Some quick hits from my inbox and the morning papers.
- Keller’s non-sourcing trashed. Jessica Heslam at the Herald noticed the same thing I did about Jon Keller’s “The Bluest State” — there’s an awful lot of anonymous and unattributed material in there. As it turns out, the reason is that Keller repeatedly lifted material from published newspaper articles (some of which contained anonymous quotes) — without indicating that he was doing so. Major no-no.
WBZ-TV political analyst Jon Keller’s highly touted new book, “The Bluest State,” is riddled with almost three dozen instances of direct quotes and other material lifted from numerous newspaper articles without any attribution, a Herald review has found.
In what four experts called a serious breach of journalistic ethics, Keller lifted quotes and other material that have appeared in numerous newspapers, including The Boston Globe, the Herald, The Washington Post and Worcester Telegram & Gazette, as well as from Reuters wire service stories.
“There’s no question in my mind that this is highly unethical, totally unprofessional and lazy besides,” said Sam Freedman, a professor at Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism, who reviewed a half-dozen examples from Keller’s book. “It’s clear to me that what the author did was go to previously published newspaper articles and lift out quotes from them,” Freedman said. “There’s nothing wrong with doing that if you indicate to the reader that those quotes came from another source.”
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).”
Ouch. Examples:
In one example from Keller’s book, he took five direct quotes from neighbors, a parent, a school board member and city councilor from four Globe articles written in 1988, 1989 and 1990 on the controversy surrounding the Commonwealth Day School on Brattle Street in Cambridge. Those quotes appear exactly the same on the pages of “The Bluest State” … In some instances, multiple quotes are lifted from a single article.
Keller’s 250-page text on Bay State politics has an index, and the book does credit some of the material he culled from the Globe and Herald.
But Keller’s book does not have any footnotes, chapter notes or a bibliography. According to Freedman, that leads the “reader to think, ‘Gee, this enterprising author did all these interviews. How impressive. How hard-working,’ and it’s the opposite. All he did was take quotes that other journalists had gotten and then passed them off as if he was the person who had gotten the quotes.
“Any working journalist,” Freedman added, “would know these basic rules.” … Robert Harris, an author and expert on proper use of sources said, “If the book is intended to be taken seriously, it should attribute its sources.”
I’m finding that the question whether bloggers are journalists is getting funnier every day — see also the related item below about the Lowell Sun’s editor. Maybe someone should ask NECN head Phil Balboni about this. Is anyone pure enough to cover debates at NECN these days?
- Obama takes a cheap shot. Just in from Obama central:
I’m leaving the Tonight Show studio and I wanted to share something.
Jay Leno just asked if it bothers me that some of the Washington pundits are declaring Hillary Clinton the winner of this election before a single vote has been cast.
I’ll tell you what I told him: Hillary is not the first politician in Washington to declare “Mission Accomplished” a little too soon.
What a load. First, of course Hillary is trying to project an air of inevitability about her campaign — but she has never publicly declared the campaign as good as over. Far from it. The fact that some pundits have done so is more a reflection of the fact that neither Obama nor anyone else seems to be able to get close to her in the polls — and whose fault is that? Second, tying Hillary’s campaign to W’s aircraft carrier moment IMHO trivializes the issue of the Iraq war. If Obama wants to make his early opposition to the war a big selling point for his campaign, he might want to treat it as something other than a quickie on Jay Leno.
- Credit where credit is due. Or not. Casey Ross at the Herald points out that UMass-Dartmouth prof Clyde Barrow’s casino plan “bears a striking resemblance” to that just filed by Governor Patrick. But alert readers will recall that the “striking resemblance” was detailed weeks ago by alert reporters Paul McMorrow and Julia Reischel at the Weekly Dig, as we discussed at BMG at the time. And Ryan had picked up on the similarity even before the Dig story came out.
The bloggers and alt-newsies were way out in front of the MSM on this one. But never mind. We’re not journalists, after all.
- Is Lowell Sun editor Jim Campanini a journalist? The Globe informs us that Campanini, after arranging a highly questionable special section in the Sun to “honor” Marty Meehan’s service in Congress, has now bought the guy’s house.
According to records filed with the Middlesex North County Registry of Deeds, Campanini purchased Meehan’s 3,000-square-foot house for $585,000. The price for the stone Colonial-style house was below the $598,400 value assessed by the city of Lowell. The real-estate website Zillow, which uses an algorithm to compare a property to similar ones nearby, estimates its value at $618,895. The property, which Meehan purchased for $340,000 in 1999 with his wife, Ellen T. Murphy, was not listed in the Multiple Listing Service, according to MLS spokeswoman Melissa Lindberg, suggesting that the property was not made widely available for bid.
Last December, the Sun published a section to celebrate Meehan’s 50th birthday, as he “reflects on his life, local roots, and the commitment to public service,” Sun publisher Mark O’Neil wrote in a letter to prospective advertisers. O’Neil’s letter also announced that a share of revenues from sales of ads in the section would go to the Marty Meehan Educational Foundation and identified a staff member in Meehan’s Lowell office as a contact.
Here’s my favorite part:
“It will be interesting to see if he keeps his Belvidere home in Lowell,” wrote Campanini in a March column, assessing Meehan’s long-term plans. “Here’s a prediction: He won’t.”
Is it journalism if you make a prediction that you yourself then cause to come true?
It’s funny, and it is ridiculous that so many have declared Hillary the winner before even one vote has been cast. The stakes in Iraq are high, and so are the stakes in this election.
it’s not Hillary declaring “mission accomplished” — if it’s anyone, it’s the punditocracy. So why misattribute it to her?
putting the words of a dictator wannabee in anyones mouth is obnoxious. looks like obama can get downright nasty.
His comment was completely gratuitous. He needs to keep that kind of “humor” for his comments on the handmaidens of Bush (Romney, etc), not his dem colleagues.
I’m wearying of the lame Obama bashing around here.
i am not an Obama basher. what i am is critical of any dem candidate giving ammunition to our real opposition: Guiliani, McCain, Paul and other lesser Repubs. if you don’t learn to see the difference, you will have a very unhappy next 13 months.
<
p>
convince me that his comment was necessary, and I’ll take it all back.
It’s bashing in my book.
There was nothing nasty in the comment Obama made – the point he made is valid – the HRC campaign’s strategy is to try seem inevitable before actual votes have taken place. It may turn out to be a great strategy. We’ll see. But I applaud Obama for calling it out, because clearly he, and the other Dems who are trailing HRC, must to keep their campaigns energized.
<
p>
I think your remark about “ammunition for the Republicans” makes no sense at all. There’s no gain for the ‘Pubs in evoking Bush’s most colossal “misunderestimation.”
have to agree to disagree on this. i felt my response was righ on par with the level of his original remark. you don’t think Obama’s remark was abnoxious. fair enough. but you must realize that some people who otherwise are in agreement with you on a great many things just don’t see it that way.
<
p>
as for repubs benefiting by what he said, sure they do. they benefit every time a dem-dividing wedge can be pushed in just a little deeper. especially when it is dem-originated. they can stay clean, sit back and enjoy the fruit of someone elses labors.
He was charming, funny, able to laugh at himself. This one line, in the context, was very funny and probably the best response he could have made. He was asked how do you respond to the fact that everyone thinks you are going to lose for Pete’s sake.
no, i didn’t see the show, only read the quote. you’re right, of course, that things can be interpreted differently when seen vs. read. if anyone has a link to a clip, i’d like to see it.
from a fundraising email, not from the show (which I didn’t see). The quote in my post is directly from my inbox. So I can’t speak to how it came off on TV.
She’s responsible for the strategy, it doesn’t matter if she has surrogates, friendly bloggers – sorry, I meant to say Internet journalists – and the media saying it for her.
<
p>
I think it’s time for a pool on how long it will take David to explicitly declare his support for Hillary.
I will refrain from commenting on Obama’s joke because I strongly favor Hillary. Even if David eventually endorses her, he’s not her surrogate. He’s not actively blogging for her. I told him off once for telling off Hillary. Boy, did I look foolish. He’s just airing an opinion.
Adam Reilly and Dan Kennedy, our local media bloggers, have weighed in on the Herald story. They’re both more or less of the “what’s the big deal” persuasion. Kennedy:
<
p>
<
p>
Dan elaborates in a comment:
<
p>
<
p>
I’ll count myself among those who think Keller should have tried harder to get the footnotes included (if he tried at all, instead of (as the Herald story suggests) just taking his editor’s advice that they weren’t necessary). I mean, Al Franken’s “Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them” — not exactly an academic work — has 13 pages of endnotes. If he and Dan can do it, so can everyone else.
<
p>
Reilly:
<
p>
<
p>
Ah, the old “present-tense/past-tense” methodology. Of course — how could Dan, Jessica, I, and apparently every other reader of the book other than Adam possibly have missed it? š
<
p>
<
p>
Uh, yeah.
…op-ed columnists are limited to a certain word count. Books, not so much. The analogy seems to be more than a bit fraudulent.
At most U.S. universities.
<
p>
Just another sign that journalists have no real standards, as well as no required professional licensing bodies, I suppose. Maybe they should.
Check out my analysis at Media Nation.
at the same time.
<
p>
So how come you stripped out my link to “Little People”? Read it online for free, buy the hardcover. Plenty of copies still left. š
merely as an annoying talking head who liked to puff himself up as some sort of political expert. I’ve never taken him very seriously, he seems more like a parody of a pundit.
<
p>
But after watching him on TV last week, gobsmacked that polls show Romney couldn’t carry MA against any leading Dem, I realized what a hack he is.
<
p>
Anyone who needed a poll to figure out that Romney is hated in MA, has no business calling himself New England’s top political analyst
<
p>
It’s great that you want to keep reminding everyone that Keller is your friend, and that we need to take your praise of him with a grain salt. Duly noted.
<
p>
Do you consider your friend, Jon Keller, to be ” the most respected political analyst in New England” ?
Because every time I come across his name in print, that’s the tag line associated with him. IMHO, your friend is a world class self promoter, who possesses very limited skills in the arena of political insight.
<
p>
*Especially since most colleges and universities code of conduct stipulates that students who submit work and fail to attribute their sources (Here at UMass Boston, it’s called plagiarism. I’m not sure what it’s called at WBZ…) automatically fail the class and and face expulsion.
<
p>
I love to read non-fiction, the best examples of which always have copious end-notes and citations. I find it infuriating when my interest is piqued and the author does not provide the transparency enabling me to dig deeper. Even if it is decided that Keller and the publisher didn’t plagiarize and everything done was ethically OK, the book not sourcing quotes should frustrate would-be active readers. And not becasue they want to verify his claims, because they might want to read the whole context for themselves to understand Keller’s points better.
<
p>
Perhaps Keller was advised not to provide notes, but whoever made that decision made a bad one, especially since the target audience of a book on Massachusetts politics is well-schooled in the conventions of writing and love love love source materials.
He is something else. A “plagiarist?” (I agree with your comment tblade, and made the same observation higher up before I got down here). Perhaps a “partisan”?
<
p>
The world is crying out for noted etymologist Phil Balboni to enlighten us.
My eighth graders know what plagiarism is, that I’ll figure it out when they do it, and that it’s the unholiest of academic sins.* Most kids these days know that it’s a no-no by the time they’re high school freshman, not college.
<
p>
*But that doesn’t count, as the MCAS doesn’t measure it.
For identifying the attribution issues in Keller’s book long before the current news cycle. We read it here first.