Which is the greater journalistic sin?

Is it worse to make up a quote to complement your argument, a la Jonah Lehrer, or to plagiarize another author's work, a la Fareed Zakaria?  Or maybe they're both offences equally egregious sins?

The more I think about the issue the more I'm inclined to think that fabrication of content is a greater sin, and is generally more likely to cause more harm, than plagiarism, though that doesn't mean that plagiarism isn't problematic in its own right.

Some thoughts on writing and related topics

A few weeks ago I remember reading a story about the so-called self-plaigarism of regular RadioLab contributor and New Yorker staff writer Jonah Lehrer.  Aside from the general topic of the story, a topic find inherently interesting, I was curious about the story as a regular listener to Radiolab.

At the time I presumed that this self-plaigarism angle would the last I would be hearing about the journalistic practices, if that is the appropriate term, of Lehrer.

Thanks to an article published on Monday that outlines a number of fabricated or misattributed Bob Dylan quotes in his most recent book, Lehrer's journalistic practices have once again come up for discussion.  Of course, unlike with the self-plaigarism issue, in this case Lehrer didn't walk away from the dust up with his job (he has now resigned from his post at The New Yorker).

While it's clear that for a reader or publication an author fabricating sources, quotes, or data is unacceptable and is a firing offence, how one should handle of 'self-plaigarism' is likely not quite as clear cut, and readers and employers may approach the matter differently.

From the perspective of a reader that an author revisits a topic (sometimes with passages take directly from earlier iterations of a work), but each time refining his or her approach, may not be problematic.  Despite the fact that such an iterative approach to writing may not be a particularly common practice in popular literature, there are areas of publishing - like some scholarly domains - where this approach is quite common (Lukes' multiple editions of Power: A Radical View is one such example that comes to mind).   Of course, as a reader I do like knowing when I'm encountering something that I may have read a version of before (While reading Carol Shield's Unless a few years ago I was haunted by a sense of deja vu while reading a scene about gifting a scarf only to realize some number of years later that I'd first encountered a similar passage in one of Shield's short stories.).

Of course it is also important to take into consideration the extent to which author continues to re-engage and refine the ideas and arguments are being examined.  If the 'self-plaigarism' is nothing more than a re-jiggering of paragraphs and paraphrasing of past publications without any new substance then this practice becomes almost valueless to most readers.  In such cases I am inclined to feel duped by the author - and that is almost never a pleasant feeling.

'Self-plaigarism' when viewed from the perspective of the publisher raises an entirely different set of concerns.  Firstly, at least as far as I can see, is the matter of copyright.  If the publisher of second version of the text doesn't provide proper attribution and attain appropriate permissions from the publisher of the first version of the text (maybe because they don't know that the writing isn't all original) might they not have copyright infringement issues on their hands?  And I can't see prominent publications appreciating 'their' content turning up in another publication.

Secondly, I would have to guess that most major publications don't like paying full price for 'recycled' content.  Assuming the ideas discussed in these pieces haven't really been overly refined from iteration to iteration, which I think is a relatively fair assumption in this case given the short/informal nature of many of the posts in question, I can imagine that this breaks the spirit and letter of agreements that authors have with their publishers about submissions.  (I also have to assume that readers don't appreciate paying full price for a publication that has supposedly 'new' content that they may have already read.)

Unfortunately, I think that this confluence of conditions (from both the perspective of the reader and the publisher) and stories like this that that vilify 'self-plaigarism' (and that don't differentiate its various forms) may mean that professional authors may be less likely to re-visit and revise work as time and their understanding of the topic progresses despite the fact that technologies currently available may facilitate such regular revisions of a work and allow the reader to see how this work has been changed with each new iteration.  Though I certainly hope it's not the case, I fear that the appearance of an ever-changing, always-a-work-in-progress text like Whitman's Leaves of Grass may be less likely now than ever before (I can only imagine that what an author was paid to revise a text in the manual type-setting days was relatively little compared to the overall cost of a new printing/edition and would require only marginally more work on the part of the publisher, whereas in the current context a new printing that also entails a re-formatted and re-written document substantially increases printing and re-publication costs relative to just re-printing the same text you already had on file).

I'm not sure that I've really brought this to a satisfying conclusion, but I guess I can always come back to a few of these ideas in the future and see if I can add anything new to the conversation.  If I do take such an approach I'll try to remember to send you back here so you can see what I wrote the first time around.

A Few Quick Notes 157

-For the past few days, or at least the past day and a half, we have had a bit of snow. This hasn’t really been problematic as the amount we received has not been significant. Hopefully the temperature will stay below zero for the next couple of days so that we don’t just have puddles of slush at every corner.

-So far I a 0/4 on my Roll Up the Rim cups. This is not all that surprising. Actually, I have decided to see if I can beat my record of last year, which was something like 0/17 before I got a free coffee. I should also note that this year I have been able to use my newly acquired ‘rim roller,’ a small device that automatically unrolls a coffee cup rim to save one the hassle of having to do it with either one’s mouth or fingers. The only downside to this device is that the swath it unrolls isn’t quite as wide as I would like it to be.

-On Monday night I finally ditched my beard. This took a while as I had to do it with a pair of scissors and then a razor. For those of you that are curious, yes, I left the ‘stache, at least for the time being. So far I haven’t really noticed much of a difference in terms of quality of life or a diminishing number of people who look at me as though I am nuts (but this latter part is likely because of the shorts).

-Last night, for the first time, I went to Concordia to borrow some books from their library, a privilege afforded me because of reciporical borrowing agreements. I ended up selecting three books, at least two of which are not available at McGill. The only problem is that I now have to try not to mix these three up with the pile of books that I have that are from McGill. Fortunately, I have been able to read the necessary sections already, meaning that I should be able to return them shortly.

-As I mentioned a few days ago, I have decided to apply to do an M.A. in Political Science at Dalhousie. On Monday I submitted my application package and paid the necessary fee. I guess I will hear back from them at some point in the future, hope it all works out.

-More than in previous presidential elections, but this may just be my own persona perception, it seems that instead of the positions of the various candidates news sources are covering events as a battle for polling support. This means that what a candidate says is significantly less important than the fact that they said it to a group of union workers in Ohio on a Sunday.

Another problem with this year’s coverage is that candidates are able to say something outrageous, which is then reported almost verbatim, the veracity of the statement is never seen to be an issue worth examining. Particularly troubling are the claims by Hilary that she has more international relations experience than Obama.

This is troubling as it simply isn’t true. What is more troubling is that the two credentials that Hilary is tossing around are her experience as a senator, as well as her experience as first lady. As far as I can tell, neither of these two positions, the second of which isn’t even a formal position, involves any diplomatic responsibilities. Being one of a hundred people to approve a treaty is not even close to the same thing as negotiating a treaty.

I feel that the claim that living in the White House should count for experience is kind of like the idea of going to the spouse of your doctor for surgery, I mean they have lived with a surgeon for 20 years. Some of that knowledge and experience must have rubbed off, right?

(This should not be taken as a statement in support of or against any particular candidate, but rather as a call for better reporting of the campaigns of those running for President.)