Originality is overrated. (And illusory.)
The following caon a list of Gannett- and media-related news items that we're sent daily here at the Northwestern caught my eye:
* Baltimore Sun columnist Michael Olesker, who has been in a high-profile feud with Maryland Gov. Robert Ehrilch, was dismissed Wednesday over several instances in which he used, without attribution, wording similar to that employed by other journalists. Olesker, who has been a Baltimore columnist for nearly three decades, appeared to borrow language from the Wash. Post, N.Y. Times and his own Sun colleagues.
Link (to the Post story. I tried to make it an AP story linked through the NW website, but the way they -- or we, I guess, not that I have any control over what appears at www.thenorthwestern.com -- currently have it set up makes finding a wire story impossible.) Reading it makes pretty clear that this guy didn't exactly turn in someone else's term paper. (I realize it might not be exactly correct, but I'm going to use the term 'plagiarism' for what Olesker got dismissed for.)
If you don't want to read it, the examples given might be plagiarism, but are hardly clear-cut. They two given deal with factual information, either events or demographic trends, and the phrasing is very similar. But how many ways are there to say "ex-Senator Cleland landed in a dirty gutter that had cigarette butts in it when his wheelchair tipped over"? Then you try jazzing that up like a big-city newspaper columnist (don't forget a picturesque action verb), and you see how close you come to what Olesker and who he supposedly plagiarized from say.
Of course, this problem relies on the idea that there is such a thing as originality in this weird, cruel world we have made for ourselves. (I reworked one of my favorite quotes by Hunter S. Thompson there, if you want to know. If it matters.) I disagree with this notion. Nothing comes from nothing; all thought comes from somewhere. If there is ever anything that can be called original, it is the result of a new combination of pre-existing ideas, and it's pointless to try to cite each piece you've received from someone else. Not convinced? Where'd you get the idea of 'plagiarism' from? Do you even remember?
I suppose you could fashion the argument that that's where this guy failed; instead of taking things that someone else said (which is at the heart of what news is after all) and changing them so that they wouldn't recognize the source or telling who it was he got it from, he did a half-assed job of it and didn't bother to mention who it was gave him the original idea -- if he even knew or remembered -- and then got caught (ever the cardinal sin). To me, that's like saying that if you're in a class and a fact you got from the instructor makes it almost verbatim into a paper you write for a different class, you've plagiarized unless you mention who said it. Or that taking a magazine ad, removing a chunk, and then including it in a collage is the same, unless you mention the name of the magazine and who designed the ad.
And that doesn't make no gravy with me. Everyone gets their ideas from somebody else. Blatant copying without admitting it is one thing; being influenced, whether you cite or not, is another. Olesker didn't flat-out copy. (Incidentally, what I can tell is really happening is that the paper has a lawsuit, which Olesker is involved in, going on with the imperial-sounding Maryland Guv'nor and is trying to keep their nose looking squeaky-clean, so they can have a better chance of winning it. And so this poor guy's getting screwed after 30 years of being a Baltimore newspaper man. Mental note: if I stay with the news biz, don't move to Baltimore.) A paragraph? Maybe. A phrase? Try again.
This weekend: On Saturday night The Lemurs are performing another of their all-Misfits cover shows, again at the New Moon. Anyone who caught their show on Halloween will know how much fun it is for old-school punk fans and it will happen much the same as that show, except hopefully the vocals won't cut out as much this time. Show time, I'm told, is 9p, and a special guest may be getting on stage for a couple songs, if he's not too drunk to remember the words (like punk songs have words -- that's a joke I heard from someone I don't remember who :P).
-BlackAndy
* Baltimore Sun columnist Michael Olesker, who has been in a high-profile feud with Maryland Gov. Robert Ehrilch, was dismissed Wednesday over several instances in which he used, without attribution, wording similar to that employed by other journalists. Olesker, who has been a Baltimore columnist for nearly three decades, appeared to borrow language from the Wash. Post, N.Y. Times and his own Sun colleagues.
Link (to the Post story. I tried to make it an AP story linked through the NW website, but the way they -- or we, I guess, not that I have any control over what appears at www.thenorthwestern.com -- currently have it set up makes finding a wire story impossible.) Reading it makes pretty clear that this guy didn't exactly turn in someone else's term paper. (I realize it might not be exactly correct, but I'm going to use the term 'plagiarism' for what Olesker got dismissed for.)
If you don't want to read it, the examples given might be plagiarism, but are hardly clear-cut. They two given deal with factual information, either events or demographic trends, and the phrasing is very similar. But how many ways are there to say "ex-Senator Cleland landed in a dirty gutter that had cigarette butts in it when his wheelchair tipped over"? Then you try jazzing that up like a big-city newspaper columnist (don't forget a picturesque action verb), and you see how close you come to what Olesker and who he supposedly plagiarized from say.
Of course, this problem relies on the idea that there is such a thing as originality in this weird, cruel world we have made for ourselves. (I reworked one of my favorite quotes by Hunter S. Thompson there, if you want to know. If it matters.) I disagree with this notion. Nothing comes from nothing; all thought comes from somewhere. If there is ever anything that can be called original, it is the result of a new combination of pre-existing ideas, and it's pointless to try to cite each piece you've received from someone else. Not convinced? Where'd you get the idea of 'plagiarism' from? Do you even remember?
I suppose you could fashion the argument that that's where this guy failed; instead of taking things that someone else said (which is at the heart of what news is after all) and changing them so that they wouldn't recognize the source or telling who it was he got it from, he did a half-assed job of it and didn't bother to mention who it was gave him the original idea -- if he even knew or remembered -- and then got caught (ever the cardinal sin). To me, that's like saying that if you're in a class and a fact you got from the instructor makes it almost verbatim into a paper you write for a different class, you've plagiarized unless you mention who said it. Or that taking a magazine ad, removing a chunk, and then including it in a collage is the same, unless you mention the name of the magazine and who designed the ad.
And that doesn't make no gravy with me. Everyone gets their ideas from somebody else. Blatant copying without admitting it is one thing; being influenced, whether you cite or not, is another. Olesker didn't flat-out copy. (Incidentally, what I can tell is really happening is that the paper has a lawsuit, which Olesker is involved in, going on with the imperial-sounding Maryland Guv'nor and is trying to keep their nose looking squeaky-clean, so they can have a better chance of winning it. And so this poor guy's getting screwed after 30 years of being a Baltimore newspaper man. Mental note: if I stay with the news biz, don't move to Baltimore.) A paragraph? Maybe. A phrase? Try again.
This weekend: On Saturday night The Lemurs are performing another of their all-Misfits cover shows, again at the New Moon. Anyone who caught their show on Halloween will know how much fun it is for old-school punk fans and it will happen much the same as that show, except hopefully the vocals won't cut out as much this time. Show time, I'm told, is 9p, and a special guest may be getting on stage for a couple songs, if he's not too drunk to remember the words (like punk songs have words -- that's a joke I heard from someone I don't remember who :P).
-BlackAndy
posted by BlackAndy at 3:08 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home