Did this AP reporter commit plaigarism? Should I turn them in?

[zuma]

This should probably be in the pit… I dunno… I was a journalism student for a while before going into another field.

Look at this story concerning cassava poisoning in the phillipines. I was kind of interested and did a google search on cassava. I found a little tripod site where it looks like this “reporter” lifted whole sentences.

From the AP article:

The roots of the cassava plant, a major crop in Southeast Asia and other parts of the world, are rich in protein, minerals and vitamins A, B and C. However, it is poisonous without proper preparation. Eaten raw, the human digestive system will convert part of it into cyanide. Even two cassava roots contain a fatal dose.

from the tripod site:

and it is now an important crop there and in Indonesia and Southeast Asia. It is the principal source of nutrition for about 500 million people. Its leaves are edible but the prize is its starchy root, rich in protein, minerals and vitamins A, B and C.

Surprising for an important edible plant, it is quite poisonous without proper preparation. The toxin in cassava is called linamarin. It is chemically similar to sugar but with a CN ion attached. When eaten raw, the human digestive system will convert this to cyanide poison. Even two cassava roots contain a fatal dose of poison.

This is bullshit. This “reporter” googled the term and didn’t offer attribution.

So should I call him/her on this, or just forget about it?

[zuma]

Sorry… the tripod site:

http://members.tripod.com/c_rader0/cassava.htm

[GorillaMan]

It’s sloppy journalism, but I don’t think it’s really close enough to plagiarism that anybody would be interested. It’s not an integral part of the story, but background information, which is merely a list of facts. Would you be as concerned if he’d borrowing such information from an encyclopedia, or from the Big Book of Cassava?

[Finagle]

Well, to be fair, the tripod site doesn’t contain any citations either. So they may have lifted that whole paragraph from somewhere else.

Is citing sources common in news articles? When was the last time you saw an AP article with footnotes?

[zuma]

Yeah… but I also worry that this idiot is taking a random tripod site as gospel, too.

The least they could have done is consult an herbologist, or someone qualified, rather than present an almost word-for-word unattributed quote from a random internet site.

[astro]

Lazy but

1: It’s moved just around enough that they can limbo past the plagarism bar

2: It’s a short technical description that had to be pulled tpogether in a hurry. His/her superiors are unlikely to care all that much.

[Long_Time_First_Time]

Those two citations - the AP story and the tripod site don’t even sound very similiar.

They impart about the same info, but that’s about it.

There are only so many ways to give the important facts about a plant in 2 sentences. It’s very possible the AP writer hadn’t even checked that site.

[GorillaMan]

@Finagle

Well, to be fair, the tripod site doesn’t contain any citations either. So they may have lifted that whole paragraph from somewhere else.

Try clicking the ‘back’ link on that page. And a quick Google places the author in MIT - albeit not a biologist!

[astro]

Even the CNN article lifts a sentence fragment

Cassava is a starchy, tuberous root that is a low-cost source of carbohydrates in humid, tropical areas; it is also the source of tapioca.

Cassava contains amino acid-derived cyanogenic glucosides – some more than others – and must be thoroughly cooked to remove toxic levels.

Eaten raw, the human digestive system will convert part of it into cyanide. Two cassava roots contain enough to be fatal.

When eaten raw, the human digestive system will convert this to cyanide poison

In the US we know cassava as tapoica.

[zuma]

@Long Time First Time

Those two citations - the AP story and the tripod site don’t even sound very similiar.

They impart about the same info, but that’s about it.

There are only so many ways to give the important facts about a plant in 2 sentences. It’s very possible the AP writer hadn’t even checked that site.

Come on… he/she shuffled a few words around. This person saw that site.

[GorillaMan]

@Long Time First Time

Those two citations - the AP story and the tripod site don’t even sound very similiar.

They impart about the same info, but that’s about it.

There are only so many ways to give the important facts about a plant in 2 sentences. It’s very possible the AP writer hadn’t even checked that site.

Not a chance. It’s a definite lift - the alterations that exist are there precisely for it to make sense without the culled sections sentences.

[D_Odds]

@zuma

Come on… he/she shuffled a few words around. This person saw that site.

So?

Pick up today’s newspaper, and tell me how many citations, footnotes or other research acknowledgements you find? Do you believe that the man writing about electrical power plants today and water refinery tomorrow is a PhD engineer able to speak freely on both topics? Or do you think they go out and research it, ask a few questions, and write an article in as short a time as possible? For all you know, he could have gone to an encyclopaedia the same as the author of the tripod site, MIT grad or not.

Don Quixote, tilting at the windmill will come to no good.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@D_Odds

So?

Pick up today’s newspaper, and tell me how many citations, footnotes or other research acknowledgements you find?

Tons. Usually they’re in the context of, “Firk ding blast,” said Huey P. Newton, Dean of Swearing at Goddamn University. They don’t get to say that firk ding blast without mentioning where they got the information.

Citing your sources is a major component of mainstream journalism.

Daniel

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

Some examples, with the source citations bolded:

From the first story at www.nytimes, the first sentence:

WASHINGTON, March 8 - A commission due to report to President Bush this month will describe American intelligence on Iran as inadequate to allow firm judgments about Iran’s weapons programs, according to people who have been briefed on the panel’s work.

From the first story at cnn.com, third paragraph down:

According to Qaim hospital director Dr. Hamdi al-Aloussi, all of the victims were shot in the forehead.

From the first story at guardian.co.uk:

Earlier Hugh Orde, the chief constable of Northern Ireland, said the IRA had intended the members who murdered Mr McCartney to be killed rather than kneecapped when it offered to shoot them.

In this case, the journalist should have tracked down the particular person who wrote the website, and said, “According to scientist Whatever P. Whatever, cassava…”

Daniel

[astro]

I’ve come the conclusion that citing your sources is a major component of mainstream journalism.

[sub]Ibid -Left Hand of Dorkness. " Straight Dope Message Board > In My Humble Opinion > Did this AP reporter commit plaigarism? Should I turn them in? Reply to Thread
."Chicago Reader, Inc. - Straight Dope Message Board 9 Mar. 2005: 10:21 AM. [/sub]

[GorillaMan]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

In this case, the journalist should have tracked down the particular person who wrote the website, and said, “According to scientist Whatever P. Whatever, cassava…”

Nonsense. The properties of cassava are a factual matter. Your examples are of contentious issues, where the identification of the speaker is integral to the story. Would you insist on getting authoritative assertions such as “According to Dr Newton, the falling block of ice hit the ground at over 100mph”?

[D_Odds]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

Tons. Usually they’re in the context of, “Firk ding blast,” said Huey P. Newton, Dean of Swearing at Goddamn University. They don’t get to say that firk ding blast without mentioning where they got the information.

Citing your sources is a major component of mainstream journalism.

Daniel

They quote someone when they speak to him/her, but I rarely see citations for background information. They’ll cite studies when they’re a part of the article (New Study Says Ready the SDMB Fights Ignorance).

But for general background information (a nuclear reactor works by …), there are no citations. When they get to the point of an article, they’ll say "Homer Simpson, nuclear plant technicial, said, “Mmm, donuts”.

Also from
The New York Times

No, nothing is wrong. The baby appears healthy, even thriving. So typically nerve-shattered, exhausted parents call the pediatrician who, after examining the infant, gives a diagnosis: colic. Then, reflecting the deep mystery that still surrounds unsoothable crying, the physician offers medical advice, which these days falls into these three camps:

• Colic is perfectly normal; learn to live with it. It is temporary.

• Colic indicates something is wrong with your baby; keep looking for the cause and treat it, or get help for the family.

• Colic is inevitable; but you can try a new method that will stop crying by turning on a baby’s internal “calming instinct.”

Like deadlocked juries, medical experts who study colic agree on a central observation: all babies cry for short periods, but one in five has prolonged bouts of frantic screaming. Then they beg to differ. The controversy is being played out in medical journals, at conferences and, for the frazzled parents, in books written for the layman.

Not so long ago, the main explanation for colic was intestinal distress like gas or cramps, said Dr. Ronald G. Barr, a pediatrician and leading authority on colic at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver. That is no longer true, he said. A very few infants have gastric reflux or allergies to cow’s milk or formula, but a vast majority are perfectly healthy.

Where did he get this information. Sounds like it could have been culled from WebMD or a dozen other places. The only cite is “medical experts”. Or maybe the information is from Dr. Barr, although that is far from clear in the article.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@GorillaMan

Nonsense. The properties of cassava are a factual matter.

The specific phrasing they used, however, is intellectual property. If they wanted to use the intellectual property of the author, they needed permission, or at the very least attribution.

D_Odds, you raise a good point–but in this case, the paraphrase of the material is too close to the source, and attribution is pretty much necessary.

Daniel

[Fretful_Porpentine]

I’d consider it plagiarism if one of my students turned in a similar piece of writing without quotation marks or attribution. The phrasing is practically identical to that on the site, with only minor changes.

For the record, my department also considers it plagiarism if the student keeps the original sentence structure and merely swaps synonyms in and out, e.g. “Surprising for an important edible plant, it is quite poisonous without proper preparation.” ----> “Unusually for a major food crop, it is extremely toxic without correct preparation.”

[pepperlandgirl]

I don’t think the AP article was lifting from the Tripod site. I think they were both lifting from another, similiar source (encyclopedia article or something) without proper citation.