Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

John Keller Did Nothing Wrong – Blame the Publisher – With Poll

By

So everyone at BMG is jumping on John Keller for not identifying sources for quotes.

Keller fought with his publisher to have end notes. dan Kennedy tells us he had to do the same thing with his book and lost. This is about the publisher saving $$$.

But Keller disgrees with BMG on most stuff and wrote a book essentially kicking the shit out of the BMG base. (I haven’t read it.) So drinks all around at BMG, Keller has a problem.

This problem of Keller’s does not, in my mind, effect his credibility. And the shoe will always be on the other foot some day.

So let’s not rejoice in Keller’s minor problem like junior high kids, but rather let us appreciate the nuances that now have to be adhered to by all media types if they are gonna avoid being called out on stuff which has been a previoulsy acceptable industry practices which does not effect the the facts and opinions in the reported material.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

    1. As far as we know, Keller didn’t “fight” to include footnotes.  This is all I’ve seen on that question:

    <

    p>

    Keller, also a Herald contributor, referred questions to his book editor and said the editor told him that footnotes were not necessary.

    <

    p>
    From that, we can safely infer only that Keller asked, was told they weren’t necessary, and that was apparently the end of it.  Nothing about fighting.

    <

    p>
    2. Dan Kennedy did indeed fight with his publisher to include notes — but he won.

    <

    p>
    Of course this is about publishers saving money.  But it should also be about journalists sticking to appropriate journalistic standards.  I continue to be dubious about the unverified claim that “everybody’s doing it.”  So far, anecdotal evidence suggests the opposite.

      1. I Plead Guilty to exaggerating the details regarding end note dispute.

      <

      p>
      2. Dan Kennedy got the end-notes on a web page. A far cry from the back of the book. Keller should do the same thing.

      <

      p>
      Hey. I think we have something here.
      We have just defined the new paradigm. It works for me and it should work for journalists.
      Post end notes on line with links and downloads of materials which are not private property.. Give web page in book.
      Researchers have accesses to it. And material can be vetted by anyone.

      <

      p>
      Media does not use web give more info to readers. Like links to documents that are subjects of stories. Very basic stuff, IMO>

      <

      p>
      What bothers me here is this moralistic, highly judgmental indictment on Keller’s integrity when in fact he is a player and pawn in a system that is evolving.

      <

      p>
      Keller was also contractually obligated to have the book published with out end-notes. It was probably too late, and too expensive to back down.

      <

      p>
      Get off ya high horses my friends.

      <

      p>

      • One point is that Keller was disingenuous at best by presenting the quotations as original work, when in fact they were plagiarized i.e. included without proper citation: passing off someone else’s work as one’s own.

        <

        p>
        The broader point, however, is that if he were a journalist he would have wanted to provide clear citations in the interest of informing his readers and substantiating his argument (examples). It seems to me that most of the commenters here, with some glaring and, frankly, hilarious exceptions, agree about this as a matter of philosophy. The web-based approach that you suggest, for example, would have been an elegant practical way to provide citations without incurring additional expense.

        <

        p>
        Keller, apparently, however, does not agree. Had he not been exposed by Jessica Heslam he presumably would never have credited the hard-working journalists whose work he lifted.

        • When “Author A” writes a quote given by  “Person B” and printed in “Publication C” and does not mention that “Person B” said this to “Publication C” is not plagiarism. Person B still said it and the quote was accurate.

          <

          p>
          C’mon Bob, you know better than this.

          <

          p>
          This isn’t 

          • …the plagiarism issue.  But if author A does not indicate that the quotation was given by person B in publication C, it is probable that few people reading publication C would know that the quotation was given by person B.

            <

            p>
            Apparently, you are unable to understand that, just because person B says something, that what B says may be unreliable, and, indeed, may have nothing to do with reality.

            • The Quotations are not to prove the matter asseted by the speaker but to assert that the speker said what he said.

            • “It should be obvious that I’m not particularly interested in… “

              <

              p>
              This is between Bob and me.

              <

              p>
              And apparently raj, you are unable to ndrstand that there is a difference between saying someone said something and then supplying the material that proved the person said it. And especially when nobody is denying any of the quotes attributed to them.

              <

              p>
              Raj, you may have gone to a law school for a few years, but after reading you I hace serious doubts that you passed the bar or even graduated from law school.

              • This is between Bob and me

                <

                p>
                …you are unable to understand that a comment board is not a private communication mechanism.  If you want private communication, take it to email.

                <

                p>
                Also, apparently, you are unable to understand that, when (i) author A (iii) quotes person B and (iiii) publishes the quotation in publication C, (iv) to be read by reader D (a point that you conveniently ignored), unless author A and the publisher of publication C, it is highly unlikely that reader D will be able to determine the quoted person B, to assess the reliability or even the relevance of the quotation.

                <

                p>
                Is that succinct enough for you?

      • Keller was also contractually obligated to have the book published with out end-notes.

        <

        p>
        …Unless Keller wants his book considered as a work of fiction, he should provide citation to sources.

        <

        p>
        And, no, posting citations on a web site is not sufficient.  If I’m reading a book on an airplane in the cattle car, it is highly unlikely that I’d have room for both the book and a computer (presuming that I can even access the Internet in cattle car).

        <

        p>
        As I’ve noted here before, virtually every science book that I own–popular books as well as text books–has citation to sources–some in chapter notes and some in endnotes, and IN ADDITION, many also have footnotes.  “Pop Poli-Sci books should not be held to a lower standard.

    • the anecdotal evidence you point to does not ‘suggest the opposite, as you say”

      <

      p>
      but is the evidence and therefore the subject at hand.

      <

      p>
      I know those passages. And they weren’t footnoted. That is what we all are talking about.

      <

      p>
      We know the book is full of them. Volume does not change a thing.

  2. You don't have to pay taxes anymore.

    If the IRS comes after you, you can say that Banned told you that you don't have to pay taxes anymore.

    Of course, the IRS will still attach your wages and / or convict you for tax evasion, It's still a crime, but you can use me as an excuse if you want to.

    đŸ™‚ 

    • you sign a contract to write a book. You get an advance. You Know, $$$ Money. The stuff that pays the bills and feeds the kids. The contract says the publisher has the last word on contents of book and when it is turned in it becomes the property of the publisher.(standard language.)

      <

      p>
      You spend months and hundreds of hours researching and writing the book. You turn in your book with materials. The publisher says the book is set to go only w/o endnotes. You say no. Publisher says “tough shit, besides this is how it is done. People with better credentials than your’s do the same.”

      <

      p>
      And you have no say in the matter.

      <

      p>
      OK. Keller should post them on a web page. I bet he does that soon.

      <

      p>
      But moralize for me Banned.

      <

      p>
      I know. He should have given the money back and made a sign and protested outside publishers offices.

      <

      p>
      A hunger strike would have been a nice touch too.

      <

      p>
      What would you do?

      • If you have this exculpatory evidence, no prob, Keller is innocent, what is all the hubbub about?

        Why didn't you just post his endnotes and save us all the carpel tunnel? 

        • He told then they existed and were available.

          <

          p>
          I shall start calling you guys the “red herring club”

          • …and if anyone wants to see it, they just need to wait a few weeks while I mock up a plutocrasaurus egg somehow.

            Seriously, if that is really true, (what is the source of Keller's claim?  link?) they should be in the book.  He at least should have made them publicly available by the time the book was released.  Where are they?  I would expect him to poster-bill the entire town with them rather than allow the Herald to impugn his journalistic integrity?

              • When you use the material of others and do not cite your references you get frowned upon by professors and editors and stuff, right? 

                • Get a clue.

                  <

                  p>
                  He did not tell where the quoites came from. Like what newspaper Ted Kennedy was quoted in when Keller repeats the quote.

                  <

                  p>
                  That is not Plagerism.

                • Lee Wilkins, a Missouri School of Journalism professor and the editor of the Journal of Mass Media Ethics, who also reviewed examples from the book, said, “The general rule in journalism is you cite the source of your information. Secondly, the norm in journalism is we don’t steal. I would regard this as a violation of academic (honesty).”

                   http://www.bostonher…

                • Ethical, responsible, nonfiction written with integrity is akin to journalism.  Especially if it's written by someone who purports to be a journalist.

                  But we're playing chess with only a king each on the board.  Let's gat back to my substantive question that you ignored:

                  If Keller has endnotes that exist and are available, why hasn't he surfaced waving them about in his defense?  

                • Is an animal a mammal?  Some are, not all, but is it possible to classify the sub category with a fair degree of accuracy.

  3. … one wants to argue that the blame falls on the publisher (certainly very possible), Keller still needs to address that he has a book out there and its not as sourced as it should be.  If he doesn’t, he may be tacitly standing behind the publisher’s decision which, if wrong, still reflects upon him.

  4. and the publisher flat-out refused to print them, keller could have made them available on a website.  major science journals like nature and science routinely use this method* to save space in the paper version of the journal.  doesn’t keller even have his own a blog?  the info could reside there.

    <

    p>
    *i really hate this method.  it is, of course, better than the keller approach.  however, it requires the reader to have access to an internet that is functioning on both ends.  what happens if the journal goes defunct at some point?  will the info living only on their servers just die?  paper stored on shelves requires space and money to maintain.  but it is there and will remain there unless there is fire, flood or looting. /rant over, for now/

    • …Keller should have gone to another publisher.  Endnotes are not unusual in books of purported fact.

        • …The issue being, do fact checking any more?

          <

          p>
          The reason that I ask is (in relation to your comment) that, if Keller was unable or unwilling to provide citations to his sources, maybe the publishers that he peddled his book to would have been unable to determine whether Keller plagiarized. 

          <

          p>
          I prefer the term “copyright infringement,” but maybe that’s a bit too technical.

          <

          p>
          BTW, it doesn’t take a whole lot for copying (or significant adaptation) to be considered copyright infringement.  Remember the case from a couple of decades ago in which the Beatles were successfully sued for having copied parts of the music for their song “My Sweet Lord”?  They only lifted a few guitar riffs from another work, but the court held that they had infringed the copyright on that other work.

      • was that the publisher was against/didn’t care about end notes.  so why would they go to the trouble and expense of creating and maintaining a web page for end notes? 

        <

        p>
        most publishers are about one thing: profit.  keller, on the other hand, is or should be concerned about having his book and reputation as a journalist taken seriously.  it’s up to him, and he has the means.  just, apparently, not the will or inclination (or the citations!).

        • they are liable for untruths.
          And it makes sense. Continuity etc.

          <

          p>
          Boy,you guys really hate this guy.

          • they were obviously unperturbed at keller having no citations.  did you read their press release?

            • They just don’t give a shit. But pehaps journalists will now get this when they contract for the book.

              <

              p>
              Boy, I love how you guys go so out of yourwasy and spend so much time kicking to death any lame horse you can find whom you don’t like.

  5. (how many trashing it can say so?)

    <

    p>
    …and was not shocked and awed by lack of footnoting.  Personal taste – the wee numbers crawling all over the page in the Margolis book are distracting, really.  I’m going to pull down more books and look – I’m betting a 60/40 split – in POLITICAL books – against footnotes.  I recall Bulger’s book – good index, no footnotes, for instance.  Damn little attribution, IMS.

    <

    p>
    BIGGEST misconception is that the book trashes Democrats.  If they would READ THE BOOK, they would find angst not unlike Charley’s, that the message isn’t getting out, and howcum?

    • How many footnotes and attributions do you need in an autobiography? Almost all of the source would be personal recollection on the part of the author.

    • It’s about the small minded peopleso totally wrapped up in their cause or philosophy that they are unable to seperate reality from friends and enemies.

      <

      p>
      What we should see now are examples of other writers, both liberal and conservative, doing the same thing that Keller did. Only BMG will defend the liberal ones.

      <

      p>
      I think I need to throw-up.

    • …an index to a book makes navigation internal to the book easy.  Citations provide identification to external sources for the ideas–not just quotations–on which the book is based. 

      <

      p>
      A bit of a difference.  Something like–a chasm.

  6. and fact filled story of  how really screwed up this one party State truly is to rocket on to the NYT best seller list .Then all the footnote, academia bashing
    BS here will be rendered irrelevant.
    Substance over form is a winner every time.

Archives