MxMIndia

Tag: Fareed Zakaria

  • Journalists have to be more careful about the sources they use and quote and the manner in which they credit them, writes Ranjona Banerji

    Ranjona Banerji: So is Samar Halarnkar unfairly accused of plagiarism?

    By Ranjona Banerji

     

    And once more, the gloomy spectre of plagiarism raises its head. We’ve hardly had time to catch our breath after the Fareed Zakaria and Simon Denyer incidents. This time, Samar Halarnkar, former Hindustan Times’s national editor and currently editor-at-large and columnist with the same newspaper, has been accused by blogger Akhilesh Mishra of lifting large portions of a column which was published in April 2012 from an article by Frances Moore Lappe for Yes Magazine in February 2009.
    (http://amishra77.com/2012/09/09/samar-halarnkar-and-the-art-of-article-writing/)

     

    Lappe is an expert on hunger and poverty and wrote about a successful experiment in Brazil. Halarnkar also wrote about the Brazil experiment in the context of what India could learn from it.

     

    In his defence, presented to media site Newslaundry, Halarnkar has said that he did refer to Lappe’s book in his column and used a number of sources for his facts and information. (http://www.newslaundry.com/2012/09/all-facts-no-conjecture/)

     

    However, the matter is not as simple as all that. It is possible that the blogger was out to get Halarnkarr and went through a lot of trouble to present both articles in detail (if only some journalists would work that hard!). The internet is full of resentment and spite, after all. And the blogger appears to be right wing while Harlankar is of the other persuasion. If there’s anyone who doesn’t know, there’s a war going on out there on the Internet between right wing and left of centre Indians and the battleground is full of bitterness and abuse. Halarnkar has mentioned this in his response to newslaundry.com. But whatever the blogger’s intentions, there are undoubtedly several similarities between Halarnkar’s and Lappe’s articles.

     

    Not all can be explained by a reference to a book when the overlap is with a column. It seems, on the face of it, that Halarnkar would have helped himself and his reputation by crediting Lappe more specifically.

     

    However, there is also nothing to suggest either that Halarnkar’s intent was to steal from Lappe. He has mentioned her book, which at least shows that he is aware of her efforts and says he admires her. He may not have been aware that some of the references he used had in fact originated from Lappe.

     

    And once again, we have a dilemma. A writer may research a number of sources and publications. Is it possible in a tight word limit to credit them all? Suppose you just pick up facts but draw your own conclusions? The fact that India became independent on August 15, 1947 can after all be picked up from a book but it is still a fact that is not bound by intellectual property.

     

     

    If Zakaria and Denyer can be accused of laziness, then Halarnkar’s mistake – and I think it is clear that he has made one – is in not making a better disclosure of his sources and in not giving a more complete credit to his primary source.

     

    Incidentally, after the blogger made his case, the accusation against Harlankar was picked up and played up by the website Niti Central. Which two days after had to issue this little regret note about a tiny bit of “lift and use” by one of its own staffers: http://www.niticentral.com/2012/09/regrettable-error.html

     

    At the end, it seems that journalists have to be more careful about the sources they use and quote and the manner in which they credit them. A small gesture might go a long way in saving a reputation built over years or even set a foundation for a less troublesome career in the future.

     

    Ranjona Banerji is a senior journalist and commentator. She is also Contributing Editor, MxMIndia. Her Twitter handle: @Ranjona

     

  • Fareed Zakaria's credibility has taken a body blow following this incident. Why would I trust his writing ever again? How can I be sure he hasn't played another mischief? What good is a journo minus credibility?

    Anil Thakraney: The credibility letdown

    By Anil Thakraney

     

    Must say I am quite surprised to hear that the suspension imposed on Mr Cut Paste by his bosses at Time mag and CNN has been lifted quite swiftly. I was of the opinion that Fareed Zakaria would have to pay a heavy price. Clearly, I was wrong.

     

    This is the exact statement issued by Time, as per media reports: “We have completed a thorough review of each of Fareed Zakaria’s columns for Time and we are entirely satisfied that the language in question in his recent column was an unintentional error and an isolated incident for which he has apologized. We look forward to having Fareed’s thoughtful and important voice back in the magazine with his next column in the issue that comes out on September 7.”

     

    Now, while one wants to applaud Time and CNN for being large-hearted, I am a bit worried about the ramifications of the quick forgiveness. Younger columnists and journalists will get the wrong idea. Because, the message is this: ‘Okay, you made one mistake, but otherwise you have been good at your job. So we’ll let you get away with this dishonest act.’ As a writer, my reading is that it’s okay to do the odd chori. In that sense, I believe Zakaria’s example sets a bad precedent. He directly (or indirectly) lifted passages from another journalist, that is a fact, and he has admitted to it. And Zakaria ought to have been made to face the music for this misdemeanour. Especially because he’s a veteran in the profession.

     

    There’s another thing: Zakaria’s credibility has taken a body blow following this incident. Why would I trust his writing ever again? How can I be sure he hasn’t played another mischief? Given that, there had to be a cooling-off period ordered on Zakaria for at least one year, if not more. So his readers are assured that, one, the man has been adequately punished. And two, he has had sufficient time to introspect on his misdeed.

     

    All I can say is, Fareed Zakaria is one helluva lucky guy.

     

    ***

     

    PS: I have always wondered why the placards that protesters carry during various andolans are so dull. Well, here’s a link that tells you it need not be the case, that placards can be fun. Hope to see some wit and humour during desi protests. Perhaps ad agencies can pitch in with some thoughts. If we must watch the likes of Anna and Ramdev fasting, may as well have some entertainment going on the sidelines. 🙂

     

    Link: http://www.thepoke.co.uk/2010/11/01/the-best-protest-march-ever/gallery/image/

     

  • Worried that you know nothing about the legal issues concerning plagiarism? We asked Delhi-based lawyer Nandita Saikia to give us this detailed guide

    Demystifying plagiarism, the legal way

     

    By Nandita Saikia

     

    Can one be jailed and fined if convicted?
     

    All you wanted to know about plagiarism but didn’t know who to ask. We posed a few questions to Nandita Saikia and requested her for a response sans the legalese

    1. Is plagiarism a crime? As in, does copying of substantial portion of a published work written by someone without attribution and without permission become a punishable offence? What exactly is the punishment?

    Plagiarism alone involves copying another person’s ideas without attributing them, and is not a crime by itself although it is considered unethical.

     

    If plagiarism involves copying not only ideas but also a substantial portion of a copyrighted work without attribution and without permission, it would amount to both copyright infringement and the violation of the ‘special right’ of the author to be credited.

     

    Copyright infringement and the violation of an author’s right to be credited are both civil wrongs and criminal offences. A civil suit may be instituted, and criminal charges may also be filed.

     

    In a civil suit, the remedies which may be obtained are: injunctions to restrain further infringement, damages, the rendition of accounts of profit, and the delivery up of both infringing copies of the work and the plates used to make them. If required, certain administrative orders may also be obtained to assess the extent of infringement.

     

    If criminal charges are filed, a convicted infringer is liable to be imprisoned for between six months and three years and to be fined between Rs 50,000 and Rs 2 lakh, for the first offence. This punishment is enhanced for subsequent convictions.

     

    2.Does attribution without permission for text or photographs or graphics (for instance: Photograph courtesy xyz) amount to an infringement of copyright? And if it is an offence, what is the punishment?

    Assuming the work is protected by copyright, in most cases:  It is infringement to publish a work without permission.  It is both infringement and a violation of moral rights to publish a work without permission and without attribution. It is a violation of moral rights to publish a work with permission and without attribution — (possibly) unless the author has agreed not to be attributed. The remedies available to those authors whose right to claim authorship has been violated are similar to those available in cases of copyright infringement as described in response to question 1.

     

    3.Assuming an article is written and has taken some vital research data or information from another article (and this information is not easily available or is not publicly accessible), but the information is presented in a different language and different from the one already published. Will this be considered plagiarism and is it infringement of intellectual property?

    It would amount to plagiarism if the ideas of another author were used without credit. It is also likely that it would amount to plagiarism if the research of another author was used without credit.

     

    However, if the language used in the later article was completely different from that used in the original article, it is unlikely that the subsequent article would infringe the copyright in the original article.

     

    Depending on the circumstances, the later article may violate the moral right of the author of the original article to be credited for his work.

     

    4.In a typical writer-publication relationship, who owns the copyright in the absence of any written contract on it… the publication or the writer/photographer/artist? What if the writer/photographer/artist are freelance? And what if he/she is an employee?

    The employer generally owns copyright in the employee’s work for the purpose of dissemination through the employer’s publication and similar publications. For all other purposes, the employee owns the copyright.

     

    However, a freelance journalist would ordinarily be the first owner of copyright in his work unless he signs an agreement to the contrary. Ownership may vary depending on whether or not the work is commissioned.

     

    The commissioner generally owns the copyright in a commissioned photograph.

     

    To a large extent, the ownership of copyright in a work is determined by contract. This area of the law contains a number of caveats and exceptions, and it is extremely difficult to make generalisations.

     

    5.What about ideas and concepts? And page designs and headlines?

    Ideas and concepts are not protected unless expressed and ‘fixed’. Original page designs may be protectable as artistic works if they are distinctive. Headlines are unlikely to be protectable, although it may be possible to argue that especially distinctive, original headlines are protectable.

     

    6. And lastly, what is the legal standpoint on plagiarised advertising… visuals and copy? Also, television and films?

    In broad strokes, the general principles relating to infringement apply across the board regardless of the nature of the work. If a work is protected by copyright, the permission of the copyright owner is usually required to do things like reproduce or adapt the work. Also, authors have the right to be claim authorship of their work.

     
    Nandita Saikia

    The terms ‘plagiarism’ and ‘infringement’ are often used interchangeably although they are different.  Plagiarism itself is primarily an ethical issue, which involves using the work of another author without crediting them. The right not to be plagiarised is not recognised by statute, except to the extent mentioned in Section 57 of the Copyright Act (which gives authors the right to claim authorship of their works, among other things).

     

    Plagiarism may occur independently of copyright infringement. This is because any use of a work without crediting its author would be plagiarism. However, copyright infringement can only occur if the earlier work copied from is protected by copyright. So, for example, copying from a very old work whose copyright has expired would be plagiarism but not infringement.

     

    Also, plagiarism may involve merely copying the ideas which another person has expressed in their work either without crediting them or using their words. If plagiarism occurs without copying or adapting the actual words of the author of the earlier work, it is unlikely that the plagiarism would also amount to copyright infringement.

     

    Further, it is worth bearing in mind that it works both ways. If the earlier work was protected by copyright, copying or adapting any substantial part of it without permission would infringe the copyright subsisting it even if its author was credited. In other words, the unauthorised, substantial reproduction or adaptation of a copyrighted work is copyright infringement even if its author is credited.

     

    As such, copyright infringement and plagiarism generally occur simultaneously only if the words of an earlier work are copied or adapted without permission and without attribution, and the earlier work is protected by copyright.

     

    Copyright itself subsists in certain works such as books, films and music. As a general rule, the initial owner of the copyright in a work is its author (although this is subject to several exceptions).

     

    Copyright owners have the exclusive right to do things like reproduce, adapt, translate and publish their works, or to allow others to do so. These exclusive rights are collectively called copyright, and vary in their specifics depending on the kind of work.

     

    In most cases, doing anything which is the exclusive right of the copyright owner without his or her permission amounts to copyright infringement, which is both a civil wrong and criminal offence. As such, a civil suit may be instituted (usually seeking to obtain damages and an injunction to restrain further infringement).

     

    In addition to this, Section 63 of the Copyright Act states that convicted infringers are liable to be imprisoned for between six months and three years and to be fined between fifty thousand and two lakh rupees, while Section 63A stipulates an enhanced penalty for second and subsequent convictions.

     

    Apart from copyright, the Copyright Act also recognises the right of an author to be credited for his work via Section 57 of the Copyright Act which, among other things, grants authors the ‘Special Right’ to claim authorship. If this right is violated, remedies similar to those obtainable for copyright infringement may be sought.

     

    Widely referred to as a moral right, the Section 57 right to claim authorship is perpetual, is independent of copyright, and remains unaffected by transfers of copyright ownership. Thus, it could be considered to be similar to the right not to be plagiarised, although it is not identical to it.

     

    Nandita Saikia is a media and technology lawyer practising in New Delhi

     

    Plagiarism: No good word, this
     

    While the reasons to plagiarise can be debated, and argued, what remains essential is editorial integrity to see it as a bad practice

    By Ananya Saha

     

    Fareed Zakaria has opened a Pandora box after being accused of plagiarism. Editorial sanctity is being now being questioned when it comes to using plagiarized content. With internet becoming a major source of stories filed by journalists, it has actually become difficult to keep a tab on plagiarized material. Indian media has been, time and again, put under scanner for plagiarism.

     

    The business daily, Mint has addressed the issue of ‘plagiarism and fabrication’ in its ‘MintCode’ clearly: ‘We don’t copy the work of others. And we don’t make things up. We do not plagiarize, meaning that we do not take the work of others and pass it off as our own.’ In fact, Mint does not transmit news releases in their original form. “A story that appears in our paper and has plagiarized work from a press release is a serious violation of our Code of Conduct.” If any of its own journalists’ or columnists’ work is plagiarized, Mint asks them to notify the editor, deputy editor, and immediate editor. According to the code, any Mint reporter and writer have to use original content, language and phrasing.

     

    While the ‘MintCode’ is clearly charted out on its website and The Economic Times too has a code of ethics on its website, not many newspapers have such a clear ‘code’ charted out.

     

    What is also important to understand is that such code of ethics is also bypassed by journalists who succumb to pressures of deadline.

     

    Deccan Chronicle uses software that alerts the desk when more than eight words are plagiarized. A T Jayanti, chief editor of Deccan Chronicle, said: “You do not need a policy on something so blatantly wrong! Our team is aware that they can be suspended, and can even lose their jobs.”

     

    Chandan Mitra, editor and managing director of The Pioneer, has come across few columnists who have plagiarized content while writing for his paper: “The columnists were found guilty, and we stopped their columns as soon as we got to know. We take a hard line against such practice. If there is a complaint, we prefer to run our checks and if found guilty, we do not have to think twice before stopping their columns.”

     

    Mr Mitra insisted that Fareed Zakaria’s case is an alarm bell, and the Indian newspaper industry needs to be more cautious, especially “when the laws of the land are not as stringent.” He also feels that because of the internet, it is easier to track down if the article or any written piece has been extracted as is from its original source.

     

    While the reasons to plagiarize can be debated, and argued, what remains essential is editorial integrity to see it as a bad practice.

     

    Vikas Mishra, Editor, Lokmat Samachar said: “Nobody in our newspaper is authorized to copy-paste from any article. Never in the history of Lokmat has anyone plagiarized. If there is an article worth mentioning, we always mention the source or attribute the quote in our write-ups.”

     

    When asked if plagiarism is more rampant in the regional and vernacular newspapers, Mr Hari Mohan Mishra, news editor, Dainik Bhaskar said that it is actually the English newspapers that see more of plagiarism and that he has not come across any of his team plagiarizing ever. Even Mr Mitra of The Pioneer agreed with his viewpoint.

     

    M. Kesava Menon, editor, Mathrubhumi – the Malayalam language newspaper – also believes in attributing the original author in articles, and sees plagiarism as serious offence. Even though the editors are quite sure the copying a work is an offence, it is actually not unknown that plagiarism sometimes goes unregistered.

     

    In a rapidly changing newsroom set-up, influenced vastly by ‘research’, it is important that writers and columnists create original work. And only strong and stringent measures can curb such a practice.

     
  • Zakaria will pay for his cut-paste chori. But it's 'loose change' crime compared to all the malpractices that go on here. Must say journalists in India are truly free!

    Anil Thakraney: Fareed ‘Chindi-chor’ Zakaria

    By Anil Thakraney

     

    Fareed Zakaria isn’t the first journalist/columnist caught with his hand in the cookie jar. And he isn’t going to be the last one either. Across the world of journalism, at all levels, folks have been caught ‘cut-pasting’ stuff. It’s either because they believe no one will notice, or they are too lazy/busy to do their own research work. Some offenders lose their jobs, others get away with it. I suspect Zakaria’s career is finished, given his exalted status in international journalism. The mightier you are, the heavier the fall. The man should seriously consider joining Indian politics. Chaps like him are more than welcome.

     

    I actually have a poor opinion of Zakaria as a columnist. I read a few of his articles in Newsweek, in the aftermath of the ‘War on Terror’. And I felt he was regurgitating obvious truths and belting out trite arguments. While that’s not a crime, he did lose at least one reader. Zakaria’s act of stealing content (either himself or through his rookies) from another writer perhaps explains the regurgitation of thought.

     

    Anyway, Fareed Zakaria is history, and he totally deserves it. However, let me add here that slyly stealing text from a fellow journalist is much like picking a lower middle class pocket, or chindi chori, as it’s called in Mumbai. It’s petty theft when you compare it with the nefarious deeds of some of our much awarded and respected journos during Radiagate. That was no petty theft. That was about selling your soul, and being dishonest with your profession and your country. And yet, nothing happened, no one was punished. Most of these journos continue with their routine work, convinced they did no wrong. Even the smugness is intact!

     

    Zakaria will pay for his cut-paste chori. But it’s ‘loose change’ crime compared to all the malpractices that go on here. Must say journalists in India are truly free!

     

    Hope you had a peaceful Independence Day. Jai Hind!

     

    * * *

     

    [youtube width=”400″ height=”220″]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vK10B0Jgb8o[/youtube]

    PS: Kellogg’s isn’t really renowned for brilliant advertising. Much of their work is safe and formulaic. But this commercial created for Team USA, during the recently concluded Olympic Games, is powerful. It’s a super idea and Kellogg’s can make it their core strategy, for use across the world. Can work for any field of activity.

     

  • Get someone junior to do the leg work because you're so busy being a celebrity, obviously you don't have the time to do it yourself

    Plagiarism… a common affliction with senior journalists

    By Ranjona Banerji

     

    “I apologise unreservedly,” said Fareed Zakaria’s most recent tweet on August 10. And here’s the statement attached:

    “Media reporters have pointed out that paragraphs in my Time column on gun control, which was also a topic of conversation on this blog, bear close similarities to paragraphs in Jill Lepore’s essay in the April 23rd issue of The New Yorker. They are right. I made a terrible mistake. It is a serious lapse and one that is entirely my fault. I apologize unreservedly to her, to my editors at Time and CNN, and to my readers and viewers everywhere.”

     

    This is how Zakaria describes himself on twitter: “Editor at TIME Magazine. Host of CNN’s GPS: Sunday @ 10am and 1pm ET in the U.S. Blogger at CNN.com/GPS.

    New York, NY”.

     

    Now he stands suspended from all his jobs, for at least one month pending investigation.

     

    The odd thing is, Zakaria need not have picked up those bits from Lepore’s article and passed them off as his own. He could have given her due credit, which would have been the right and honourable thing to do. He could have read as much as he could on the subject and drawn his own conclusions. He could have used facts from a variety of sources and made an argument based on that. But why pass off a few paragraphs from someone else’s work as your own?

     

    Sadly, this is a common affliction with senior journalists. Get someone junior to do the leg work because you’re so busy being a celebrity, obviously you don’t have the time to do it yourself. That obviously means that you don’t have the time to check either. Throw your opinion together, safe in the feeling that your name will carry you through.

     

    Or, it could be that you did the Google search yourself…

     

    Either way, there are no excuses which is why Zakaria hasn’t made any.

     

    Throw your mind back to almost two years ago when huge chunks of Aroon Purie’s publisher’s note in India Today was picked up from a column in Slate magazine. Purie apologised, but obviously, since he owned the magazine, nothing more could be done. Also, it turned out that he didn’t realise that the “research” sent to him by his employees (senior journalists though they may have been) was not written by them but by someone else.

     

    The funny thing is that these are rookie lapses, which come from arrogance, laziness and carelessness. This is not the work of a scientist trying to get published in some respected journal or a PhD student trying to finish a thesis – not that cheating is justified – who thinks they have just one chance to make it. What are the stakes involved for a columnist who writes regularly? Your whole reputation is built on those daily, weekly, fortnightly or monthly words you come up with. Imagine throwing it away in this sloppy manner?

     

    Unfortunately for Zakaria, this puts all his work under the scanner. Trust is so ephemeral.

     

    The odd thing is, one suspects this kind of plagiarism is possibly far more common than this. Stupidity is after all universal. Common sense is not.

     

    Ranjona Banerji is a senior journalist and commentator based in Mumbai. She is Contributing Editor, MxMIndia. The views expressed here are her own. Twitter: @ranjona

     

  • Ranjona Banerji on how the exploitation of every last drop of drama from a news event is practically an art form

    Paraphrasing Fareed Zakaria

    By Ranjona Banerji

     

    It was a joy to watch Time international editor Fareed Zakaria on CNN-IBN being interviewed by Sagarika Ghose. Zakaria talked about both the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on the US as well as India’s somewhat dismal record when it comes to pre-empting or even solving terror attacks. Zakaria was also candid about the demonisation of Muslims in India and called our policing  pathetic  and indeed, non-existent. Harsh words, but no less significant or true for that. The anchor, who is often loud and combative, only asked questions and then paraphrased Zakaria’s answers, presumably for us viewers who are short on understanding. Or perhaps cannot comprehend what is going on when sundry guests are not shouting at the same time.

     

    And the award goes to Arnab Goswami!

    The exploitation of every last drop of drama from a news event is practically an art form and the award has to go to Arnab Goswami and Times Now. The fact that the Supreme Court sent back a petition by riot victim Zakia Jafri on the culpability of Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi in the Gujarat riots to a local court was presented as one woman’s lone battle and so on. Indian TV began the story with its distinct sense of speculation a day before the Supreme Court decision. No TV channel has so far taken the time to explain the context of this petition and has behaved  together with the BJP  as if this is the last legal word ever to be spoken on the riots. Nor has anyone called the BJP on its needless victory marches over nothing.

    As ever, I admire and applaud our potential for stupidity.

    RIP, Gautam Rajadhyaksha

    The death of glamour photographer Gautam Rajadhyaksha, who imparted much beauty to our stars, was given fair play. The black money stashed abroad by Indians was in focus again as German and Swiss whistle blowers talked about their findings. It’s not all about politicians though — many rich Indians are involved.

     

    9/11

    The anniversary of the 9/11 attacks was commemorated with sombre dignity by the United States and this was reflected in the TV coverage. The anchors and reporters did not behave as if they were part of a travelling jatra troupe re-enacting some tragic melodrama and the focus was on the victims and their families. The politicians did not try to hog the limelight either and nor did TV channels look to them for that.

     

    More newsgazing…

    >> Fareed Zakaria was in the newspapers as well, looking at America after the 9/11 attacks in an edit page piece for Hindustan Times. In The Times of India’s edit page, Union law minister made a reasonable plea for consensus on the Lokpal bill but sadly, the Congress has lost so much ground here is that everything is too little too late.

    >> The Telegraph, Calcutta gives the Supreme Court-Modi story a little twist by pointing out that Modi’s rise is causing maximum fear within the BJP itself and especially amongst other prime ministerial candidates.

    >> The Deccan Chronicle’s Hyderabad edition headlined its Modi story God is great, tweets Modi but then went on to discuss how the Gujarat CM was not in the clear a feat well beyond Indian television. Meanwhile, Modi has decided to go on a fast for national unity, whatever that may mean.

    >> Most newspapers also concentrated on the death at a French nuclear site, Jackie Kennedy Onassis’s observations on Indira Gandhi (prune bitter!), the critical condition of cricketer Mohammed Azharuddin’s son after a motorcycle accident, the blow up by Serena Williams at the US Open final which she then lost.

    >> Websites were full of Novak Djokovic’s US Open win over Rafael Nadal, which finished early on Tuesday morning India time. Undoubtedly, tomorrow will see more on a brewing controversy between the ICC and BCCI and an awards ceremony. Let the drama continue!