|
Press Responsibility
|
[Home Page] [Alternate Navigation] |
|
| PRESS RESPONSIBILITY CONTENTS: Overview Vol. I - Ethics Vol. II - Plagiarism Vol. III - D. Motko Omissions/Deletions More Analysis Closing Post Script Vol. II - THE ETHICS OF THE DAILY REVIEW: Plagiarism Continued
Compiled by the Steering Committee of Steering Committee Members: Marilyn Bok, Barbara Coyle, Jeff Dann, John Ferri, Jeff Gonzalez, Tom Henson, Clark Moeller, Ruth Tonachel, Leslie Wizelman, Esq., Margaret Wood Address: CPR@DR, P.O. Box 131, Burlington, PA 18814
Excerpt from this Report:
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
Response to Attorney Ray Depaolo’s letter of August 22, 2000
Appendix:
A. The Facts
B. What is Plagiarism?
C. Why Plagiarism is Wrong
Note: The 20 page printed edition of Volume Two of The Ethics of The Daily Review: An Evaluation of its Editorial Practices is on file at the Bradford County Library. This contains all hard copies of the documentation. On this web edition the documentation is referenced by source citations. Otherwise the web edition and printed edition are essentially the same except for some format changes needed to adapt the printed version to this website.
|
|
Letter from Attorney DePaola Letter from Attorney DePaola, the attorney for The Daily Review, to members of the Steering Committee of CPR@DR. The following inserted "Comments by CPR@DR" are not CPR@DR's formal response to Attorney DePaola. Attorney DePaola's letter appears below in regular type. Inserted "Comments by CPR@DR" are set in italic. "Please be advised that our Office represents The Towanda Printing Company, Inc., which prints The Daily and Sunday Review. "At the request of my client, I have reviewed, along with James Towner, Publisher of the Review and Ian Fennell, Editor of the Review, a one hundred forty-two (142) page document, which has been printed and distributed by the Steering Committee of Citizens for Press Responsibility at Review. From the cover of that document, it appears that you are a member of the Committee. Comment by CPR@DR: The Citizens for Press Responsibility at The Daily Review (CPR@DR) is composed of citizens in Bradford County who have joined together for the common purpose of promoting editorial integrity at The Daily/Sunday Review. CPR@DR's Steering Committee believe that both our community and The Daily Review would benefit from such a change. Members of the Steering Committee are all volunteers. We have nothing to gain materially from any changes at The Daily Review. We see our service for CPR@DR as a civic responsibility. "After reviewing the information contained in your publication, it is my opinion that you have engaged in potentially libelous activities by publishing this document. At the outset, let me say that my client recognizes and encourages an honest and accurate debate of the editorial content and public opinion regarding its newspaper. "Certainly, no one is more aware of nor values more the right of freedom of speech pursuant to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Comment by CPR@DR: Are we to infer from Attorney DePaola's assertion that publisher James Towner will now stop his activities that seemed intended to discourage Steering Committee members and other citizens from exercising their Constitutional rights? For examples: James Towner called Chuck Carver of WATS/WAVR asking him not to air information about CPR@DR's report The Ethics of The Daily Review: An Evaluation of its Editorial Practices. The Daily Review imposed a publicity blackout for the musical program, Jail House Rock, to benefit the Historical Society because Wes Skillings, whose three part news story appeared in The Ethics of The Daily Review: An Evaluation of its Editorial Practices, was one of the actors in the program. The Managing Editor of The Daily Review also told a principal of M-BRS, a business owned by steering committee member Marilyn Bok, that any news releases generated by that public relations organization, would not be published by the Daily Review. "However, with that right comes the responsibility not to print and disseminate libelous information nor attempt to interfere in contractual relationships, which you have done by publishing incorrect information and making incorrect ethical judgments and then distributing your publication to advertisers of the Review and others. Comment by CPR@DR: First, CPR@DR has not published "incorrect information" or made "incorrect ethical judgements." Any effort by The Towanda Printing Co. to block or interfere with our distribution of any publication we choose to print, including our report entitled The Ethics of The Daily Review: An Evaluation of its Editorial Practices, may be seen as an interference with our First Amendment rights. Second, most businesses, non-profits, governmental units, and many citizens in Bradford County use The Daily Review at sometime for business advertising, legal notices, and other public information. Many of these same people fill community leadership positions in Bradford County that are independent of their business associations. The distribution of our report was made to individuals in their role as citizens, as community leaders, or in their role as leaders in the profession of journalism. None of the distributions were targeted to advertisers. "While I do not intend to debate, point by point, all of the issues raised in your publication, as many of them simply involve your group's taking issue with the content of the newspaper, which is certainly your right, and while I will not address all of the factual errors contained in your publication, I will address a number of the factually incorrect statements in your publication, upon which you base your erroneous "conclusions" that my client has acted in an unethical manner. "First, while you may not agree with the editorial content of the Review, the Review like any newspaper reserves the right to edit letters and news releases. The Review takes great care not to change the meaning of submitted materials. Comment by CPR@DR: Most newspapers edit letters-to-the-editor and new releases for spelling and grammar. However, CPR@DR has documented numerous examples where The Daily Review's editor has substantially "changed the meaning of submitted material" and then published the results as if this was the written material of the author. We consider this an interference with citizens' freedom of expression. "Interestingly enough, in the example in which you cite, i.e. The Dave Smith Run, you accuse the Review of being dishonest by presenting facts, which were specifically told to its reporter. Apparently because the individual who had given the facts to the Review changed their story, your comment makes the assumption that it was the Review that was dishonest and unethical. The Review stands by its report. The troubling aspect of your publication is the accusation of intentional dishonesty against the Review. Comment by CPR@DR: Given the pattern of editorializing the news that was documented in The Ethics of The Daily Review: An Evaluation of its Editorial Practices, the CPR@DR has chosen to believe the reports of citizens who had first hand knowledge of this situation. "In your publication, you flatly accuse the Review of "editorializing the news", specifically, regarding the coverage of the recent District Justice Race involving Wes Skillings, Fred Wheaton, Doug McLinko, and Ron Carmichael. Apparently, your conclusion is based on three (3) columns written by Wes Skillings, one of the unsuccessful candidates, which were printed in the Wyalusing Rocket, Mr. Skillings' employer "According to your publication, your "thoroughly documented case study" consists of the facts according to Mr. Skillings. Therefore apparently, any representations made by Mr. Skillings regarding the Review's coverage of the election are assumed by you to be true. What is quite evident is that it appears that you have done no independent investigation of your own. If you had, you would have found that several Letters to the Editor written by supporters of Mr. Skillings were printed in the Review throughout the campaign, as well as in the "Around the Area" feature. All factual allegations contained in Letters to the Editor, pro or con, were verified before publication. You would have also discovered that many of Mr. Skilling's facts were incorrect. "For example, in one of Skillings' articles, he quotes a statement allegedly made by James Towner at a Towanda Lions Club meeting, giving the impression that Mr. Skillings was present with Mr. Towner at that meeting. Actually, Mr. Skillings, during the time period referenced in his article, was never at a Towanda Lions Club meeting with Mr. Towner. Yet, despite the fact that he received his information from another source, he did not attribute Mr. Towner's alleged comments to that source. This sounds very much like what you accuse the Review of doing in its reporting. "Did anyone check Mr. Skillings' "facts" or again, were they simply assumed by you to be true? "Additionally, the Towanda Lions Club has a strict policy of no politics at its meetings and there has never been an "official record" to which Mr. Towner or anyone else could have commented. Mr. Towner did, in fact, comment that he thought it was unethical for Mr. Skillings to use the Newspaper by which he was employed in his election campaign and cited three (3) instances of this behavior. Comment by CPR@DR: Thank you for confirming that James Towner made those remarks. "Letters to the Editor regarding other candidates as well, pro or con were printed in the Review. Apparently, for some reason, you believe that Mr. Skillings should have been immune to any negative comments because he was employed by another newspaper "For the record, during the same election period, a Review reporter, who herself was running for the position of District Justice in another district, voluntarily resigned from the Review in order to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. You further state that with "few exceptions," criticism of the Review is not presented or is deleted from letters. Quite bluntly, this is factually incorrect and shows a complete lack of investigation on your part. While you certainly are entitled to your opinion, you do not have the right to disseminate this factually incorrect information and thereafter make ethical judgment thereon. "Perhaps the most troubling and most inaccurate and unresearched claim made in your publication is the allegation of plagiarism. According to your publication, because the Review periodically publishes localized Associated Press features without using the by-line of the Associated Press or the Associated Press article, that the Review has engaged in plagiarism. Comment by CPR@DR: Regardless of whether or not a writer or a newspaper has permission to use another's material (AP for example), to do so without attribution is plagiarism. To plagiarize means, "to take (ideas, writings, etc.) from (another) and pass them off as one's own." (Webster's New World Dictionary,1968, p.1087) This is an ethical concept, not a legal term. According to the code of ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists, plagiarism is unethical. The Ethics of The Daily Review: An Evaluation of its Editorial Practices documents examples where The Review printed news stories written by AP without attribution and copied news releases from other organizations without correct attribution. In the Appendix to this document, CPR@DR documents that The Towanda Printing Co. is continuing to plagiarize material even as their Attorney DePaola protests to the contrary. Now they have plagiarized copyrighted material published for the Bradford County Historical Society that is the result of the selfless work of local volunteers. "According to your research, this was confirmed by one Susan Clark at Associated Press Corporate Headquarters at Rockefeller Center, New York, New York. When Ms. Clark was contacted by Mr. Fennell, she denied having made any comments to anyone from your Group regarding the Towanda Review. She indicated that she was simply a secretary/clerical working in the Communications Office of the Associated Press, and had no knowledge of the issue, which you raise. If you had properly "researched" this issue, you would have been advised that the Review, as a member of the Associated Press, has the right to use any stories coming off the wire and can use its own local byline. The articles that you cite in your publication, were "localized" by the Review in that comments from area residents and officials were added to the original AP stories. Hence the Review chose to use a local byline. Comment by CPR@DR: On June 5, 2000, Clark Moeller talked to Susan Clark and this conversation was followed up on that day and also on 6/6/00 with email correspondence to her and from her which we have on record. Clark Moeller did not ask her about The Daily Review. He asked her if AP member newspapers were using AP news stories, whether they were supposed to give attribution to AP. She said, "yes." However, her follow up email is not that explicit. Mike Rogers of the Sayre Evening Times confirmed that his paper's written agreement between AP and the Evening Times specifically calls for AP attribution for AP articles. Furthermore, it is our understanding that the accepted standard for "localizing" an AP article includes providing AP attribution along with the name of the local writer or paper. The Daily Review did not do that in examples we documented in our report. "Perhaps before you make any further libelous comments, you will have the sense to check with someone other than a secretary to get your information. May I suggest Sally Hale, AP Assistant Bureau Chief, with whom Mr. Fennell spoke? She confirmed that the Review is entitled to use the " By the Review" byline for localized AP stories. "Concerning your allegations that the Review has acted unethically in reprinting the names of victims of domestic violence, nothing cited in your alleged code of ethics indicates that it is unethical to print the names of victims of domestic violence. Comment by CPR@DR: The code of ethics of The Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) is not "alleged." It exists. A copy was contained in CPR@DR's report and can be found on the web. CPR@DR's report clearly explains how the SPJ code applies to the issue of naming victims of domestic violence. Putting anyone at risk of harm unless there is a greater public need being served is an ethical issue. The CPR@DR thoroughly documented that The Daily Review does this and it continues to do this. "You deliberately attempt to support your position by quoting from letters, which you have obtained from other journalists, which state that it is unethical to print names of rape victims and children who are victims of sex related crimes. Comment by CPR@DR: CPR@DR sought the opinions of some of the leading experts on ethics in Journalism in the USA. These included people who hold such positions as Knight Professor of Ethics in Journalism (Louis Hodges); Editor, Journal of Mass Media Ethics (Ralph Barney); Pulitzer Prize Board member (Joanne Byrd); University Professor of Ethics and Director of the Practical Ethics Center (Deni Elliott); and other practicing journalists. "You make no attempt to distinguish between the two categories i.e. domestic violence victims and victims of sexual crimes, knowing full well that it is the Review's policy not to print the names of rape victims or children who are victims of sexual abuse. Comment by CPR@DR: This is not true. The distinction between domestic violence victims and victims of sexual crimes is clearly distinguished in Jane Moeller's letter of 12/19/99 (page 90). Most of the responses (page 91-97) also recognize the distinction. "To say that it is unethical to print the names of victims of domestic violence and to infer that no other news organizations reveal the identification of victims of domestic violence is ethically and factually incorrect. Comment by CPR@DR: It is the overwhelming opinion of the experts we have contacted so far that it is unethical to print the names of domestic violence victims unless there is an overwhelming public interest in doing so. Nowhere in our report do we "infer that no other news organizations reveal the identification of victims of domestic violence." "Concerning the "What's On Your Mind" Column and the Readers Polls, these items were discontinued well before the publication of your document, and had nothing whatsoever to do with your criticism. Comment by CPR@DR: We are pleased that the non-scientific opinion polls and the "What's On Your Mind" column have been discontinued. "Regarding the Readers' Polls, which you characterize as "self-selected" polls, you infer by citing a Code of Ethics Section of the American Association for Public Opinion Research that these polls were misleading in that they were allegedly represented as being scientific polls. Nothing could be further from the truth. All that you and your group had to do was review in numerous editions of the newspaper the clear and unequivocal statements that these polls were not meant to be scientific polls, but were simply write-in/call-in polls representing the opinions of only those people who responded. Comments by CPR@DR: Perhaps you will point out to us where we are to find the "clear and unequivocal statements that these polls were not meant to be scientific polls" in the May 15, 1999 article (see page 60 of our report) reporting on the The Daily Review's poll about the County Commissioners. "I am not sure what is meant by "self-selected polls" as used in your publication, Comment by CPR@DR: The term "Self-selected" polls is defined in the appropriate place in CPR@DR's report. See page 141, last paragraph. "but if you mean that the topics themselves were selected by the editorial staff of the Review, you are, indeed, correct. Comment by CPR@DR: As you now have seen on page 141, that is not our meaning. "I am unaware of anything unethical about the editorial board of a paper deciding on the topics that it chooses to poll. Surely you must be aware that the newspaper has the right to choose the editorial content. "In addition, a member of your Committee, who apparently as part of her own business does scientific polling, approached the Review about contracting with them to run scientific polling in the newspaper. Her offer was declined. Is this merely a coincidence? In any event, your accusation is totally and completely false and is clearly libelous. Comment by CPR@DR: Marilyn Bok denies she ever "approached the Review about contracting with them to run scientific polling in the newspaper." "Regarding the "What's On Your Mind" Column, you stated that the column contained anonymous attacks on individual citizens without naming the persons making the accusations. According to you, this practice was unethical. "All of the items which were contained in the "What's On Your Mind" Column related to public officials, or those persons who chose to submit articles for publication in the Review. Never did any of these columns involve individual citizens who chose not to be in the public eye. Comment by CPR@DR: Is it the position of the Towanda Printing Co. that anyone who has written a letter to The Daily Review or volunteered for community service is fair game for anonymous attacks? "Your "conclusion" that this somehow created the news and was unethical, is, frankly, inaccurate. Comment by CPR@DR: We disagree. "Both the Readers' Polls and the "What's On Your Mind" Columns were features were similar to those used by most newspapers, including two (2) other locally published newspapers. Additionally, these features where similar to the Channel 16, "Talk Back 16" segment. Comment by CPR@DR: Attorney DePaola is justifying The Daily Review's unethical practices by pointing out that media organizations also engage in similar unethical practices. Does Attorney DePaola defend those charged with robbery on the grounds that others commit robbery? "Finally, on this issue, it should be pointed out that the Review made every effort to check out the correctness of the allegations made by respondents to these features . Any criticisms, which were factually incorrect, were not published. Comment by CPR@DR: We disagree. See page 74 of the CPR@DR report. "Your publication states that in January 2000, a coordinated effort was made by a "number" of Review subscribers to cancel their subscriptions in order to "send a message of dissatisfaction." Once again you have completely and apparently deliberately, distorted the facts regarding this issue as only seven people out of approximately ten thousand subscribers cancelled their subscriptions. Comment by CPR@DR: While we were aware that a coordinated effort was underway, none of the Steering Committee of CPR@DR were engaged in this effort nor has CPR@DR advocated that people stop subscribing to The Daily Review or stop advertizing in it. However, boycotts of corporations are a well known and perfectly legal way for consumers to express their opinion. "Apparently this was the "buzz" concerning the editorial ethics at the Review to which you refer in you publication. "In conclusion, the Review welcomes any open and honest debate concerning its journalistic ethics and editorial content. Comment by CPR@DR: This is inconsistent with this 8/22/00 letter written by Attorney DePaola on behalf of the Towanda Printing Co. "However, what you have published and disseminated is a document concluding in no uncertain terms, that the Review has acted unethically. Comment by CPR@DR: The members of the CPR@DR Steering Committee believe our report speaks for itself. We believe that the First Amendment's protection of a free press is a powerful protection for a free society. We also believe that this privileged position which newspapers enjoy under the First Amendment is coupled with a parallel responsibility for editorial and reporting integrity. "Unfortunately however, you have chosen to support your conclusions by reliance on inaccurate factual assertions which could have easily been determined to be false before publication. On top of that, you then made legally improper conclusions, based on ethical standards of an organization, i.e. Comment by CPR@DR: We built our case on the printed material published by The Daily Review. It's a public record. It is their record that is documented in our report. We compared their published record with nationally recognized, independent standards. We believe reasonable people will agree that our conclusions logically flow from comparing their published record with the independent, nationally recognized standards we used. The feedback we have been getting affirms our belief. For example: "I just received the copy of your evaluation of The Daily Review," wrote Louis W. Hodges, Knight Professor of Ethics in Journalism, Washington and Lee University, VA. "It is an exceptionally fine piece of work. So far as I know, the act of a group of interested citizens producing such a review is unprecedented. It is encouraging to know that we still have citizens who take journalism that seriously. Thank you for your good work." - email dated 8/1/00 "The Society of Professional Journalists, whose code of ethics applies only to its paid members. Apparently for $35.00 any high school student can join this organization. Comment by CPR@DR: What is Attorney DePaola's point here? "Please be advised that if publication and dissemination of your document results in any injury to the Review, immediate and appropriate legal action will be instituted against your Committee and you personally, as a member. Comment by CPR@DR: CPR@DR believes that any libel suit by the Towanda Printing Co. based on material published by CPR@DR would be without probable cause and that the Towanda Printing Co. could be opening itself up to liability for the wrongful use of civil proceedings. Back to the top APPENDIX Part II: About plagiarism. to: "CPR@DR's Informal Comments on Attorney Ray DePaola's August 22, 2000, letter on behalf of The Towanda Printing Company." Additional documentation of PLAGIARISM by the Towanda Printing Co. A. THE FACTS
Back to the top B. WHAT IS PLAGIARISM?
* www.presswise.org.uk/plagiarism.htm Back to the top C. WHY PLAGIARISM IS WRONG.
Journalists should:
Or, "I believe that the sources I have cited are reliable, but I cannot attest to their accuracy personally." Correctly attributing information is perfectly honest and often adds credibility to a story if the sources are known for their integrity and high quality work. However, when a newspaper publisher, editor, or writer plagiarizes the written work of other people, they incrementally weaken the public's confidence in the utility of the First Amendment. In this way, newspapers that plagiarize erode a value essential to our constitutional democracy. This undermines the strength of our country. In the following documented examples, The Towanda Printing Co. plagiarized copyrighted articles which were written or compiled by volunteers for the nonprofit Bradford County Historical Society. The Towanda Printing Co., a for-profit business, plagiarized these articles in its August 28 edition of A Supplement to The Bradford Sullivan Pennysaver. Documentation:
Back to the top
|