|
Media Matters
October 22, 2003
How Not to Be a Radio Plagiarist
By Jeffrey A. Dvorkin
Ombudsman
National Public Radio
Plagiarize/ 1. v.t. Take and use as one's own (the thoughts, writings, inventions, etc., of another person); copy (literary works, ideas, etc.) improperly or without acknowledgement; pass off the thoughts, works, etc. of (another person) as one's own. 2. v.i. Practise or commit plagiarism.
That's how the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines it.
Louis Hodges is an eminent professor of journalistic ethics at Washington & Lee University in Lexington, Va. He asked, in light of the recent events at The New York Times, if the rules against plagiarism in broadcasting are substantially different from those rules for print journalists.
The answer is an emphatic "No." There are rules against plagiarism at NPR, just as there are for any serious print outlets and for other reputable broadcasters. But there are differences that specifically relate to the nature of the radio and television media compared to print.
Professor Hodges got me thinking about those dubious moments in broadcast journalism where the listeners might be led into believing one thing where another (possibly unintended) consequence was sought.
"Oops… "
Some are accidental. In the rush to deadline, mistakes are made. Few are deliberate, nor do the "perps" deserve to be fired for a first offense. But a clear explanation of practices and policies in a news organization go a long way to keeping mistakes -- both great and small, deliberate and accidental -- from getting on the radio.
Plagiarism is worse because it is often deliberate. It is where there is a distortion in order to change the meaning and editorial content of a story or to cover up the inadequacies of the reporting.
A deliberately and consciously dishonest act of plagiarism is a fire-able offense in most news organizations.
I have not heard of cases of plagiarism at NPR. But there have been occasional and inadvertent errors. So here is a restatement of some of the pitfalls of plagiarism.
Rules to Live By in News:
- Identify the Source. Audio or video from another source requires telling the listener that it comes from the BBC or CBS or wherever. The listener might be left with the assumption that the reporter actually got the interview him or herself. In those cases, the reporter should always identify the source.
- Record the Sound. In wartime reports, one bomb sounds much like another to the untrained ear. But the sound of explosions must come from the event being reported, not from previous reports or "stock" footage.
- Sound effects. These should NEVER be used in news. A radio reporter of my acquaintance once filed a story on the failing Atlantic fish industry. The editor rejected the story as "dull," and said it needed some audio from the harbor. The reporter, close on deadline, knew he could not get down to the docks and back in time. So he found some tapes of seagulls in the library. A listener who happened to be an renowned ornithologist said he was astonished to hear a Great Lakes seagull in a story from Newfoundland -- more than 2,000 miles to the east!
- Overwriting. While writing for the ear should always be "visual" and allow the listener to imagine the scene, the writing should not be melodramatic. A reporter must not allow his or her emotions to color the story by injecting an emotional intensity that is not there. It is suggested that overwritten stories from overwrought reporters should be rewritten without adverbs or adjectives as a corrective. This is not plagiarism in the strictest sense, but overwriting can introduce a false emotional tone.
- "Sign-offs." This is the audio signature in radio. The reporter identifies him or herself, the news organization and the dateline or place where he or she has done the report. The phrasing of a "sign-off" usually evokes intense internal debates at NPR. Some stories will have only "Jane Doe, NPR News" as a sign-off. This indicates that the reporter may not have actually been on the scene but has assembled the story from wire copy.
Other reporters will have interviews from a variety of locations: Mosul, Baghdad and Istanbul, to quote one recent report from Ivan Watson on NPR. Watson filed the report to NPR from Istanbul. But he had interviews he had gathered some days before from inside Iraq. Rather than leave the impression that he was recently at all those places that day, he signed-off "Ivan Watson, NPR News." This is to avoid the issue raised in the recent New York Times imbroglio, when a reporter used a dateline but was never physically in that place.
It's better (in my opinion) to have the reporter sign off from the place where he or she gathered the information, no matter if the editing of the report occurs hours or even days later. It lends an element of credibility for the listeners to state that the reporter actually witnessed the event. (Note to NPR staff: Hold your complaints, please. I know I'm in a minority on this). Hearing a sign-off that says "Jane Doe, NPR News" still sounds strangely "non-reportorial" to me.
Why Not Plagiarize?
Those are some examples of how plagiarism can happen. There are surely others. A more important question is if a little plagiarism makes the story sound better, and it doesn't REALLY distort the story, and no one is the wiser, why not do it?
Because it's a lie that ultimately damages the bond of trust that must exist between journalists and the listeners.
These questionable practices cause the listeners and viewers to doubt the veracity of all the reporting. If the reliability of the journalism is in doubt, then reporting has no function.
Reporters and producers use what are called "production values" to make stories come alive. NPR does this extremely well. But an over-reliance on technological gimmickry in television may actually be lowering the public's trust of that medium, according to some experts. That should not be allowed to happen in radio.
A checklist for radio producers and journalists:
- Is there a point where the legitimate desire to make a story more enticing to the listener or the viewer goes against the obligation for strict accuracy?
- Does broadcast journalism have to be dull to be credible?
- Can producers use their considerable skills and available technology to give a report a "rich sound" that honestly engages the listener yet remains true to the reporting of the events?
- How do journalists know when they have crossed the line into "infotainment?"
These are some of the questions that news producers in broadcast journalism need to ask themselves every day.
Listeners can contact me at 202-513-3245 or by email at ombudsman@npr.org.
Jeffrey Dvorkin
NPR Ombudsman
|
