Media Ethics in America

In the rush to get out news, to beat competition, to have a "scoop", media now often do something that is increasing almost daily: plagiarism. There are many other unethical forms in the media, of course, especially around election time when articles about or against a candidate may well mention life styles among other untrue or semi-true facts. At the turn of the century there was, with William Randolph Hearst at its vanguard, a whole system of newspapers called "yellow journalism" which printed half-truths, innuendos and outright lies against which some people simply did not have the will or the money to defend themselves. Hearst himself often boasted that it was he and his newspapers that brought on the Spanish-American War which freed Cuba and Puerto Rico and the Philippines from Spanish rule.

This past year, magazines and newspapers have written many reports about the plagiarism of Stephen Ambrose, a well-respected historian and teacher, who was found to have plagiarized entire sections of his best-selling book. The samne thing happened to the dean of a law school in California, whose book was found to have been plagiarized to a large extent. Both authors claimed that they properly cited (or somehow, the citations were edited out) their sources.

Finding good examples in the media today is not guess work. It happens. For example, the Harvard Business School Press has filed a copyright infringement suit against a Decatur, GA outfit, called Business Book Review. Harvard "alleges that BBE has lifted pages of work from 26 titles and included them in eight-page summaries that it sells as downloadable files....Promoting is one thing, plagiarizing is another...(Zeitchik 10) The head of the accused said he was totally surprised, since he says "much value has been added....to all parties involved.." (Zeitchik 10)

Of course, there are some people trying to make capital out of the whole idea of plagiarizing. One of these is Rebecca Moore Howard, an associate professor of writing and rhetoric at Syracuse University. "Plagiarizing is a sexist term.....It is Howard's belief that the very concept of plagiarism is unacceptable because plagiarism equated originality with masculinity." (Goode 4) As John Stossel would say on 20/20---"Give me a break!" The media reprinting Professor Howard's thoughts are as unethical as plagiarists themselves, nearly saying- it's ok if you're a woman!

I found another side to the ethics of plagiarism. Withhold plagiarism information because the person was (is) famous. "On November 9, the Wall Street Journal published what was widely seen as a sordid, page-one scoop: Martin Luther King had plagiarized parts of his doctoral dissertation. The next day the rest of the press followed with front-page stories, crediting the Journal for the news. What they didn't reveal was that many of them had had the story themselves- a story that had been widely rumored, and easily available, for a year- and not printed it." (Babington 9) This brings up an interesting question worth pursuing. First of all, why did others "sit" on the story? Would they have printed it if it had been anyone other than the revered Dr. King? And, having broken the silence barrier, was the Wall Street Journal any more or less ethical than its competitors? What was the purpose of making a big deal out of the story that others felt was not really worthwhile to publish? The Journal, known as a conservative publication, might well have published it for political reasons. Certainly few of its readers are Afro-Americans, so there would be no backlash from its readers about publishing.

The New York TIMES has the slogan "All the news that's fit to print". But, they obviously felt that King's plagiarism (freely acknowledged by the King family) was not fit to print. Maybe the journal, as well as many other media, decide when the time is ripe, maybe when there is an otherwise slow news day, to bring out something that seems to have been suppressed by consensus. However, this was not make-believe. It was a fact. "The column even identified the smoking gun- the dissertation of fellow Boston university Student Jack Boozer, from whom King lifted large passages verbatim" (Babington 9)

It seems the story had been making the "cocktail circuit" rounds for some time. As a matter of fact, the first story was published in a London journal, the Sunday Telegraph, with a circulation of some 585,000. The editor who okayed publication said he got the story from a British professor who had visited the U.S. He, like so many others, were mystified why no one had published the facts, since they were readily available, including in the Boston University library.

One can ask: what difference does it make? Dr. King was long dead. His persona could no longer be hurt or damaged, so why either withhold the story or publish it in 1991? No one had any answers. It was a matter of finally just scooping competitors by being first with something they had all known and never thought worth publishing.

If the publication by the Wall Street Journal was a sort of belated political vendetta against Dr. King, the Boston GLOBE had its own agenda, seemingly, against the Dean of Boston University's prestigious School of Communications, Joachim Maitre. Professor Maitre used some quotes from critic Richard Medved in a graduation speech. He made no effort to hide the fact that he was quoting someone else. In fact, he switched from handwritten notes to a photocopy of Medved's speech. But, the Boston GLOBE decided to have a heyday at Professor Maitre's expense. The next day the GLOBE's headline read "BU DEAN USED THE WORDS OF ANOTHER SOURCE NOT GIVEN DURING SPEECH" (Cunningham 25) It seems, that "the GLOBE got more savage as time went on, the staff convinced perhaps by its own coverage, perhaps by the sheer thrill of the wild hunt. On day six, it reprinted Medved's speech, re-titled THE WORDS JJOACHIM MAITRE NEVER WROTE. Day eight the paper worried that we hadn't gotten the point: MAITRE MATTER COULD HURT BU, SOME SAY, which was a short article full of anonymous attacks." (Cunningham 25) The end result is that, sadly, Maitre resigned his position as dean, although he remained a tenured professor.

The Boston GLIOBE features in another unethical event. A few years ago, the paper fired a female reporter, who had been nominated for a Pulitzer prize, when she admitted she made yup quotes in an article she was writing. They fired her. Anoither reporter, Mike Barnacle, admitted making up a lot of conversations he wrote about. He was finally fired. But, the most recent incident, according to Brian Carnell (2000) was that "my fiend Cathy Young recently went through a nightmare thanks to some reckless plagiarism charges...The most bizarre charge came from Jewish World Review columnist Deb Schlussel, who claimed that Young had plagiarized from Schlussel's columns...(Carnell 1) When read side by side, the plagiarism charge hardly stands scrutiny, but the woman was severely reprimanded, until it was found that the charge had little or no merit. In the haste to not relive past mistakes on the paper, the GLOBE now went in the other direction. Ethics is a difficult word to understand and express and to follow through day after day, when deadlines beckon and beating the competition is the key. To some media, ethics is as dead as black and white television or the linotype.

WORKS CITED:

Babington, Charles: "Martin Luther King plagiarism story cover-up" New York: The New Republic, vol. 204, n 4, Jan 28, 1991, pp 9-11

Cunningham, Mark: "A Boston massacre" National Review, v. 43, n 21, Nov. 18, 1991 pp 25-26

Goode, Stephen: "Plagiarism Comes Naturally to Women" Insight onthe News, v. 16, i. 41, p 4 Nov. 6, 2000

Zeitchik, Steven: "Harvard Business School Press Sues over Synopses" New York: Publisher's Weekly Dec 17, 2001 v. 248, i. 51, p 10