Recent comments
 | Support J-Source | ||
 | Best online-only article or series | ||
J-Source and ProjetJ are projects of The Canadian Journalism Foundation in collaboration with leading schools and organizations Editor-in-chief, J-Source: | |||
| Support J-Source | ||
| Best online-only article or series | ||
J-Source and ProjetJ are projects of The Canadian Journalism Foundation in collaboration with leading schools and organizations Editor-in-chief, J-Source: | |||
It seems to me that the context for this goes back further. There is at least one article on this site that goes back a year, that wonders if Wente was plagiarizing. What is missing from this timeline is that Wainio's first post about Wente was in May of 2011. And after that, there were many more posts and, I believe, letters to the Globe and Mail.
I think another important piece of the landscape right now, is that no one from the Globe and Mail has actually said that Wente has plagiarized on multiple occasions. They have admitted plagiarism on one occasion; the Dan Gardner case. But even Steve Ladurantaye, who actually reported on this issue for the Globe and Mail on Tuesday, September 25th, would only concede one instance of plagiarism and would only refer to the possibility of a pattern as an allegation.
Today, Thursday the 27th, Terence Corcoran, an editor for the Financial Post wrote that Wente's freedoms as a journalist were infringed upon by a definition of plagiarism invented by the blogosphere, adding that "Ms. Wente, I suspect, now knows something of what it felt like during the Cultural Revolution in China, when ideological enforcers roamed the country to impose their views and expose running-dogs, remove people from their jobs and purge them from the system."
Not a good day for Canadian Journalism.
When was J-Source first aware of allegations concerning Margaret Wente's plagiarism, and what did it do about them?
If Wente had been an intern, that would have been the end of her career. Newsrooms are sending a strong message to young reporters. Stay in the same job for long enough and you can get away with anything.
Wish I had remembered it was Yvan Courneyer, not Jean :(
Thanks, j-source. This is an outstanding aggregation of reporting and commentary about a subject that has been difficult to follow in its full scope because there are so many threads. Lots of stuff here I hadn't seen and m might never have found on my own. An excellent service to the j-community!
It has been instructive to follow the Margaret Wente matter as more and more media experts weigh in, including Roy Greenslade on Tuesday’s CBC program As it Happens.
From personal experience with the Globe & Mail, the CBC as well as Mr Greenslade, The Guardian for which he writes and other Canadian and UK media outlets, it is my view is that this is much greater than a mere matter of plagiarism. But rather, it touches on the broader subject of media ethics, accountability, competency, fairness, and straight dealing with the public. At its core is the question of whose interests are being served; the public or the publisher’s commercial interests? Those who study the media (connection technology) landscape are not unmindful that one cannot separate market conditions or business models from the good or bad behaviour of the foot soldiers who undertake their superior’s bidding or who personally set out on their freedom of speech/democracy crusades with polarising flair.
As the demands and expectations grow of those asked to deliver an ever increasing amount of content, yet with fewer resources, one can be somewhat sympathetic to the plight of the contemporary journalist/reporter/commentator trying to stay employed. And yet, when it comes to factual accuracy, balanced reporting or in this case, plagiarism, the double standard which seems to prevail across a great deal of the media landscape, is perhaps one of the most unsettling for the public to accept...and nor should they. Due to a regrettable resistance from many in the media to admit or address certain wrongs or criticisms, and a propensity to look after their own, one must be incredibly tenacious as Ms Wainio has been or ‘obsessive” as Ms Wente and as her editor would like to frame her. Regrettably, Mr Stackhouse and Ms Stead exhibit the all too familiar and contemptible response by framing the complainer in a derogatory way , in this case “an anonymous blogger” or as someone who was “obsessive” rather than dealing with the issue squarely.
I have read most of Ms Wainio’s blog on this subject, and I personally find her restrained, measured and thorough. I am ever so grateful for this, for even though she may not be an accredited journalist, her case is well laid out and allows the public to decide for themselves without being told what to think...an approach many working in the media may want to revisit.
Ms Wente in turn, has the luxury of being the accused with a national outlet to defend herself, and quite promptly. For many others erroneously or falsely covered in a news story, they must resort to the lottery of having a letter to the editor published, or consider bringing proceedings against a media outlet which is no small, inexpensive or predictable process, in an attempt to correct the record, or defend their reputation as Ms Wente seems so concerned about hers. In the case of Mark Steyn’s story on Muslims in Canada, even a request for a rebuttal can be refused. It brings to mind that free speech doesn’t really fulfil it’s destiny until it is equally accessible to all and that such fierce and unreasonable gate keeping and lack of accountability is completely antithetical to the spirit of free speech. It brings nothing but shame on a profession with whom we the public must trust our perceptions and opinions each day when we allow ourselves to consume their words.
As the UK’s Leveson Inquiry so forcefully revealed, the media, and particularly the privately owned and commercial media, needs a proper accountability mechanism, now more than ever. Not a PCC or Press Council which can resemble a fox in charge of the hen house, but rather a strong, independent regulatory body through which grievances can be fairly adjudicated and responded to without encumbering the courts or making the path of the offended so onerous that they give up.
As a member of PEN and as a creative artist, I am a strong proponent for free speech. However, those holding the “pen” need to appreciate that they have a duty of care to the public when it comes to are fair, balanced and accurate reporting and commentary. When caught out they need to undertake the same courtesy as any responsible business does, which is, to respond to the offended subject or the concerned customer rather than treating them with contempt, and when necessary to exhibit the same transparency of consequences as they demand of the rest of society. Otherwise, freedom of speech becomes freedom to bully where nobody wins.
I think that even though he states "This wasn't theft for personal gain, it was theft born of sloth.", any so called professional writer should know that in this day and age, though they have alotted so much to the world of "writing", it is still required of them to follow basic rules which have been taught since highschool. Nowadays, you have to know something as basic as this. If you are taking an idea from someone else, quote the person. It's pretty simple, really. I say any veteran/experienced writer should face the full brunt of the consequence, if caught plagiarising.
Much of the concern over plagiarism - and many of the instances that have been found and publicized - derives from the fact that we now have an easily accessible, bottomless source of texts and the programs to compare them. It may be that we once put together articles from a variety of sources, particularly if we wanted to pad out a feature or an anemic news item; at Thomson newspapers the drive to make all items appear to have originated locally resulted in leads being taken off (frequently with bylines and datelines) and rewritten - this was supposed to increase local content and consequently up the cost of advertising.
And there is another point. We talk a great deal these days of integrity, in politics, in business and in journalism. But even that is a very recent thing. If you want to get a sense of how dirty political campaigns used to be, read any speech by any pol from the 19th century; we all know that dirty business tricks are still in the process of being rooted out. And who could ever forget Hearst and his yellow journalism? not a lot of concern there about integrity, plagiarism, truth.
Notwithstanding the fact that our society as a whole has been undergoing a sea change, if one plagiarizes one should pay the price. One should always attribute. If the attribution seems awkward in the flow of the story, then the story should be rewritten. Even at that, there will be errors - we are after all human, and that's what we do, we make mistakes. Then the mature thing is to acknowledge the error. Relatively painless and guaranteed to be seen positively. Trying to hide behind the higher-ups will, in the end, only blow up in one's face.
Increasingly, it appears as if The Globe and Mail's public-editor office was not designed to conduct independent investigations into serious complaints about the paper's journalistic practices.
To have a chance of success, such offices require structural independence from the newsroom and the freedom to investigate public complaint without fear or favour.
It goes without saying that public editors or ombuds require the publisher's unflinching support, regardless of their opinions and judgments in cases they handle.
At a minimum, a public editor or ombud needs unfettered access to the print edition, where he or she is free to report to readers on a regular basis.
The objective ought to be a newsroom culture of openness and accountability, and an ongoing dialogue between readers and journalists on ethics, standards and practices in the craft.
Until they redouble efforts to confront issues in their own journalism, mainstream newspapers everywhere will continue put their credibility at risk.
On Sturday, 21/9/12, the Globe posted an updated article by Stead on this fracas (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/community/inside-the-globe/public-editor-we-investigate-all-complaints-against-our-writers/article4559295/comments/).
Two points.
1 - Prof. Carol Wainio is insultingly referred to by Ms. Stead as "an anonymous blogger". I find that jejune attitude highly insulting, as if Prof. Wainio were one of the thousands of people whose writing abilities and/or comments were sub-par, ignored, and worthless.
2 - Its usual policy on monitoring comments is for the Globe to replace those offensive posts with the note: This comment has violated our Terms and Conditions, and has been removed.
However, in this article's comments section one finds numerous instances of : "My comment, in which I linked to the original allegation and pointed out that there were allegations made against several of Wente's pieces over the years was just removed. :("
As another comment put it ". . . by removing all trace of your comment, you can't contest it."
This seriously damages the perception of the paper's integrity, which the Globe is always at pains to trumpet. And readers are enraged:
"The Globe cares more about saving Wente than saving its own credibility. Carol Waino has been raising this issue for years and the Globe has been willfully blind. Waino has nailed Wente dead to rights on an ongoing pattern of plagiarism. Not only should Wente go, but it's obvious Stead has seriously hurt the paper, too."
If I were running the paper I think I would clean house, beginning with inept management, following with bad writers (among which I'd include plagiarists) and ending with the nepotism that is the other mainstay of the readers' ongoing ineffectually angry hilarity.
"Stead said there had been Editor's Notes issued in the past".
HOW MANY editor's notes does the Mope and Wail require as justification for disciplinary action and/or termination??? one gets the sense here that in Wente's case they will never reach the required level. The problem is that it injures the reputation of the newspaper and plants ideas into the heads of young journos coming up who have had no experience of the working world, where some people can just go on and on without consequences. As always, one is not rewarded for one's work but for whom one knows.
One thing really stuck out to me when he said "One of the existential threats to journalism is that people don't really care that much about where stuff comes from". When I read this, the first thing I thought about was twitter. When people see many others talking about a certain subject, they automatically believe it's true because everyone else is saying the same thing, but one thing they fail to do is fact check, which is why when he said "One of the existential threats to journalism is the fact that people don't really care that much about where stuff comes from." People can be reading and believing anything the news is feeding them, but it may not be true.
One thing I found funny is that many "older" journalists are having to reorient themselves to new technology because those are the means in which the news will be coming from now and years to come.
So Mitt Romney would like us to believe that the comments he made would have differed if he had "elegantly stated" them, rather than issuing them off-the-cuff, which suggests a flick of the wrist to shove off a few unruly flakes - perhaps of dandruff, caused by the broiling of his scalp by his rather overheated brain.
Given that there would be numerous occasions in a presidential future in which he would have to make off-the-cuff remarks, one can only shudder -
and duck.
While I agree with much of what you say here, I wonder how banning all religious symbols except the crucifix can be considered anything but racist (or creedist to be more precise)?
If she don't like the questions; she don't have to answer them. It worked at the Whitehouse. If she wants free and credible press coverage she has to let the press operate according to Canadian rules. In the press game, no game is won by default if the team doesn't show. Maintien le Droit - defend the law can also be interpreted maintain the right or the freedom, the RCMP put it on their cap badge but they don't practice it. They set a poor example to the UAE of freedom of the press.
As a full time male freelancer I'm curious to see women in the lower earning group because from my experience women's magazines and publications are the ones more likely to thrive because women more than men tend to buy and subscribe to magazines and websites.
Granted, its a male perspective but that observation - subjective as it is - aside the rest of the piece is bang on though I often wonder if those reported incomes are after deductions, ie net, or gross incomes since I have about $20,000 in deductions which helps me bring my tax rate way down and subsidize my lifestyle. Let's not forget that my cell, computers, TV, cable, internet, car, gas, travel expenses and portion of my house and related expenses are all deductible.
Freelancers who work at home also save a bundle on commuting costs, clothes, food and sundry expenses that drain office workers' accounts.
Still, it's true earning a living as a freelancer is increasingly difficult. Rates are frozen, budgets limited, publications are folding left and right. I salute the CFU, CWG and others who are out there fighting for us.
I'm a single parent with a single income. This year I made contact with an editor through CWG and was thrilled to be commissioned for 1,800 words at $1 a word. Everything went great. Then I went back to the editor to talk about the next assignment. Sorry, the publication is being closed. She is now working as an editor elsewhere in the publishing giants' portfolio.
What many of us have done is rely on our experience. I have 35 years in this biz, the last eight as a full time freelancer. These days, to pay my mortgage, I have had to diversify.
I dabble in corporate communications, stage media training seminars with mock on camera interviews, advise small agencies on story hooks and outreach strategies, I also write press releases, ghost write contributed content and op-ed columns and from time to time, pitch releases and chase editors and reporters for coverage of clients.
(I should note I have never and will never cross mingle. Once I've picked up a client file I don't cross over and generate story pitches for myself and I don't touch them on the J side. So far all the clients have been in sectors about as far away from what I generally write about on the J side as you can get so it's worked out well.)
I've even edited and packaged a legacy press book for a deep pocket client who wants to leave his memoirs for his unborn great grandkids.
Corporate clients know what they want, pay on time and pay well. I charge $75 an hour and they don't blink. I could probably charge more if I had more clients (supply and demand) but I really don't want to get too dependent on the corporate side because I love journalism too much.
At the same time I also write for 35-cents a word. It may seem incongruous but I can make $60 to $75 an hour and never less than $50. Trade magazines pay 35-cents a word but they are happy with well written stories, with good quotes that bring life to otherwise dull subjects. And they want stories in the 800 to 1,000 word range. I can knock out a 1,000 words in a couple of hours with an hour or two for research and maybe a couple of interviews. Work fast and with discipline and you can make money. But it's hard and 25 years in daily newspapers comes in handy.
Finally, it's interesting to see that the only published study is PWAC 2006 survey and while I acknowledge the 200 interviews are useful too, it would be interesting to see what the post 2008 numbers look like on a larger sample.
The meltdown and recession have ground in to my income. I felt the sting in 2009 and saw my income drop 40 per cent or more. By 2011 it had started to level back off but I'm still behind where I would have been had the 2007-2008 trend line for revenues continued.
Oh, and my client list - including what constitutes regular clients - is also dramatically different. I will also add that trades and speciality publications (associations and organizations) have magazines and websites and commission stories and it seems to be the one stable field of publishing income compared to mainstream media.
Freelancing today means hustling, diversifying, never saying no but not working for free. I'm hanging on to see where the ride goes when the economy finally does pick up. I might have to get a job at Wal Mart but I'm not going to quit freelancing.
The deductions are just too good!
To Maurice Switizer , my name is ben pouget ( Ipperwash) please read my profile ( there is more to this Ipperwash story) WES CAM was activated at 10000 feet on sept. 6th 1995 at 8pm the Murder was at or about 1103pm that night WES CAM was also USED in B.C. Canada by the RCMP which was used in there court case . I was in the room with the judge & lawyers& SIU when the Rules were set out about mussel flashes & what was going to be entered as evidence //// 313 643 1735 cell//// please call Peter Edwards Toronto Star & Lynette Fortune 5th Estate they Know who I am ( there was lots of Evidence not allowed to be entered military , police , how many times Dudley was shot 3 times ,
Hi Cynthia,
That link to the study appears to no longer be active, but I found this, which seems to lend the same conclusions: http://www.thenewspaperworks.com.au/files/dmfile/ReadingBetweenTheLines.CNA.pdf
How do I download this study? I keep getting an error message when I click on 'the report'.
Re the homophobic Christian TV, the anodyne source linked to omits the substantive reason for the decision. From the CBSC media release at http://www.cbsc.ca/english/documents/prs/2012/120829.php:
"The Panel noted that religious programs are allowed to declare homosexuality a sin, but that It’s Your Call crossed the line by allowing program participants to accuse homosexuals of a malicious 'agenda' to 'recruit' and 'brainwash' children and of having a propensity to commit violent crimes such as rape targeting straight people."
For the inaccurate information finding, one must go to the decision itself at http://www.cbsc.ca/english/decisions/2012/120829.php:
"The Panel finds that allegations about the new curriculum being designed to teach children 'how to' be homosexual and about teaching practices such as anal sex to children as young as grade 3 are simply erroneous. The episodes also contained other misleading or inaccurate information about topics such as statements made by professional medical associations and what is agreed upon as 'scientific fact'."
the figures for the benchmark rate (5yrs) in the thomson-reuters colum for reporters/deskmen/photographers appear to be incorrect:
After 5 Years 1,586.31 1,576.15 1,591.91 1,599.87
without even adding the percentage raise you can see that the second figure, which should be higher than the first as it represents the first raise, is lower.
(omit first figure) correct figures should be
1594.24 1610.18 1618.23
representing these raises
0.50% 1.00% 0.50%
Effective Effective Effective
1-Jan-12 1-Apr-12 1-Jan-13
Besides Mr. Naumetz's unprofessional mistake is the issue that Leslie has an inbox filled with hate mail. Be it Leslie's or Elizabeth May's inbox - what's with the hatred? Who are these hateful people?
I don't know where this average comes from or how old it is - it seems very high. Perhaps the median would be a better illustration. Community papers, where most J-school grads will end up if they're lucky, start reporters at $25,000 to $30,000 and don't give raises. You don't like it, you leave. There are scads of fresh-faced wannabe adventurers to take your place. And there really aren't that many big daily-paper jobs to go around. Which brings me to point number two: if you factor in all the freelancers, and journalists who don't manage to work full-time, what is the *real* average wage of a journalist? This article has not answered this particular question.
The first necessary change in the act would be to rename it The Control of Information Act, reflecting its true purpose.
Typo.