PressEthic

In what must be a particularly embarrassing admission to make, an Editor's Note now sits like the Coit Tower atop the first article in a seven piece series in the San Francisco Chronicle about the allure of the Golden Gate Bridge to the suicidal. The note states that the article contains facts, quotes and "language nearly identical" from an article that appeared in the New Yorker in October, 2003. Apparently, the San Francisco Chronicle has to steal from an East Coast publication to cover a story about a world-famous bridge in its own backyard.

A side-by-side comparison shows how blatant the theft is:

New Yorker:

In 1995, as No. 1,000 approached, the frenzy was even greater. A local disk jockey went so far as to promise a case of Snapple to the family of the victim. That June, trying to stop the countdown fever, the California Highway Patrol halted its official count at 997. In early July, Eric Atkinson, age twenty-five, became the unofficial thousandth; he was seen jumping, but his body was never found.

San Francisco Chronicle:

As the death toll approached, a local disc jockey promised a case of Snapple to the victim's family. In June 1995, trying to stem the countdown fever, the California Highway Patrol halted its official count at 997. In early July, Eric Atkinson, 20, became the unofficial thousandth. His body was never found after witnesses saw him jump.

The damage to the Chronicle is twofold in this case. First, it makes the paper seem amateurish in its enterprise reporting, which is the type of reporting that gives a paper its intellectual weight. Second, it squashes any attempt for the series to win a Pulitzer, which must have at least factored into the idea of covering the story in such detail. Series like this one, much like the recent set of articles on gold in the New York Times, basically just let readers know "We're swinging for the fences on this one."

What's missing here is an apology on the part of the paper. An Editor's Note explaining that the Chronicle is running material from the New Yorker is not the same as admitting that the paper is in error. As far as the reader knows, Edward Guthmann received no reprimand for lifting another journalist's work. Instead, this incident begs the question of whether Guthmann, or other Chronicle reporters, have taken anything else from the muse of magazines.

This may be just a more egregious incident of the trend (San Francisco paper steals from the New Yorker for an article about the Golden Gate Bridge?), but the problem of lifting quotes, scenes and facts from other's work remains in journalism. Typically, it's magazines lifting from the large dailies, who are in turn lifting from the small dailies, who are in turn lifting from the community weeklies or blogs. Just the fact that the first two are switched around in this theft chain doesn't excuse it.

Taking pride in your work may be a bit patronizing, but it's what needs to happen if journalism is ever going to move beyond this era of the plagiarist. Using "Language nearly identical" to another publication demeans the role of the journalist, and the reputation of the paper that he is writing for.