Turning Heads and Turnitin

Alexa Smith

as526112@ohio.edu

In freshman English class in high school, we were told that plagiarism is absolutely unacceptable, resulting in an automatic zero for the assignment. The thought of an instant zero terrified us all so much, that the thought to plagiarize never crossed our minds again. Then on our first day of college when the professors each went over the syllabus, nearly all included a rather intimidating section that may have looked something like this:

                                                                                                As seen on the syllabus for JOUR 3400 

or this:

As seen on the syllabus for CLWR 3340

We have been groomed from a young age to exercise classroom ethics with the hope that we will continue to apply these ethics in our future careers. For generations born before the technology age, computers weren't used as often in schooling and websites like Turnitin weren't yet utilized by educators. So, they didn't know any better. For many current journalists, these ethics were not stressed in early education and the consequences of such were not constantly looking over your shoulder as you wrote your assignment. It is possible they were never taught the process of siting sources or never saw the insane importance of citation. I mean, if it is in more than three sources, it's technically common knowledge. 

But, unfortunately, it's difficult not to cheat in journalism when the job becomes overbearing and unnervingly demanding. Readers must be provided with the latest news, constant updates and a nonstop stream of information at all times. Some buckle under the pressure and time restrictions and fabricate some of their story, unable to get the necessary quotes. They may also plagiarize content from another story, unable to gather enough information or are not provided with enough time to make the piece entirely their own.

Fabrication and Plagiarism and the Culture that Surrounds it

In the article "Journalism's Summer of Sin marked by plagiarism, fabrication, obfuscation," many examples of publications encouraging writers to push past issues caused by plagiarism and/or fabrication were given; which seems strange, for some of the core values of journalism are truth and accountability/responsibility. Most editors push writers to get the story first and write it quick, or keep the content coming. Most journalists these days are responsible for every aspect of a story themselves, including visual media and/or audio. This stressful job can be taxing, and every once in a while, someone might just cheat a little. Personally, I think cheating in journalism is unacceptable. A journalist's sole job is to report the story, and if he or she can't even do that, what's the point? Plagiarism means taking credit for someone else's hard work and fabrications are essentially lies. No no no, not cool. These things should not be looked over but reprimanded and fixed. Always.

Like this. They didn't even attempt to hide the Greek signage. Way to be discrete about being lazy.

In today's age, the culture surrounding a newsroom is at an all time low, a cheating culture that encourages the wrong kinds of writing. In this cheating culture, not only is there more cheating, but less guilt surrounding the cheating, because, well, everybody does it. Or, with the high degree of competition, journalists can't afford to be ethical until they have their big break or have established themselves with their publication. What sense does that make? Why would a publication hold on to you if you are dishonest in your writing?

A Time Out

I suppose the consequences of wrongful journalism would depend on the publication; however, if there were to be a universal, or at least national code of ethics for journalists, there could at least be a concrete set of rules as to what you can and absolutely cannot write. Those who break these rules should not simply get a slap on the wrist. You don't get a slap on the wrist when you plagiarize in college, you can get expelled. But if you plagiarize in the real world where millions of people can read your false stories, your editor put you in timeout, then hold your hand as they walk you back to your desk to continue your work. Sometimes you may be dismissed or resign, too; this does happen. Sometimes though, as in the case of Time magazine writer, Fareed Zakaria, he plagiarized two paragraphs of a New Yorker article, was suspended for a month, then let back after two weeks. Zakaria should have been fired, not given a two-week vacation.

Transparency: A good way to avoid bad things

The correct way to respond to poor ethics would be to be transparent throughout your entire writing process as to not mistake the facts or to be clear when correcting the errors of wrongful writing. Some publications these days are not leaving the public out of any step of the writing process. For example, Spokesman-Review of Spokane, WA is encouraging readers to attend their news meetings where they discuss which stories they will cover and how they will cover them. Also, in the near future, Spokesman would eventually like to webcast these meetings on the internet for anyone to see. And even more, the editor of Spokesman-Review, Steven Smith has decided to post transcripts of interviews with sources online so there are no misunderstandings and the reader may be able to differently interpret the data for themselves.

Journalists will not change their ways unless harsher punishment is given for plagiarism and fabrication of their work. They need to understand that the core of journalism is based on truth and integrity. If these core values are looked over, there can be no foundation to build off of, other than a foundation of lies.