What Is True/Slant?
275+ knowledgeable contributors.
Reporting and insight on news of the moment.
Follow them and join the news conversation.
 

Mar. 8 2010 - 2:25 pm | 548 views | 1 recommendation | 14 comments

Kouwe didn’t need anti-plagiarism software, just intellectual honesty

The New York Times

Image via Wikipedia

If you’re not familiar with the Zachary Kouwe story, you can read the Times‘ Clark Hoyt’s recap here. Basically, Kouwe, a reporter for the New York Times‘ Business section and DealBook blog, stole copy from wire service reports, press releases, and in a few cases, original reporting from the Wall Street Journal, which is how he was busted– the Journal’s editor, Robert Thomson, complained to the Times’ Bill Keller.

Some, including Craig Silverman make the case (or at least supply the facts for others to make) that plagiarism detection software might be a good thing for newsrooms to invest in, to scan their own reporters’ stories for potential sourcing problems. I have to completely disagree. But not because I’m worried about newsrooms turning all Big Brother on their own reporters. No, I think, as evidenced by Kouwe’s lame excuses, both to the media, and to the bloggers from which he stole, he knew what he was doing, and chose to continue doing it, due either to pressure he put on himself, or the newspaper’s editors put on him, productivity-wise. The problem is not one of software detection algorithms, but of human decision making.

Putting myself in Kouwe’s shoes for a second, he says he was filing upwards of 7,000 words a week, of hard-fact copy, for DealBook, the Andrew Ross Sorkin-founded business blog that’s in some ways become the flagship of the Times’ online business reporting. Now, honestly, for the type of bold-faced, big name stories the paper covers, any experienced business editor has to realize that one reporter can’t possibly turn in that much originally reported hard news, consistently, week after week. There aren’t enough hours in the day. Kouwe naturally scanned the wires, blogs, press releases, etc., to stay on top of breaking news; he also read what others had the time to report and posted relevant stories to DealBook. All of that is kosher; that’s how a blog works. But copying and pasting paragraphs of text into your editing software, without including the URL, or a note to yourself of the source, is not being lazy or sloppy; it’s the first step of willful omission of the sourcing, whether it happens in your Word document or WordPress backend.

What’s also not OK is that Kouwe, in his note to Teri Buhl (linked above, which Felix Salmon reported) tried to argue his way out of giving proper sourcing to Buhl’s story, months before his episode with the Journal. I have to assume this is because Kouwe felt the pressure from the newspaper’s editors to provide a certain amount of original reporting in his stories. So he justified copy/pasting excerpts of other people’s work by convincing himself that sourcing wasn’t necessary because he had thrown some of his own reporting on top of the original story. Kouwe had logged several years as a newspaper journalist. He knows that’s not how it works. But there is that pressure. Editors of  certain stripe do get annoyed/upset when you attribute reporting to a competitor, especially if they’re of the opinion that you could report the same details yourself if you’d quit being so lazy and pick up the damn phone. But, would Kouwe have called the sources for the story Teri Buhl writes about, if Buhl hadn’t wrote the story in the first place? Almost certainly not. Therefore, Buhl deserved credit for the scoop, even if Kouwe did new reporting on top of it. As did the Journal.

I would bet, with no inside knowledge, that the fiercely competitive Times, especially its Business section, especially DealBook, is loath to credit competitors, because it looks weak. So editors push for original-sounding reporting, and Kouwe massaged wire copy and blog posts to meet deadlines and word counts. Look, there’s only so many ways to report the figures of a deal. If Reuters or Bloomberg already wrote the perfect two sentence graf, why not quote it, attribute it, and be done with it? What’s the point of having a highly paid Times staff writer pull up EDGAR, get the 10-Q, do the math on the numbers, and write his own sentence? Surely he’s got other work to do, 6,990 other words to file?

I’m not absolving Kouwe. I’m just saying plagiarism detection software doesn’t get at the problem of asking a financial reporter to file 7,000 original words per week, on a dozen or more different stories, given the length of typical blog posts. Nor does it get to the problem of why Kouwe felt uncomfortable crediting blogs and newspapers for their reporting.

At The Big Money I was a regular writer of Today’s Business Press; a first-read 700 word summary of the major dailies’ business sections, which is still being written every weekday by my successors. We make no bones about what we do; we read articles, summarize or pull quote them, and direct our readers to the newspapers that wrote the originals, sometimes teasing additional facts or bits of interest that are present in the original story. We cite every publication, use ample quotes, and avoid rewriting the stories as much as possible. If we have observations or new reporting to add, we add it, but we make it clear where we’re getting our information from.

Kouwe, in filing so much copy for DealBook, was clearly being asked to do much of the same thing, in addition to any original reporting he undertook. Except somebody, either Kouwe, Sorkin, or editors at the newspaper, couldn’t stomach the idea of doling out so much credit to other outlets, whereas we at TBM write Today’s Business Press specifically to dole out credit to other outlets. It’s really not so bad, giving credit. It doesn’t cut into your brand equity or make you less trustworthy, especially when you confirm facts and add new ones. Links to bloggers or other media outlets aren’t just nice; they make the world go ’round. If DealBook is going to insist on covering the financial world with the breadth of a great business blog, it should staff up accordingly or accept the idea of being part of an ecosystem of scoops it reports, and attributions to other outlets whose scoops it wants to pick up. If DealBook is going to demand 7,000 words a week from Kouwe’s replacement, they should be prepared to see quite a lot of links, or hire a few more reporters to share some of that load.

Could Plagiarism Software Have Spared The Times an Embarrassment? [NYT]


Comments

Active Conversation
One T/S Member Comment Called Out, 14 Total Comments
Post your comment »
 
  1. collapse expand

    The Times doesn’t work that way; I’m sure you know staffers there who have told you this. By “that way” I’ll say admitting weakness, fatigue, inability or unwillingness to do whatever’s asked — and since they just axed 100 people before Christmas 2009, everyone was more scared than ever of looking axe-able.

    I’ve written for 10 different section editors there since 1990. They expect a great deal from their freelancers as well. It’s the status quo, take it or leave it. Do you suddenly see the NYT culture, as a result of this, changing? I think not.

    I blogged this several weeks ago, making the same point about his over-production. No one can crank out that much stuff, that much original stuff and not break down.

    But, as you and I both know, NO one wants to say “I give up. This is too hard” or whatever Timesian equivalent is utterable. There are easily 500+ highly qualified and unemployed journo’s right now who would kill for any job there — no matter what’s demanded.

    If you were offered a job there tomorrow, would you say no?

    • collapse expand

      Caitlin, I always love your thoughtful and incisive comments on my posts, and this one is no exception! I will say, if you read Hoyt’s column, Ingrassia, the Business editor, said he would re-examine whether some things about the way DealBook operates need to change. One assumes he was referring to the frequency, scope and sourcing issues that this episode has exposed. I’m not suggesting Kouwe was in a position to say no to his editors; I’m suggesting his immediate editor, and his boss, and boss’s boss and so on were happy to blissfully sail onwards while Kouwe’s 7,000 weekly words were filed, not asking how he managed such incredible output, nor why they themselves were (likely) incapable of performing such heroic journalistic feats earlier in their careers.

      This M.O. didn’t add up from the start. It’s very easy to punish the privates, but I think the colonels and generals here need to consider their roles in looking past these earlier missteps, especially in the case of Teri Buhl.

      Maybe there’s one guy among the 500+ unemployed journalists who can honestly pull the weight Kouwe had dialed in– and maybe he should have that job instead. But when you demand things of your employees that even the most dedicated and invested among them aren’t capable of delivering, you’re setting them up to fail.

      In response to another comment. See in context »
  2. collapse expand

    Paul, I totally agree with you on this…no one should be demanding (and turning a blind eye) so much of a writer who cranks out so much copy. (Can we all say “Jayson Blair”?) The Times has already been through this! When someone, especially so young (i.e. likely still on a steeper learning curve) appears super-human, guess what?

    Now, with blogging adding even more reporters’ demands for fast, great copy (on top of — oh, yeah, trying to be the paper of record), it’s nuts. Truly.

    My partner is a staffer for the NYT and I still intend to keep writing for them, so there’s only so much of that hand I can bite. :-)

    But generals who seek ‘victory’ have to be fair enough to their troops…It is utterly unfair (and who said journalism, or biz, is fair?) to keep canning eager, hard-working young ‘uns when the higher-ups are setting that pace.

  3. collapse expand

    Great article – brings up the question over whether this kind of plagiarism is a case of ‘nurture’ as the author here suggests, or ‘nature,’ where the plagiarism would occur despite a different publishing environment. This article examines the question: http://blog.ithenticate.com/2010/03/new-york-times-plagiarism-nature-or-nurture/

Log in for notification options
Comments RSS

Post Your Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment

Log in with your True/Slant account.

Previously logged in with Facebook?

Create an account to join True/Slant now.

Facebook users:
Create T/S account with Facebook
 

My T/S Activity Feed

 
     

    About Me

    I'm here to participate in an experiment. I live professionally by two maxims:

    "Bad manners make a journalist." -Oscar Wilde

    "Every journalist who is not too stupid or too full of himself to notice what is going on knows that what he does is morally indefensible." -Janet Malcolm.

    Email me or @smalera

    See my profile »
    Followers: 45
    Contributor Since: April 2009
    Location:Brooklyn, NY

    What I'm Up To

    I’m a regular over at

    The Big Money

    the business and economics website from Slate.com.