Tag Archives: regret corrections

Brooke Shields is not a doctor, but she played one on the Today Show*

todayshowIn a TODAY Show interview on Wednesday, Sept. 24, following a report on potentially misleading advertising materials for the prescription drug Latisse (actress and Allergan spokesperson Brooke Shields incorrectly stated that there were no side effects seen in the clinical trials of the product. Side effects have been documented in such trials and consumers should go to http://latisse.com for detailed safety information. Link

Correction Sept. 29, 2009: The headline of this post originally misspelled Brooke Shields’ last name (”Sheilds”). Thanks to David and Daryl for spotting it.

Hartford Courant apologizes for repeated plagiarism*

hartfordcourantI initially didn’t post about this story because it struck me as a tale of well-meaning aggregation gone wrong, but it seems that the issue was bigger than that. The bottom line is that the Hartford Courant has apologized for repeatedly and knowingly plagiarizing the work of its competitors.

Here’s an excerpt from a statement by the paper’s publisher:

Throughout our history we have served the community by highlighting wrongdoing and violations of ethics when we find them. It is only right that we focus the same light on ourselves when we are wrong.

So, it’s incumbent upon me as publisher to tell you that we failed to meet our own standards and, as we would with anyone else, we are flagging it, calling it wrong and taking action.

In short, after an extensive internal review, we have determined that over the last several weeks The Courant plagiarized the work of some of our competitors. This was not our intent, but it is in fact what happened. We are taking corrective action to prevent it from happening again. We have also disciplined the individuals involved.

There’s not much detail there, so here’s a nut graf from Editor & Publisher:

Last week, Chris Powell, managing editor of The Journal Inquirer in Manchester, Conn., complained in a letter to Graziano that the Courant had been “misappropriating on a wholesale basis local stories published in the Journal Inquirer” since late July, according to a Journal Inquirer report. Jeffrey S. Levine, the Courant’s senior vice president and director of content, said the letter prompted the Courant’s review of its aggregation practices.

AP also has some good background. Finally, a blog maintained by former Courant staffers offers additional details, including an internal memo that describes some fairly outrageous behavior (emphasis mine):

It is and has always been our policy to offer proper attribution. Over the last few weeks, The Courant carried several news stories in which the original news source attributions were removed and credit was given to a Courant staffer.   This was plagiarism.  It happened on our watch. Disciplinary action for those involved, including ourselves, has been taken today.  We’ve put procedures in place to insure that these mistakes never happen again.

The site reports that “Six people at the Hartford Courant, including Content Manager Jeff Levine and Editor Naedine Hazell, have been disciplined by Tribune for their role in plagiarizing material from their competitors’ newspapers.”

Thanks to all who sent this in.

*Correction Sept. 15, 2009: The word plagiarism was misspelled as “plagiairsm” in this headline. Thanks to a commenter for spotting this typo. Update Sept. 16: As David pointed out in the comments, my corrected spelling of the word omitted the second “i.” Very sloppy. I apologize.

0 for 3*

latimesMichael Viner obituary: In Thursday’s Section A, the obituary of music producer and book publisher Michael Viner said: "One of his first hits as a producer was Sammy Davis Jr.’s Grammy-winning ‘Candy Man.’ " In fact, Mike Curb and Don Costa produced "The Candy Man," as the song is actually titled, which was Grammy-nominated but did not win. Link

*Correction Aug. 18: The original headline on this post was "0 for 2." There were three mistakes in the article in question. I guess that makes me 0 for 1.Thanks, Doug!

The curtains don’t match the carpet*

A reader sent this image of a photo/photo caption mismatch in the Toronto Star:

staroops

This is the image it was eventually replaced with:

correctstar

*Correction: The original headline on this post read "The curtains don’t match the drapes." That’s redundant. It has been corrected.

Times (U.K.) apologizes for accidental plagiarism*

timesukOur report "Jools Holland’s castle joins band of at-risk monuments" (June 23) referred to Saltwood Castle in Kent and its owner Jane Clark, who has succeeded in having Saltwood removed from English Heritage’s at-risk register. The information and quotes about Saltwood were taken from an article by Robin Stummer in the latest edition of Cornerstone, the magazine of the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings, but that attribution was cut from our reporter’s original copy in the editing process. We apologise for the error and for any embarrassment it has caused.

*Correction July 21: The word plagiarism was misspelled in the original version of this headline. Thanks, Charlene!

You Don’t Say: A primer on plagiarism

By John E. McIntyre

When Waldo Jaquith of The Virginia Quarterly Review discovered and published that Chris Anderson, the editor of Wired, had plagiarized passages from Wikipedia in his new book, Free, it provoked a lively, and sometimes alarming, discussion of plagiarism.

Regret the Error has summarized the affair, and there are extensive comments on the matter at the online edition of The Virginia Quarterly Review.

One reader’s response at VQR: “Don’t care. Don’t care. Don’t care. This is more of the same garbage from academics discovering plagiarism and making a big stink where it isn’t due. Take a fine-tooth comb to any recent publication and start googling. I bet you find a lot more than this.” Another characterized the VQR article as a “witchhunt.”

While many students and even a fair number of journalists, as well as readers who “don’t care, don’t care, don’t care,” appear to think of the Internet in general, and Wikipedia in particular, as a storehouse of ready-made prose available for the taking, there are still old-school writers and editors and teachers who see this casual copying-and-pasting as theft or cheating. 

It is appalling to think that it may be necessary to restate to students and professional writers what constitutes plagiarism. But for the benefit of anyone who cut class that day, here is a short summary.

Sources: Readers are entitled to know where information comes from. Sometimes footnotes or endnotes are appropriate, and citation within the text can usually be accomplished without clumsiness. Plagiarism, which cheats the reader by failing to disclose sources, comes in two forms: misappropriation of ideas and misappropriation of exact language.

Ideas: Information that is generally known and widely available from multiple sources does not require attribution. You do not need to cite a source if you write that John Wilkes Booth shot Abraham Lincoln in Ford’s Theater on April 14, 1865. But if you write that he did so under the orders of Edwin M. Stanton, the secretary of war, you had better give the reader the source of your crackpot theory.

Language: If in recounting the laugh line in Our American Cousin — “Well, I guess I know enough to turn you inside out, old gal — you sockdologizing old mantrap!” — that Booth used for cover, you then write: “The laughter and burst of applause almost covered the sound of a shot in the presidential box,” you had better make sure that the second sentence is also within quotation marks and attributed to David Herbert Donald’s Lincoln. 

Chris* Anderson, in apologizing for the passages in his book lifted from Wikipedia, explained that there was a problem with the publisher in arranging for appropriate citation. But citation was not the only problem. Exact language from another source should run within quotation marks or set off in a block of type as well as being sourced by an appropriate citation.

Perhaps it’s necessary to make this even more explicit:

Do not copy text from Wikipedia or any other source without indicating to the reader where it came from.

Plagiarism can be either deliberate or inadvertent. If inadvertent, it can result from carelessness — such as mixing one’s notes from sources with one’s draft — or from failure to understand what constitutes proper sourcing.

A fellow copy editor once detected verbatim, unsourced sentences from Web sites in a reporter’s copy. When questioned, the reporter said, “Yes, I got that from those sources. It’s background.” Improbable as the explanation of innocent error was — the reporter had earned a university degree, worked at another daily newspaper, and had attended an in-house seminar on how to avoid plagiarism — the management accepted it and kept the reporter on staff.

Now we have Chris** Anderson, an established editor and published writer, caught up in an embarrassment that he has described as an innocent error, for which he has apologized, and which he has pledged to correct. That is as it should be.

But he, and his publisher, should have known better. As should you.

* ** Correction July14: Chris Anderson was incorrectly referred to as "Curt Anderson" in the penultimate paragraph of this article. Thanks to Waldo for spotting this mistake. Update July 14: A commenter correctly pointed out that Waldo noted two occurrences of "Curt" in this post. Both have now been corrected.

John McIntyre, former head of the copy desk at The Baltimore Sun, is the author of You Don’t Say, a blog on language, usage and miscellaneous topics.

Jurassic fail*

npr2Our critic mistakenly said that an ice age "marked the death of the dinosaurs," rather than their advent. In fact, neither is true. The text of the review has been updated. Link

*Correction July 3: Speaking of failure, the word "Jurassic" was misspelled in this headline. It has been corrected. Thanks, Kate!

Plagiarism at the Toledo Free Press

On May 22, *The Toledo Free Press reports that columnist Maggie Thurber resigned after one of her columns was found to have included plagiarized material. From the story:

Thurber’s column for May 24, “A History of Memorial Day,” was accused by a contributor of SwampBubbles.com of containing plagiarized lines.
Upon learning of the accusation,
Toledo Free Press Editor in Chief Michael S. Miller pulled the column from the Web site and indefinitely suspended Thurber pending an investigation.
Thurber responded to the suspension with the following resignation:
“My
Toledo Free Press column, ‘The History of Memorial Day,’ was a compilation of various facts and information from various sources. Because of the numerous sources of the same specific facts and similar information, I did not include in the article the various attributions as I should have. For that, I apologize.
Alternatively, in order to avoid any misconceptions, I could have stated at the start of the article that the facts and information which followed were a compilation from multiple resources. I’m sorry for not making that clear.
When I sent the article to [Miller], I originally had a note in the email that the information was a compilation – just to be sure that [Miller] knew the nature of the column. I changed that note and just sent the article, as I usually do, without explanation. By not making this clear to [Miller], as the editor, I placed the Toledo Free Press into a compromising situation. For that, I also apologize.
I have the training and experience to know better and make no excuse for this error.
As I do not want my mistake to be used against [Miller] in any way, especially considering [Miller's] prior unwavering support, I would like to resign as a columnist, effective immediately.I am forever grateful for the opportunity to write for you.” …

Thanks, Steve!

*Correction June 2: The date on the Free Press article reads May 22, but this is impossible because the offending column was published on May 24. This was the paper’s error, but I should have caught it and not repeated it in my post. Thanks Doug!

When public becomes pubic

It’s amazing what the subtraction of one letter can do. For example, misplace an “l”* and you report on the “pubic presidency” instead of the public one. Or “pubic schools.” It’s a common typo, and the Irish Times recently published an amusing essay about the dreaded dropped “l”:

IT HAPPENED yet again yesterday. This time the victim was John Waters’s column on morality and the National Asset Management Agency.
Which was going along nicely, minding its own business, when suddenly a lower-case “l” – that slenderest and most treacherous of letter types – somehow slipped from the copy, leaving the following sentence: “Certainly since the late 1990s, it has been a matter of pubic faith that the economy should be left to its own devices . . . ”
This is a risk that serious newspapers, in which the word “public” will always feature prominently, run every day. It wouldn’t be as big a problem if, for example, it was the ‘b’ that kept dropping out. But then we or the spellchecker would notice that. Whereas the lower-case “l” has a Judas-like ability to slip away unnoticed, with embarrassing results.
A glance through our archive shows that in the recent past, it has excused itself from stories in such as a way as to suggest (1) that bankers’ confidentiality could be overridden in the “pubic interest”; (2) that Ireland needed more investment in “pubic transport”; (3) that the PSNI was “appealing to the pubic”; and (4) that in Philip Roth’s latest novel, Nathan Zuckerman had been left incontinent by an operation and was reluctant to swim in a “pubic pool”.
Not that long ago, either, a letter writer on this page took Tom Humphries to task for suggesting there had been huge “pubic” interest in Roy Keane’s time at Sunderland.
And our GAA coverage has not escaped either. The “Galway hurling pubic” featured in a recent report; while, after an off-field incident at a Dublin-Monaghan football match a while back, it was suggested that “a county chairman and a microphone combined to allow the business to spill over into the pubic domain”.
I know that county chairman, as it happens, and I can assure The Irish Times it was never his intention to allow the business to spill over in the manner suggested. Against which, I’m reminded of an unfortunate photograph that appeared in the latest Monaghan GAA yearbook. It was of a hurling match against Donegal last year, during which a player suffered a temporary wardrobe malfunction, causing the – yes – pubic domain to spill over into the public one.
Anyway, getting back to the missing “l” phenomenon, the worst thing is when it happens in obituaries. In recent years, we have paid tribute in these pages to at least one citizen whose long and distinguished life had been marked by a commitment to “pubic service”.
Perhaps worse, there was another man who was said to have made an outstanding contribution to “pubic life”: which sounds like something you need to treat with special shampoo.
When these things happen in a newspaper, as they will, the instinct of a chief sub-editor is to seize the offending staff members by the short and curlies and impress upon them the need for greater vigilance.
But I would argue that the recidivism rate suggests the fault lies with the word rather than the wordsmiths. “Pubic” is a clearly a sub-prime – even toxic – adjective; and unlike “public” we could do perfectly well without it. Maybe we should just ban the word, and reprogramme the spellchecker accordingly.
Certainly, if there was a Nama for the English language, it would be buying up such terms as “pubic” and removing them from the system, to help restore confidence…

He goes on from there, and it’s worth a read.

Thanks, Ruth!

*Correction May 1: This post originally and incorrectly said a dropped “i” was the source of the public/pubic typo. The result was that I made a typo while writing about a typo. It’s an occupational hazard. Thanks to everyone who noted it in the comments.

Business mag physically removes page containing error

fpmagazine1Romenesko spotted a remarkable story in today’s Toronto Star. The paper reports that Financial Post Magazine, the glossy business mag published by the National Post newspaper, took the extraordinary step of removing a page from each copy of its latest issue in order to avoid publishing an error. From the Star’s story:

Readers of the Financial Post Magazine were left scratching their heads yesterday after they discovered that a story about Dominic D’Alessandro, chief executive of Manulife Financial Corp., had been mysteriously torn out of the publication.
The story – titled “Bang for the Buck. Dominic D’Alessandro’s options and reputation at risk” – is listed in the index of the April 2009 edition. The D’Alessandro yarn was to appear on page 16. Trouble is, readers found only the ripped remnants of that page in the publication’s stapled fold.
A source familiar with the situation said officials at Manulife complained to the
Post after spotting an online version of the story prior to the magazine’s distribution.
The story reportedly contained a “serious error” about Manulife and the
Post volunteered to physically remove the page from every copy to appease the financial services giant. The error was egregious enough that a standard correction was not sufficient, the source said.

It’s kind of unbelievable that the magazine would go to the lengths of having staffers tear out a page from tens of thousands of copies and not make any effort to inform readers about their decision. Were they hoping that people wouldn’t notice the missing page? Will the magazine publish an editor’s note in its next issue to explain the situation? The Star story reports that the top two editors at the magazine didn’t respond to phone calls. Let’s hope they realize the improtance importance* of explaining their decision to readers and put something on their blog soon.

*Correction made April 21. Thanks, Shannon!

On the Internet, no one knows you’re not John Groskopf of Vernon Hills*

chictribA Feb. 24 article that collated Internet comments in reaction to Rick Santelli’s self-described rant protesting President Barack Obama’s mortgage bailout plan included pro-Santelli remarks incorrectly attributed to “John Groskopf, Vernon Hills.” Mr. Groskopf says that he did not make those remarks, and the Tribune failed to confirm the identity of the person quoted.

Correction April 2: The headline of this post originally and incorrectly referred to John Groskop rather than John Groskopf. I regret the error. Thanks, Charlene!

UPDATED: Newsday* corrects “disparaging” word

newsday1A story Jan. 29 used an inappropriate word to describe patrons at the Massapequa Post 1066 of the American Legion. The word could be read as disparaging, which was not Newsday’s intention. Its use did not reflect Newsday’s policy to avoid loaded terms and imprecise language when reporting on individuals or groups. Link

The paper corrected the story in Nexis, which is good to see. Of course, it also means I don’t know what the offending word was.

UPDATE March 4: It appears the word was “barflies.” Reader Fev sent me a link to a letter to the editor sent to Newsday and massapequanews.com by Commander Jack Hipp of the Massapequa Post 1066-American Legion:

I am writing in regard to an article entitled “Taking Inventory of the Homeless” written by your reporter, Michael Amon in the Thursday, January 29, 2009 edition.  This article did a public service by raising awareness of the plight of homeless veterans.  However, in the last paragraph of this reporter’s article he refers to members of  Massapequa Post 1066 of the American Legion as “barflies.”  As the Commander of that Post, I vehemently object to the language used by this reporter towards members of my Post …

*Correction March 4: The headline of this post initially and incorrectly referred to Newsweek instead of Newsday. I regret the error. Thanks, Linda!

2008 Plagiarism/Fabrication Round-Up

As noted in this year’s edition of the Crunks, 2008 saw an example of institutional plagiarism (the Bulletin), as well as an incident of institutional fabrication (Mainichi Daily News). Both are mentioned below, along with the rest of this year’s notable examples of plagiarism and fabrication. On the more positive side of things, this year saw John McIntyre of the Baltimore Sun write a great guide to spotting a plagiarist or fabulist. It’s highly recommended. And now, on with the bad news. (Also, please email me if I missed any.)

January

The Weekly Standard apologized after it discovered that a December 2007 article by David Satter included several passages from articles published in the Eurasia Daily Monitor. Link

The Sunday Times (UK) “inadvertently” plagiarized content from Radar magazine. Link

The new sex columnist for the New York Press resigned after her first column included questions taken from Dan Savage’s syndicated sex column. Link

February

After work submitted by a contributor was found to have included plagiarized material, the Brown Daily Herald conducted a review and discovered “two [additional] articles … that contained passages similar or identical to those in other publications.” Link

An article in the Miami Herald contained passages taken from an article in the South Florida Sun-Sentinel. Link

The New York Times published an Editors’ Note that revealed a paragraph contained in a front page article about Argentina was taken from the Miami Herald. Slate’s Jack Shafer discovered the theft. Link

The Ventura County Star fired its surfing columnist after it discovered that two of his columns contained plagiarized material. Link

Award-winning photographer Liu Wei-qiang admitted to faking a widely-published photograph that showed a herd of endangered Tibetan antelopes near a passing train on the controversial Qinghai-Tibet railway. Link

Read More »

Heroin, not heroine*

In yesterday’s editorial entitled, “In support of needle exchange,” the word heroin, which should have referred to the illicit substance whose abuse is on the rise in Somerville, was often misspelled “heroine.” Link

Thanks, Sam!

*Correction Nov. 14, 2007: The headline on this post initially and incorrectly read, “Heroine, not heroin.” We regret the error. Thanks to Beth for altering alerting us to the mistake. She’s a true heroine. Update  Nov. 29: And Douglas is a hero for pointing out the spelling mistake in the previous sentence.

ABC News investigation clears Alexis* Debat of fabrication, cites “four details… that we couldn’t confirm”

Background here and here.
TVNewser acquired the memo that ABC News head David Westin sent to staff about the findings of the internal investigation into the work of Alexis Debat, a former consultant with the network. Some relevant excerpts:

…This review was extremely sensitive, as it required going back to confidential sources in this country and abroad. It also involved traveling to Pakistan to confirm first-hand the circumstances of Mr. Debat’s work there. Early in our review, we learned that there were other interviews Mr. Debat had published in France that the subjects denied had been conducted. We reported this story immediately on ABC News.com. We have now completed our review. After going through all of the stories Mr. Debat worked on for ABC News, we found no instances of false reporting. Mr. Debat was not the sole source for anything ABC News reported. Moreover, we confirmed with Mr. Debat’s confidential sources that they had given him the information as he’d claimed in contributing to our reports. We also confirmed that Mr. Debat traveled to the locations in Pakistan as he had claimed and talked with the sources he had identified.
Our review did uncover four details of Mr. Debat’s reporting that we couldn’t confirm. In one case, he mis-identified which branch of U.S. Special forces had engaged in a particular operation, although we did confirm the other facts surrounding the operation. We also found disagreements over the location for two meetings reported on by Mr. Debat, although, again, we could confirm the other facts surrounding the meetings. And, one of the people whom Mr. Debat identified as attending a meeting would neither confirm nor deny that he/she was a direct participant. None of these discrepancies would rise to the level of a formal, on-air retraction because none of them was material to the substance of our report.

So none of the stories he worked on need to be retracted, but does this mean ABC News won’t inform viewers of its findings? Why not explain the detailed investigation that took place?

Also, an AP story about the memo that ABC has on its website seems to have a misleading headline. (This appears to be AP’s doing, not ABC’s; see here.) It reads, “ABC: No Errors Tied to ‘Fake’ Consultant.” But Westin’s memo clearly states that there are details and facts that can’t be confirmed. Is that really the same as “no errors”? Also, the AP story does not detail the discrepancies outlined in the memo. Why not?

ABC News is also instituting changes to its practices:

There are three changes we are making in our internal practices based on what we’ve learned from this case.
Starting immediately, we will include both our News Practices team and the corporate Human Resources Department in the hiring of all consultants, reviewing in particular claims of prior employment and educational history. We will also undertake a review of current consultants where appropriate.
When we hire a consultant, we will make a determination of exactly how that person will be identified on all programs and platforms.
News Practices will be alerted each time that we include a consultant in our reporting to ensure that the consultant is being used and identified properly.
We undertake extensive efforts in all of our reporting — and particularly in our investigative reporting — to check and double-check information we are given so that no one source can compromise the truth of what we present to our audiences. Based on our review, our overall systems and procedures worked in the case of Mr. Debat. Nothing in our review, of course, condones the instances of resume enhancement or fake interviews that Mr. Debat published elsewhere.

*Correction November 4, 2007: The headline of this post originally misspelled “Alexis” as “Aexis.” It was corrected after a reader brought the error to light.