The Toronto Star has published a correction to the story that plagiarized a decade-old item from This is True, an online newsletter, and presented it as new. The correction — not an apology — appeared on the Star’s website late this afternoon. It reads:
This is True was source for Exact Change item
Jan. 4, 2006. 01:00 AM
Last Saturday’s Exact Change
story, about a Chinese skin care
company offering money to
readers who find errors in four
Chinese publications on a particular day, should have credited
Randy Cassingham’s This is
True web site and should have
indicated quotes from his story.
Written in 1995, it was
re-posted on the site last month.
The Star regrets the errors.
This correction is inadequate, confusing, and entirely unsatisfactory.
Rather than admitting the writer plagiarized Cassingham’s item, it talks about how the story should have "indicated quotes from his story." This does not reflect how the plagiarized information was used. The Star story led with the exact same two sentences that make up the bulk of Cassingham’s item. The writer didn’t simply forget to place quotes somewhere in the story.
Rather than explain how the writer came to select the item and then fail to verify it, the Star merely mentions that it was a decade old and "re-posted" on Cassingham’s site. It does not apologize to Cassingham. It does not explain that what was done is against Star policy and why. It does not detail any disciplinary action, or why none was taken.
Let’s be clear: We’re not exactly calling for heads to roll, but the Star has to meet a higher standard of disclosure .
Perhaps these issues will be addressed in a column from the Public Editor. But, for now, this inadequate correction is almost worse than no correction at all.
Last thing: The Star took the story down earlier today, but there’s nothing on that page to explain why it has disappeared. This is what visitors see:
Invalid asset ID!
Can not load an asset of type Article with ID ‘1135810214398′. Please supply a valid asset ID and try again.
A short note explaining why the story is suddenly gone would be prudent. An Editor’s Note with a full explanation and apology would be proper.
Last last thing: Neither of the other two papers who ran the item have corrected it. (Though neither of them plagiarized and both credited their source.)
