Saturday, September 22, 2007

The Daily Plagiarist

This morning's DeSoto Sun carries a long piece headlined “Fighting DUI Carnage: A new approach” (Our Town, p. 5) by staff writer Mia Dickerson. Her article appears to be copied word-for-word from several sources, contains factual errors derived from those sources, and uses what appear to be several composite characters.

First, regarding composite characters: The publisher ran a long and stern piece in this newspaper last year promising readers his paper would never use anonymous sources or fictionalized characters. Mia Dickerson’s essay undermines that promise. There is no evidence in the nature of the report that would provide a good reason to “protect the privacy” of the mother, daughter, boyfriend, or drunk driver.

The next red flag suggesting fiction is information that’s carelessly and tritely presented: what’s a typical Sunday? Boyfriends aren’t usually relatives (“...her boyfriend and two other relatives...”). I’m not sure how both characters could see into a rearview mirror, as Dickerson reports, which is usually set for the driver. What's the antecedent of "their" in three pronoun references in the fifth graf? In short, I see no reason to award privacy to “Sara” and “Lauren.” Are they afraid of retaliation? Who was the drunk driver? Why is Dickerson protecting his/her privacy? Did this happen in Polk County? When -- last week, last month? What roadway? What was the disposition of any charges? How did FHP respond?

If the first six paragraphs stink of fiction, the next section reeks of plagiarism.

Here’s the first whiff of rotten reporting: A Web site run by an Orlando personal injury attorney . The Orlando personal injury lawyer's site is word-for-word the same as Dickerson’s next paragraphs.
Ms. Dickerson writes: "More than half of the 414 passengers ages 14 and younger who died in alcohol-related crashes during 2006 were riding with a drinking driver, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

"Each year, alcohol-related crashes in the United States cost about $51 billion, the organization said.

"Alcohol is a major factor in traffic accidents. According to the NHTSA, there is an alcohol-related traffic fatality every 29 minutes.

"In 2006, 17,941 people died in alcohol-related accidents, the highest level since 1992. More than 41 percent of all crash fatalities in 2006 were because of drunk drivers, according to NHTSA.

"The FBI estimates that more than 1.4 million drivers were arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol or narcotics (DUI) in 2004, the most recent year for which data is available.

"The definition of a drunk driver is consistent throughout the United States. Every state (including the District of Columbia) defines impairment as driving with a blood alcohol content at or above 0.08 percent. All states have zero tolerance laws prohibiting drivers under the age of 21 from drinking and driving.

"Drinking drivers age 21 to 34 are responsible for more alcohol-related fatal crashes than any other age group, NHTSA said. They also are more likely to become repeat offenders, and less likely to change their drinking and driving behavior."
And now, her apparent source:

"Posted On: August 29, 2007 by Tony Caggiano Alcohol-Related Car Accidents Alcohol is a major factor in traffic accidents. As Orlando car accident lawyers we see too many needless tragedies. According to the NHTSA, there is an alcohol-related traffic fatality every 29 minutes. More than half of the 414 passengers ages 14 and younger who died in alcohol-related crashes during 2006 were riding with a drinking driver, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).Each year, alcohol-related crashes in the United States cost about $51 billion, the organization said. In 2006, 17,941 people died in alcohol-related accidents, the highest level since 1992. More than 41 percent of all crash fatalities in 2006 were because of drunk drivers, according to NHTSA. The FBI estimates that more than 1.4 million drivers were arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol or narcotics (DUI) in 2004, the most recent year for which data is available. The definition of a drunk driver is consistent throughout the United States. Every state (including the District of Columbia) defines impairment as driving with a blood alcohol content at or above 0.08 percent. All states have zero tolerance laws prohibiting drivers under the age of 21 from drinking and driving. Drinking drivers age 21 to 34 are responsible for more alcohol-related fatal crashes than any other age group, NHTSA said. They also are more likely to become repeat offender, and less likely to change their drinking and driving behavior. Obviously much more needs to be done to make our roadways safe from those who drink and drive. Whether it is tougher laws or better enforcement too many innocent victims and their families suffer each year. Posted by Tony Caggiano Permalink Email This Post Posted In: Car Accidents

Maybe she didn’t copy from this particular site; but if that’s the case, then she and the Orlando lawyer have a source in common – and neither is telling readers where the words originate.

In addition to appearing to have copied from a common source, both the Orlando lawyer and the local writer are incorrect in stating that 2004 is the “most recent year for which data is [sic] available.” The NHTSA posts several sets of DUI-related data at its Web site for the years 2005 and 2006.

Next in the local story, Ms. Dickerson attributes the statement that 50 percent of U.S. drivers arrested for drunk driving are repeat offenders to a Web site called 1st Alcoholism Treatment . A quick visit to this site uncovers a very “iffy” source: It consists primarily of links to self-help books for sale, is poorly spelled and ungrammatical in its original material, and provides no source for most of its assertions. In fact, try as I might, I cannot actually locate the fact Ms. Dickerson uses.

Next, Ms. Dickerson refers to an unnamed Ohio man with 12 DUI's who killed two college students in "early 2006." This might be the man named at Web sites that archive news items from the northeast Ohio towns of Hiram, Marion and Akron. Every one of these sources reports 11 DUI convictions, not 12, for James Cline of Geauga County, Ohio, who was behind the wheel of a pickup truck that killed two Hiram College students in March 2006. The figure of 12 DUI’s appears only on a Web page attributed to Denny Soinski, the very Ph.D. Ms. Dickerson quotes a few paragraphs later. I’ll skip the problem of this man’s Ph.D. and authority and go on to the next evidence of Ms. Dickerson’s plagiarism.

The wording of a California Web site offering to expunge DUI records appears to have a common source with the wording used by Ms. Dickerson.
Ms. Dickerson’s wording: Misdemeanor cases are handled in the county court system and punishment may include an adjudication of guilt, a fine, incarceration in the county jail and supervised probation. Felony crimes are handled in circuit criminal court and punishment can include an adjudication of guilt, supervised probation or house arrest, incarceration in state prison and significant fines. The Web site reads:
"Misdemeanor charges are handled in the County Court System in CA and punishment may include an admission of guilt, a fine, incarceration in the CA County Jail and supervised probation. A felony charge is considered a lot more serious than a misdemeanor and is ranked in increasing range of severity from Third to First Degree in CA. Felony crimes are handled in Circuit Criminal Court and punishment can include an admission of guilt, significant terms of supervised probation or house arrest, long terms of incarceration in CA State Prison and huge fines. It may be possible to seal or expunge your prior misdemeanor or criminal record."
There’s more. Web site posted by a group called ACA-USA titled “DUI Courts Web Site,” posts a page carrying the by-line of Judge J. Michael Kavanaugh of Bernalillo (N.M.) Metro Drug Court Program reads exactly like Ms. Dickerson's copy. Here's a side-by-side comparison of four excerpts.

Kavanaugh’s wording on his Web page: Drug addiction and the related criminal behavior have been a scourge in our society, clogging the entire legal system and filling the jails and prisons. The theory behind drug court is to create a fully coordinated, team-based approach to address the multiple issues facing the addicted offender - especially treatment for the addiction. Dickerson’s wording: Drug addiction and the related criminal behaviors have been a scourge in our society, clogging the entire legal system and filling the jails and prisons," said District Judge J. Michael Kavanaugh of Bernalillo County, N.M.
My concern: The local writer put quotation marks around the sentence, which is good. However, her presentation gives readers the impression she interviewed the judge. I don’t believe she did. She should be required, by all the standards of journalism, to paraphrase and add something along of the lines of “...said on his Web page,” or “said in a press release” so readers are not left with the impression Ms. Dickerson visited New Mexico to get the quotation.

Judge Kavanaugh’s Web Page goes on: Recidivism rates of drug-court graduates in Miami have dropped to 11 percent, compared to a typical 60 percent rate for those offenders processed through the non-drug court system. Dickerson’s wording follows in kind: Recidivism rates of drug court graduates in Miami have dropped to 11 percent, compared to a typical 60 percent rate for those offenders processed through the traditional court system, according to cdc.gov.
My concern: Dickerson takes a quote from Kavanaugh’s Web page and attributes it to what appears to be a Centers for Disease Control Web site. I’ve scoured the CDC for this tidbit, and cannot find it. I believe the local writer added the “attribution” to make it appear as if she had located this statistic from a credible source.

Kavanaugh’s Web Page goes on: Unlike the traditional criminal case model, where the judge has little or no contact with a defendant, the Drug court judge becomes an integral part of the treatment team. The judge participates in pre-court case reviews, where the treatment provider, probation officer, and judge discuss the individual's progress. Dickerson’s wording: Unlike the traditional criminal case model, where the judge has little or no contact with a defendant, the DUI court judge becomes an integral part of the treatment team. The judge participates in pre-court case reviews, in which treatment providers, probation officer, and judge discuss each client's progress.
My concern: I’m now on the third paragraph that not only appears to copy a Web site, but the paragraphs keep rolling along in exactly the same order. Ms. Dickerson appears to have redacted some of the original’s intervening material, but her order and organization and presentation of the information is a mirror image of the original.

Kavanaugh’s Web Page goes on: This frequent contact and communication between the judge and the defendant creates a very paternal-like relationship between them. Dickerson’s wording: This approach can create a parental-like bond between the judge and the clients. My concern: The minor word changes (paternal to parental) here and in one or two other instances appears to suggest that the writer senses she’s doing something wrong and may be trying to disguise the problem by changing a word here or there.

Ms. Dickerson reports the local 10th Circuit is establishing the “first comprehensive DUI court in the state.” Five paragraphs later, she says a Miami drug court has reduced recidivism to 11-percent (from what?). I can guess that Polk's court is the first “comprehensive” program because the Miami program includes drug charges (??), but perhaps not. Making readers guess and scratch their heads not nice. She never bothers to explain the relationship between Polk’s “comprehensive” program and Miami’s long-established (1989) drug court. She simply expects readers to assume Miami’s drug court doesn’t count as a DUI program for the purposes of Polk County boosterism, but then she does count it as supporting data. Which is it, really? Readers can’t tell.

This article contains a dozen more faults, holes and editorial oversights that need to be addressed, but I’ll simply leave it at this starter-kit of evidence for the editors to pursue on their own.
Oww

1 comment:

  1. I may be guilty of bad writing, but not horrible, deceptive writing. Huzzah! for the grammar mavens, plagiarism police, and all other superheroes!
    By the way, your apostrophe in the left column renders on my browser as an open quote.

    ReplyDelete