Sari Horwitz suspended for plagiarism

I think I'd go as far as to say nobody who has been caught doing this was doing it for the first time.

 

That's ridiculous, and there's no plausible way you can say that.

It's like the people on Maury who say the baby can't be theirs because they only slept with the girl one time. Guess what? Once is all it takes.

 

The piece also specifies that they went back and investigated her other work, as is now standard in these cases.

There may be some mitigating personal circumstance here that explains why she was suspended rather than fired. Ie., an addiction problem or a sour divorce or something. Clearly she doesn't need to steal boilerplate from another paper.

 

You're assuming someone is intentionally copying stuff to use as 'original' material.

As Dick said, the internet offers endless research capability...it's completely understandable that someone would copy chunks of material with the intention of using it as information, not verbatim text. And then lose track of where it came from, whether it was paraphrased or actually copied, etc. Careless without criminal intent.

I find it necessary to highlight or ital everything I cut/paste into my notes; too easy to forget where you got something.

 

it is certainly wrong to assert it. but naive not to suspect it. i'm sickened by this event and the way the post has responded. you break a cardinal rule, i don't give a crap how many pulitzers you've won, readers are justified suspecting EVERYTHING the reporter has done is fraudulent on some level.

those around her rallying in any semblance of a defense are tainted as naive and gullible, two of the WORST characteristics any reporter can have.

i'm mortified that anyone tries to muster any level of defense for her. i don't care how many pulitzers she's won.

 

Can't argue this, from the reader's perspective. I'm not saying there's not a definite bad feeling about everything that came before this. But for Mizzou to say he'd say, publicly, that anyone who is caught has done it many times before is ridiculous.

 

I thought her apology was excellent by today's standards. No 'if' in there, as in, 'if' I hurt or offended, etc.

I don't know, has plagiarism hurt Doris Kearns Goodwin? I think it'll be forgotten tomorrow.

 

I have no practical experience with this, so I have to defer to your experience.

And, I could understand if a description of a legal term or medical procedure was verbatim or close to it (though, in that case shouldn't you still be crediting the original source material).

And Dick's example surely wouldn't be considered plagiarism.

But 10 paragraphs? It's hard for me to believe that you re-read your article and think that you wrote that yourself.

I also think there's a gray line here no one is talking about:

Yes, that's the right way to do it.

But, it seems to me that Sari would have been fine if she had changed the wording up but not attributed it. Only using the verbatim text got her caught and in trouble.

I sometimes think that newspapers are fine with their reporters letting someone else do the work as long as they change the wording up a bit.

Sure, see what else is out there, but do your own reporting.

 

Her apology was good. It seemed she's accepted guilt and her punishment. She comes across as humble and grateful.

So, why then does the Post see the need to explain her actions in the very next sentence? It looks like she understands the severity of the problem more than they do.

She didn't make excuses. The Post shouldn't either.

And, speaking of Doris Kearns Goodwin, shouldn't this defense be named after her? It's now the go to explanation for everyone who gets caught.

In the future, writers should just have to say, "I invoke the Doris Kearns Godwin defense." We'll all know what it means. Give 'em a suspension and we can move on.

 

as i said, ijag, i agree you cannot state it as fact. but that is the problem with this offense -- we're fools if we don't WONDER how many times the reporter may have done this or committed another cardinal offense.

you can't state it as fact. but anyone who doesn't suspect it has happened before, or anyone who doesnt wonder about her future pieces, strikes me as someone who is too close to the offender.

i understand that i'm appearing to be inflexible on this issue. but i suppose i am. when it comes to a matter as central to what we do, what we're supposed to be about, as this issue is, yeah, i'm a stickler.

oh, and 21, ya know i love ya, but i couldnt disagree more about how easy it is to lose track of what is 'cut-and-paste' research as opposed to your own work. i can't imagine losing track to that extent. ever. i've ALWAYS been able to easily differentiate 'cut-and-paste' notes from graphs i've written myself for the story.

of course, that could be because my prose was always of lesser quality than the 'cut-and-pasted' materials, but i could differentiate it nonetheless.

hey, if others here maintain it's happened unwittingly to them on occasion, i'll take your word for it. just seems like another incredible defense to me.

i'm not arguing that offending parties should be exiled for life; just that i'm stunned and disappointed when the punishment does not cost the offender their job for a substantial period of time. if a 'star' is not initially fired for this, no reporter should ever be for a 'first-time offense.'

my opinion, anyway.

 

I'm thinking more of a big longform piece or book research. Thre's still no excuse for it, but I can see how a newspaper would mitigate the punishment if a writer can show carelessness instead of intent to steal. I know, it's a fine line and I surely understand your side of it. But I know there have been times I stared at a mess of research, and just wanted to cry because I've lost track of the volume of material.

 

Interesting to me that Goodwin always gets the raspberry, but no one ever invokes Stephen Ambrose.