Quote:
Originally Posted by shakran
Well, since we're talking about my career. . Yeah, reasonably sure  |
Yeah, at this point it's more about asking for clarification on my part.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shakran
Clarify. Do you call up the researcher and interview him, or do you just publish the information? If you call him up and interview him (and preferably his colleagues to see if he's a nut) then you're fine. If you don't, then you aren't plagiarizing, but you are setting yourself up to lose public trust. You cite the source not to avoid plagiarism charges, but so that when it turns out that bananas aren't linked to autism, you can say "well that's what this guy said, and I was just reporting what he said." (that, of course, brings a whole new set of issues that are well beyond the scope of this thread)
|
So it's CYA, not stealing? Doesn't it *seem* like stealing, though? What happens when people start quoting the Journal instead of the researcher when they move on to further studies or when they yank bananas from their shelves? Can't the original author of the work get lost in the dust? Where's his piece of the pie for doing all the work?
Quote:
Originally Posted by shakran
well, you're not guilty of plagiarism. plagiarism is the "use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author" (Random House Compact Unabridged Dictionary). In order to plagiarize, you have to write exactly what he wrote, or write what he wrote while changing a few words to various synonyms. In your example, you did not use the phrasing from the original researcher - you simply published an article saying something along the lines of "a new study links bananas to autism, etc" In your example, you are guilty of piss poor journalism, and I would go so far as to say of being an idiot, because only an idiot would take such an unsubstantiated claim as fact without checking into it, but you are not guilty of plagiarism.
|
So you're saying broadcast journalism has a lot of idiots?
