Selected Readings

PLAGIARISM:
I agree with Ed Wasserman: using other people's quotes in an opinion column is "defensible," although obtaining your own information is preferable, and makes for a stronger piece, of course. The point of an opinion column is to show the true nature of someone or something, and to then comment on them or it. If another journalist got the perfect quote that would help you explain to the reader what is going on, or why you think the way you do, then you should be able to use that quote. I don't think the piece would be any less strong if you attributed that quote, and I would attribute that quote...I just do see that a journlist is more likely to use information another journalist gathered when writing opinion.

"Besides, what assurance does a column writer -- or a reporter -- have that the 'original' material is accurate or was obtained professionally or is, indeed, original? Should we teach our students to bank their bylines or their mastheads on a guess?" This is where I first really started agreeing with the article (which was making the point that using quotes without attribution is plagiarism, plain and simple). I wouldn't risk using source quotes that were artificial, or at least those that were obtained by a journlist I was unfamiliar with. I want my work to be credible; I want to be a source the public can trust.


CARELESSNESS VS. PLAGIARISM:
"I look on these short, directly quoted expressions from the two women in the news story as “news-facts” and see them as in the public domain." My journalism professors have told me that using a quote found in the NY Times would probably be okay, since if it's in the NY Times it could probably be considered general public knowledge. Perhaps I misunderstood my professors, but I believe I have been told that I could use quotes from a large, well-respected national newspaper such as the NY Times without attribution. If this is the case, then I see Merrill's point; albeit, he wasn't quoting a large national newspaper, but a small student-staffed campus publication.

When Merrill says that acting with good will is sometimes the best a person can do, and that he shouldn't be punished for simple "carlessness," I start to find his argument rather weak. Yes, of course, all we can do is our best -- but if our best isn't good enough, if our best causes harm, then we have to pay the consequences. I do not think that Merrill should have lost his column; I do think this act of plagiarism was an aberration in his long career. Merrill's editor probably didn't have any real concern that he would be accused of plagiarism in the future, but I see why some action had to be taken.


POLITICS:
"Of course, don't forget to look in state court for divorce filings." Ha, oh of course.

This list of advice spends a lot of time encouraging you to follow the money, as the saying goes. "Politics Money Sites" gets its own section, but the first bullet point of advice is still "see what the person earned" if he was a former businessman. Money = motives, I guess.

This list was kind of overwhelming, so I'll just say that I found it beneficial...and interesting. There were some tips on their that I never would have thought of. For example, check if "the candidate is a member of any club, lodge, or fraternal organization," and research that organization's core values. That's a very clever way of getting background information on the type of individual you're dealing with. I'm good at interviewing people and assessing their image in that way, but I need to work on researching news figures and sources in advance. That kind of information might show you more about their true character/political stance/motives than what an interview could reveal.