A bit of dj vu hit Norm Carpenter as he read a Star Tribune editorial on Nov. 10 criticizing Congress and the Bush administration. He knew he had read some of it before — not just the ideas, but some clever turns of phrase.
Carpenter, a retired attorney living in Hopkins, was particularly interested in the use of the word “subcontracting” to describe the administration’s willingness to let corporations influence policymaking.
He remembered snagging on that word in something else he had read about the Bush administration recently. Then it hit him: The writer Hendrik Hertzberg had used the word the same way in the Nov. 6 issue of the New Yorker magazine. Carpenter said he doesn’t usually agree with Hertzberg, but reads him avidly because he admires his writing.
He dug out that issue, compared the editorial and realized the word “subcontracting” wasn’t the only similarity. Several phrases were identical or extremely similar.
“It was plagiarized, let’s face it,” Carpenter said. He contacted Scott Johnson, his former law partner whose politically conservative Power Line blog regularly criticizes the Star Tribune. Carpenter said Johnson worked his observation up into a comparison of the editorial and Hertzberg’s piece, and posted it on Power Line.
Editorial page editor Susan Albright began investigating what had happened. The results of her probe were described in an editor’s note published on the editorial page Wednesday, which read in part: “The writer … took notes on the Hertzberg piece, intending either to directly quote him or otherwise include some of his views. … Later, in consulting these notes, the writer inadvertently failed to distinguish which parts were direct quotes and which were paraphrased ideas, resulting in the writing of phrases that included an unattributed, improper mix of the two. … ”
Albright detailed phrases in the Hertzberg piece reproduced almost word-for-word in the editorial. Those phrases were “festival of bribery” and “the subcontracting of environmental, energy, labor, and health-care policymaking to corporate interests; … efforts to suppress scientific truth.” Hertzberg’s phrase “a set of fiscal policies that have slowed growth, spurred inequality, replenished the ranks of the poor and uninsured, and exacerbated the insecurities of the middle class” had been paraphrased in the editorial to “economic policies that exacerbate inequality, heighten middle-class anxiety and expand the ranks of the poor and uninsured.”
Beyond that note, she said, her dual role as editor and supervisor prevented her from elaborating on a personnel matter — always a frustration for editors whose first instinct is openness. Albright said the note was intended to explain to readers what happened, make Hertzberg “whole” and still be fair to the employee, whom she did not identify. She said everyone involved in the investigation concluded the misstep had been unintentional.
That meant I couldn’t get answers to what would be natural questions in the minds of readers: Was the employee disciplined? Were previous editorials by this writer checked for signs of plagiarism? Because the editorial page staff develops positions as a group and writes unsigned editorials, I can’t check for that without knowing the writer’s identity.
Still, this situation deserves broader discussion for readers than that note below the editorials Wednesday. High-profile plagiarism cases have haunted newspapers in recent years, sometimes resulting in firings.
The newsroom and the editorial department are separate by design to prevent the newspaper’s editorial views from influencing news coverage. Both the editor and the editorial page editor report directly to the publisher. I work for the editor, in the newsroom, on concerns about news issues. So I’m plowing unfamiliar ground in writing about an editorial page problem.
But this case is exceptional, cutting to the core of the newspaper’s credibility. There are really only two reasons plagiarism occurs, one far worse than the other, but neither is good. Intentional plagiarism is a theft. Unintentional plagiarism reveals sloppiness. Neither inspires reader confidence.
Unintentional plagiarism is a specter that haunts even meticulous writers: In the midst of a complex project, will I go back to my aging notes and accidentally pick up a phrase that should have been attributed to another writer? In other newspaper plagiarism cases, that has been the enduring explanation: It was a mistake, I misread my notes, I was rushing and I’ll never do it again. Sometimes that’s precisely what happened. But if there’s any flair to the writing, it strains credulity to think a writer wouldn’t recall someone else wrote it. So much has not been disclosed about this case I can’t guess at this particular writer’s mind-set.
There is, in this dreary episode, a potential silver lining. Newspapers embarrassed by a plagiarism case often enter a period of reevaluating writing and editing practices. They emerge more exacting and ethical, regaining their readers’ trust. Albright started that process with her staff on Wednesday. “We had a discussion … on the need to be meticulous in note-taking and how to use notes,” she said.
That’s something every writer should be thinking about right now. To that end, as part of the newsroom’s training program, I’ve been developing a seminar on preventing plagiarism and fabrication for early next year. It’s a topic that now seems regrettably more timely than ever.
