"That divorce is a prominent source of emotional anguish and suffering for children is obvious..." That's the opening of Rowland W. Folensbee Jr. and Florence F. Eddins-Folensbee's book review written six years ago for and published in The Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.
It's also a sentence published in the July 10 Charlotte Sun tab, "Feeling Fit." The news feature writer, Barbara Pierce, did not credit or acknowledge the Folensbees or their academic journal.
What the writer did was enclose that sentence in quotation marks and stuff it into the mouth of divorce researcher Judith S. Wallerstein. (Scroll down to see July 10 post.) The Charlotte Sun's feature writer also attributed another quote to Wallerstein, but that one hasn't yet been located in any of Wallerstein's works.
Pierce's motive may have been to give the story a dose of credibility that she, as a reporter, may have felt unable to deliver -- a local feature that would stand on its own merit. Let's use the Socratic method to see how well that worked.
Three questions are on the board for SCMG's ethics refresher workshop: (1) Should readers be told they've been handed a newspaper story which includes both stolen and apparently fabricated quotes that the writer inserted into the mouth of a person who wasn't interviewed? (2) Should the record be corrected to say one of the quotes comes from a publication that wasn't credited as the source? (3) Should the famous person who was not interviewed receive an apology for being made to appear to be in places where she wasn't, speaking to people she didn't speak to and saying things that she did not say?
Until "Feeling Fit" came along, Old Word Wolf would have considered these to be purely rhetorical questions -- ones in which the answer is universally understood.
Neither tab editor Karin Lillis, tab publisher David Powell, SCMG president David Dunn-Rankin nor writer Barbara Pierce has taken out space to set the record straight so the questions remain open for discussion. Do I see a hand in the back of the room?
This does not fit under the label of plagiarism. Sloppy journalism, perhaps.
ReplyDeleteCopying word-for-word from a source not acknowledged in an honest and transparent way is one of several ways to commit plagiarism. It's also sloppy journalism -- you have that part right.
ReplyDeleteHas it occurred to you that the person quoted might have said it? The interview probably took place over the phone. Most journalists conduct phone interviews for their stories.
ReplyDeleteI saw the tab today and there was no attempt to correct the record. Sad.
ReplyDeleteSee the post from Anonymous 2. How do you know she was misquoted?
ReplyDeleteThe reporter didn't misquote the book reviewers, if that's what you mean. The reporter put the book reviewer's published words into the good doctor's mouth and made it seem as if he had interviewed the doctor. The reporter didn't interview the doctor and we know this is probably true based on the preponderance of the evidence. The usual "said in an interview," is missing. Additional things a famous expert would say in an actual interview are not in the story. When you have a famous expert commenting on a topic, what reporter uses one vague, general rehashed comment instead of giving readers the substance that an actual, it-really-happened phone interview would yield? I think Old Word Wolf astutely pointed out all the evidence in the prior post, including here the actual published source for the quote the good doctor didn't make. You gotta understand: putting words in someone's mouth is more than being "misquoted." You're not reading this whole event objectively or reasonably -- maybe because you've got a horse in this race or else you wouldn't be attempting to defend what is clearly a willful attempt to mislead readers into thinking the expert was present and interviewed, when that's not the case.
ReplyDeleteThere is no proof, other than Old Word Wolf's conjecture, that the doctor did not provide this information to the writer. Unskillfully presented, perhaps. But "probably true" is nothing more than an educated guess. Do you actually have proof from the doctor herself? How did you find out the sources?
ReplyDeleteNo horse in the race. Just an occasional reader of your site.
ReplyDeleteI didn't find out anything. Old Word Wolf did. I think that there's plenty of circumstantial evidence that the reporter did a bad job of it, and the most recent would be that no one has offered any evidence otherwise except to offer lame defenses -- and no exculpatory evidence -- for putting words into the mouths of a person that the reporter didn't interview. I assume if the reporter told OWW, "Yes, I did interview the doctor on the phone from her ski chalet in Canada on July whatever," then I assume OWW would make that known and correct the record.
ReplyDeleteCircumstantial evidence wasn't enough to convict Casey Anthony.
ReplyDelete@Jake, @Anonymous, @Old Hand, and numerous others: Your IP address is 208.51.24.165 (Global Crossing) The Charlotte Sun "Venice." I suggest you reconsider whether you are being honest or ethical when you use your employer's equipment and your probably paid work shift to pursue your personal agenda at this blog. Signed: Old Word Wolf after reviewing the site traffic reports.
ReplyDelete