Well, it’s interesting, I’ll say that much. It’s written by Drew Nelles, who might have a better career as an aide-de-camp for a left-wing politician than as a left-wing journalist. He goes through the whole affair steering close to and then not mentioning some major facts:
- Nelles himself has seen the emails from the SPJ Ethics Committee members who originally said it was plagiarism and still say it is plagiarism after Nelles pleaded his case. Nelles wrote that the Daily Watch guy “says members of the Ethics Committee have told him they consider this a case of plagiarism, even with the citation.” [Emphasis mine.] Says”? I forwarded their emails to Nelles along with my email that supplied them with the information Nelles wanted. Seems like a big thing not to mention to the readers; it steers them away from the facts.
( One Ethics Committee member even wrote, “I did see an extended explanation of the issue and article from the student newspaper editor. I still stand by my assessment,” so Nelles surely knows they read his plea that there was extenuating information. )
- A lawyer is qualified to offer an opinion of what a newspaper does that is vulnerable to “copyright infringement” lawsuits, not what falls under the category of plagiarism, which is not a legal category. Lawyers who are experts in copyright infringement tell you that.
- The general citation at the bottom of the article said “information was taken,” it said nothing about the language or analysis Martin Lukacs copied. Nelles probably didn’t explain this well to his C.U.P. lawyer. [CORRECTION: It was The Daily's own lawyer.]
- The citation at the bottom left out most of the texts that Martin Lukacs was copying from, another thing Nelles probably didn’t explain well to his lawyer.
- One of the copied authors, Marc Lee, had originally seen a comparison of the text in his work, and in Mr. Jackson’s work, with the passages of text in Lukacs’ article. Lee was aware of the general attribution to the studies. Looking at the language, it was Lee’s opinion that he had been plagiarized to some degree. If his opinion has changed, it’s probably because Drew Nelles appealed to his sense of mercy for the Features editor. [UPDATE: Lee would probably retract his sympathy if he saw Lukacs had done this copying of another author's text.]
…
Nelles tries so hard to put the blame on other people, he uses reasoning so counterintuitive, it makes you ask, “Is he for real?” He writes,
The easy thing to do would have been to consider this plagiarism despite the advice we received to the contrary, run a retraction, and move on. As a reward for following the professional advice we received, we’ve weathered misleading reporting and shrill histrionics.
Not just histrionics, but the high vocal range of histrionics is what they got for not “taking the easy way out” … Nelles’ hack reflexes show through here, stacking cliches (“shrill,” “histrionics”) together to pose as meaningful rhetoric. His nonsensical message is that he and The Daily can only be a victim in all this, because they made the difficult but right move at every juncture.
That’s quite a story, that The Daily is getting abused because it is so diligent … since deciding not to run any correction that indicated there was text in The McGill Daily identical to the CCPA material was clearly the easiest way out until The Tribune made the issue more public than The Daily Watch (The Tribune story came out the same day Nelles found out I had contacted the Society of Professional Journalists). Nelles’ attempt to persuade people that his decision was, counterintuitively, a responsible and brave journalistic move is extraordinarily insulting to his readers.
(A friend of mine who was alive during the Nixon years tells me that Nixon tried this during Watergate — “Saying my connections to these people would have been the easy way out … A fact-finding inquiry would have been an easy way out … I am the victim here … ” etc. )
Let’s turn away for a moment from this unbelievable BS, and be real about responsibility … Nelles would rather that we give him a better “reward for following the professional advice [he] received” from a lawyer, but based on his comments to the Tribune (and his writing “it seemed to me” in this Op-Ed), it was Nelles‘ decision whether to be upfront with this issue, whether to print a correction that at least told readers that The Daily did not mention all the sources Lukacs used. Furthermore, everything suggests that Nelles did not receive advice from his C.U.P people to do nothing.
To underscore the point: when Nelles writes about his lawyer, “At a loss, I told myself I would do whatever he suggested” … why would he take advice from a lawyer on whether to print some kind of note to alert his readers?
He made that decision, ceded the authority by the other editors, and it was not a journalistically ethical one. Here was the obvious professional solution:
Don’t mention the word “plagiarism,” but print an Errata, ASAP, that said the general citation of the sources of the article was inadequate, and should have mentioned some press releases and editorials by the CCPA. Also, say that perhaps some wording identical to that in the CCPA materials may not have been adequately cited, and The Daily could have treated that text as deserving an indirect quote.
Duh. Simple, easy, professional, not sneaky, respectful to readers.
Did Nelles receive professional advice not to print a correction today for the lack of attribution in the last issue’s Feature piece? Of course not. That was his decision. Similarly, he didn’t receive any professional advice, before the copying of the CCPA text, not to do anything each time the Features editor did something drastic this year. Again, that was his decision.
Nelles presents us with a false choice, one that he and Lukacs never had, between academic citation and journalistic citation. The latter would have sufficed if done correctly (although Lukacs’ cut-and-paste-and-adaptation method would not have cut the mustard in either an academic or a journalistic context). Nelles also presents readers with a false choice, one he never had, between accepting responsibility for “plagiarism” and not printing any correction.
He seems to be trying to get out from under the question of personal responsibility, while he waits and hopes for any dissenting opinion to come back from a member on the Ethics Committee, in contrast to the emails from them he’s already seen.
[ UPDATE: The head of the Ethics Committee informed me that all the opinions were in. Except one who said if the sources were cited, all the opinions that came back agreed that what the Features editor did was a kind of plagiarism. One opinion was on the borderline, focusing on laziness of the writer being the probable cause of whatever the copying was.]
He gives the readers an either-or choice he never had, and then tries to reassure them by saying “I [...] lost hours of sleep worrying about whether we’ve made the right decision.” — Have sympathy for the man, his Circadian rhythms are being threatened, for God’s sake! … In fact, the whole approach of this Op-Ed seems to be
Sympathize with us, dear reader, and with me, Drew Nelles, who has a sister with whom he talks about problems. Look at the situation I’ve been unfairly put in by these people who attack. Like sharks, they live only to attack. I even talked to a lawyer. Do you know how awful that was, talking to one of them? Sure I only told him what I wanted him to hear, and he only told me back what I wanted to hear, but I’m a creative person and it was a very uncomfortable discussion nonetheless.
So just remember — even if that guy with the blog has told you about a series of major incidents that did not move us to change any editorial polices, and how this indifference would cause any university paper to get a new Features editor and any professional paper to get a new Coordinating Editor — we love you and we are serious about trying to get out of this situation before the funding vote is here.
And when the SPJ Ethics opinions have been sent to me directly by the head of the Committee (instead of merely being forwarded to me, which the blog guy may have told you about) and they say that what my Features editor did was something bad that started with the letter p, please remember all the professional names I talked with to absolve ourselves of that harsh word starting with the letter p — including our lawyer, whose name is Michael Bregman, who like me took time out of his busy day for a conversation, and whose suggestions I finally told myself I would obey, as if he were my editor-in-chief … And I am much put-upon …
I have feelings too … Remember how I talked to you about “my darkest hours” when I wrote on Peggy Curran at The Gazette? Remember how emotional I get when I said that sometimes “I wonder if I’m doing the right thing at The Daily. I wonder if we should maybe give this journalistic-objectivity, fair-and-balanced thing a shot“ ? … Why is the world so unfair to us, when I care so much?
I’m going to call up my sister and talk some more about this, because this whole thing really hurts. Please ignore that list the blog guy put up of 20 reforms to make The Daily as professional as the newspapers at other name universities. Just because we didn’t make any editorial changes with everything that happened this year, doesn’t mean I am not completely and totally serious about things that you probably want The Daily to be completely and totally serious about.
And if you think I’m not serious because the blog guy mentions that we didn’t tell you today about how the Features editor in the last issue copied down a podcast of an interview, took out big sections and changed the words of the speakers, without even an attribution to the source of the interview, then please consider this: I didn’t tell you for the same reason that I didn’t tell you that I myself have already seen new SPJ emails. The reason is that I love you, and I don’t want you not to love me.
And since I love you so much, there is so much I want to tell you, to feel that I’m really communicating with you — just after the referendum vote. Who knew being an editor could be so complicated and trying …? I’m sure you didn’t, so please don’t blame me or the newspaper … I’ve talked to my sister and she doesn’t.
Getting away from Nelles’ fishing for sympathy and not being so good with responsibility … the Deval Patrick joke in the note under the Op-Ed was funny. However, the charge against Barack Obama (whom I support, as I’ve said) is empty, and the charge against Martin Lukacs, who was cutting around other people’s text to keep what he liked, is not. Also, Sister Nelles’ remark about campus politics, while it is an adage that evolves from a comment by some famous dude at Columbia, isn’t plagiarism.
______________
UPDATE/CLARIFICATION: The title of this post originally said “What choice did I make except to listen to my C.U.P. experts?” Someone pointed out to me that this particular Op-Ed does not mention the C.U.P.
So to be clear, I mentioned the C.U.P. as part of the “professional advice” Nelles said he received, based on Nelles’ email to me, backed up by the quoted account in The Tribune. The email, which has already been quoted on the blog with Nelles’ permission, said:
I wanted to hear our lawyer’s opinion about this issue. I’m still waiting to hear back from him, but after talking to the CUP National Bureau Chief – who I believe you were also in contact with [ DW: I didn't ask Wolfe-Wiley whether he thought there had been plagiarism. ] – as well as asking a law student and doing some research of my own, it appears that this isn’t plagiarism as such. It obviously walks a dangerous line that should be avoided and dealt with seriously, but in William Wolfe-Wiley’s opinion it’s just not plagiarism.
