The Three-Headed Scandal Monster
-
Qapla!
-
The Future History of the Newspaper Industry
-
A Journalistic Civil War Odyssey
-
A Source for Sources
-
A New Incentive for Cord Cutters
-
With IRS Scandal, Conservative Bloggers Feel Vindicated
-
The Future History of the Newspaper Industry
-
A Journalistic Civil War Odyssey
-
Web Only Audio Extra - TV Cord Cutters
-
An 11-year-old and his 3D printer
-
AdBlock Plus: The Internet's Ad Gatekeeper?
-
The Totally Legal Subpoena
-
A Source for Sources
-
Web Only Audio Extra - Crowdsourcing FOIA Requests


Comments [3]
Strict definition: more than three consecutive words, I believe.
I have a similar thought as Jake Lewin. I write a weekly column for a local paper and often publicize events. I have from time to time gone to an organization website, typically a not-for-profit in my case, and copied text from the mission statement or description of the organization. While in every case I have reworded the text I occasionally use specific phrases from the webpage. Is that plagarism? Should I identify the website as the source of the information?
Listening to this I couldn't help think about all the press releases that are often run in whole or in part without editing or clear attribution. While the author of the release is essentially asking for them to be used, doesn't the news outlet owe some form of disclosure here? Is the practice or running press releases showing some tacit approval for printing other's words? I would guess that very few people understand the extent to which text in papers comes from the press releases of others.
Leave a Comment
Register for your own account so you can vote on comments, save your favorites, and more. Learn more.
Please stay on topic, be civil, and be brief.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. Names are displayed with all comments. We reserve the right to edit any comments posted on this site. Please read the Comment Guidelines before posting. By leaving a comment, you agree to New York Public Radio's Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use.