Plagiarism is a word that most people haven’t had to think about since the last time they had to write a term paper. I remember college professors thundering about they felt was the towering evil known as plagiarism. Civilization might fail if this was not wiped from the face of existence.
Despite all of that finger-wagging and pontificating, plagiarism is alive and well. Earlier this month, the longtime movie reviewer at the Minneapolis Star Tribune, Colin Covert, resigned after a pattern of plagiarism was revealed. An internal study discovered reviews, one as recent as last month, that used phrases and whole sentences from writers at publications like the New Yorker, the Hollywood Reporter and Paste Magazine, among others. One instance dated back to 1974.
In journalism and academia, that remains unforgivable.
Here’s the funny thing. Not everyone agrees on a definition of the term. At its simplest, it’s cheating. Copying someone else’s work and claiming it for your own. To that point, everyone agrees. But is it an all or nothing issue? If I simply copy a sentence from an article written by someone one else without change am I as guilty as the person who copies an entire paragraph? Elizabeth Spayd wrote in the Columbia Journalism Review that the first instance is lazy, the second is theft.
The question has become, is the traditional understanding of plagiarism outdated? Kenneth Goldsmith, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania seems to think so. He has taught a class called “Uncreative Writing” where you are penalized for creativity and rewarded for what has been called plagiarism in the past.
The more you dig into the question, the more complicated the issue grows. A few years ago, billionaire media mogul Mark Cuban took content aggregators to the woodshed, calling them vampires. Content aggregators are folks who skim stories created by someone outside their staff and provide them to an audience that isn’t connected to the original creator. For traditionalists, that’s plagiarism. And it’s not a new concern. During World War I, the Associated Press sued another news organization for doing the same basic thing with reports from the front.
The reality is that the concept has never been simple. In an age when it’s easy to cut and paste, the temptation to plagiarize is ever more tempting. In the end, we may have to define plagiarism the same way that Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart defined pornography in Jacobellis v Ohio, “I know it when I see it”. And for the moment that sight will still get you fired.
Leave a comment