Update on Harvard student-author's plagiarism

Publisher cancels young author`s book deal

NEW YORK, NY, United States (UPI) -- Amid new allegations of plagiarism Little, Brown & Co. has canceled 19-year-old Kaavya Viswanathan`s two-book contract.

Viswanathan acknowledged last month her popular novel, 'How Opal Mehta Got Kissed, Got Wild, and Got a Life,' contained near-identical prose to that found in a book by Megan McCafferty, which Viswanathan said she unintentionally 'internalized.'

But Tuesday, new claims of plagiarism arose based on works by young-adult authors Sophie Kinsella and Meg Cabot.

That`s when the publisher pulled the plug, the Boston Globe reported.

'Little, Brown & Co. will not be publishing a revised edition of `How Opal Mehta Got Kissed, Got Wild, and Got a Life,` nor will we publish the second book under contract,' Senior Vice President and Publisher Michael Pietsch said in a one-sentence statement.

As well, the company recalled some 50,000 unsold copies of the novel, which was published April 4.

'Opal Mehta' had a first printing of 100,000 copies, and Viswanathan had received a two-novel contract worth $500,000 at age 17, a month after arriving at Harvard.

Copyright 2006 by United Press International

Motive

Motive really is an interesting factor in any ethical decision. It describes the core of a person's ethical standpoint and the character of that individual. In seperating the motive from the act or decision, we really lose ethics altogether. Acts cannot really be judged when taken out of context. If a person was to shoot another in self defense, yet the motive was left out of the picture, they would solely be a murderer. If a man steals food for his family, but the motive is left out, he is a thief, but with the motive in place it brings a whole new light to the situation. On the reverse side, if a man donates a million dollars to charity solely for a tax break, is he really being charitable? It looks great with no motive in place, but the wrong motive changes the context of the situation profoundly.

As far as the media goes, motive is really one of the important factors any journalist should include in any ethical decision. Is the person being used as the means or the end? Should I print a story about Teresa's abortion to save the reputation of another? Which is the greater good? Where do my loyalties lie? Where should they lie? I believe that motive is almost as important an ethical factor than the act itself.

Just a reminder...

Final class assignments are due tomorrow (Tuesday, May 2) at noon. You may place them in the wall box outside my office door (AnSci 306) or ask the person at the main office desk (AnSci 310) to place them in my JCOM department mailbox.

The post quality here is improving all the time! I'll keep it going after you've all drifted away for the summer; remember, if you feel the impulse to talk about ethics, you're encouraged (begged, even) to drop by and chat. It's on Blogger's public listing now.

Thanks for a great semester, all. I've enjoyed our discussions immensely.

Kindness - could it be a minimalist value?

Here's poet Naomi Shihab Nye's thoughts on kindness - a favorite poem of mine, and one I'd like to give you to think about before you leave for the summer:

Kindness

Before you know what kindness really is
you must lose things,
feel the future dissolve in a moment
like salt in a weakened broth.
What you held in your hand,
what you counted and carefully saved,
all this must go so you know
how desolate the landscape can be
between the regions of kindness.
How you ride and ride
thinking the bus will never stop,
the passengers eating maize and chicken
will stare out the window forever.

Before you learn the tender gravity 
   of kindness,
you must travel where the Indian in  
   a white poncho
lies dead by the side of the road.
You must see how this could be you,
how he too was someone
who journeyed through the night  
   with plans
and the simple breath that 
   kept him alive.

Before you know kindness as the deepest 
   thing inside,
you must know sorrow as the other 
   deepest thing.
You must wake up with sorrow.
You must speak to it till your voice
catches the thread of all sorrows
and you see the size of the cloth.

Then it is only kindness that 
   makes sense anymore,
only kindness that ties your shoes
and sends you out into the day to 
   mail letters and purchase bread,
only kindness that raises its head
from the crowd of the world to say
it is I you have been looking for,
and then goes with you every where
like a shadow or a friend.

What to do next?

"That the truly probing questions are being asked by bloggers rather than by national journalists is becoming increasingly commonplace," writes Glenn Greenwald, a noted blogger who has just published a book that attempts to answer the question, How Would a Patriot Act?

Greenwald's blog bio says he spent the past 10 years as a litigator in NYC specializing in First Amendment challenges (including some of the highest-profile free speech cases over the past few years), civil rights cases, and corporate and security fraud matters.

Here's John Dean's blurb for the book:

"Glenn Greenwald has assembled a devastating bill of particulars against the Bush and Cheney administration's insistence on operating outside the rule of law. He has gathered solid information and marshaled a litany of abuses of power that make Richard Nixon's imperial presidency look timid. All thinking Americans must answer How Would A Patriot Act? this coming election, and those who ignore what Greenwald has to say act at our collective peril."

-- John W. Dean, former Nixon White House Counsel and
author of Conservatives Without Conscience

Plagiarize... let no one else's work evade your eyes...

Lest I fall into the trap, let me attribute the title of this post where it belongs: it's a line from a song by Tom Lehrer.

Here's the story: a hot new author, only 19 years old and a Harvard sophomore, is in hot water.

Update 2: Young Author Admits Borrowing Passages

A Harvard University sophomore with a highly publicized first novel acknowledged Monday that she had borrowed material, accidentally, from another author's work and promised to change her book for future editions.

Kaavya Viswanathan's "How Opal Mehta Got Kissed, Got Wild, and Got a Life," published in March by Little, Brown and Company, was the first of a two-book deal reportedly worth six figures. But on Sunday, the Harvard Crimson cited seven passages in Viswanathan's book that closely resemble the style and language of the novels of Megan McCafferty.

"When I was in high school, I read and loved two wonderful novels by Megan McCafferty, 'Sloppy Firsts' and 'Second Helpings,' which spoke to me in a way few other books did. Recently, I was very surprised and upset to learn that there are similarities between some passages in my novel ... and passages in these books," Viswanathan, 19, said in a statement issued by her publisher.

"While the central stories of my book and hers are completely different, I wasn't aware of how much I may have internalized Ms. McCafferty's words. I am a huge fan of her work and can honestly say that any phrasing similarities between her works and mine were completely unintentional and unconscious. My publisher and I plan to revise my novel for future printings to eliminate any inappropriate similarities.

"I sincerely apologize to Megan McCafferty and to any who feel they have been misled by these unintentional errors on my part."

The book had a first printing of 100,000 copies.

Viswanathan, who was 17 when she signed her contract with Little, Brown, is the youngest author signed by the publisher in decades. DreamWorks has already acquired the movie rights to her first book.

Schindler's List

I can’t seem to get the movie out of my head. I have been thinking about the comparison between one person's horror and another's luxory. But mostly I keep thinking about Nancy’s question, “Why would I end the course with this movie?”

I have my one answer. In the United States people have religious freedom. It is illegal to kill someone just because he or she is a Jew. However, it was legal for Germans to murder thousands of Jews in WWII. Schindler was thrown in jail for just kissing one. That is how deep the hate ran.

But I thought about how the law may have changed but ethical choices did not. Schindler still did what was right to him even though it was illegal. He worked within the system to save lives. I thought it was interesting how one person still followed his values even though an entire nation did not. Just because of one man’s (Hitler) values an entire population of people was almost eliminated.

I think this movie just goes to exemplify Bok’s discussion about needing common values and ethics for society to survive. Add the continued massacres of people all over the world…the Holocaust…Cambodia…Africa…the Middle East. All over the world people are still killing each other. I think that we need to start working toward a solution instead of adding to the death. Bok is right to say that eventually peace will result with no one left to live it.

I think that values and ethics can be a foundation for peace…one day if we start.

More on sex-offender registries

I heard this story on NPR this afternoon while I was driving home. Thought you'd be interested -- here's a link, and then when you get to the NPR site, click on the "listen to this story" button.

Many states -- including Utah -- list hard-core predators alongside people who may pose no risk to the public. There's a map at the NPR site that shows states' policies.

Murders Put Focus on Sex-Offender Registry Policies

All Things Considered, April 21, 2006 · Nobody knows why Stephen Marshall killed two men who were on the sex-offender registry in Maine. Immediately after, he took his own life.

One of the men Marshall killed, Joseph Gray, was on the registry for raping a child. The other, William Elliott, was listed because he'd slept with his girlfriend before she turned 16.

These deaths and others raise troubling questions about the public sex-offender registries which every state has. And they highlight the fact that many states list hard-core predators alongside people who may pose little risk to the community.

When Mark Perk read about the men murdered in Maine, he thought the same fate might have befallen him. "They put my name and address on there," Perk says. "Anyone can find me. Yeah, it scared us."

Perk is on Illinois' sex-offender registry for having a sexual relationship with a 15-year-old girl. She's now his wife and the mother of their two children. Perk says he knows he broke the law -- but he says he's no child molester. He's just treated like one.

"My wife and I get pulled over constantly because our license is registered to a sex offender," he says.

Perk says he has received telephone calls from people calling him a child molester and threatening his life. "People pull by the house all the time, staring in the windows," he says.

(MORE)

Privacy, cyber-stalking & harassment

Speaking of privacy online, there's a good but gasp-worthy article in today's New York Times. Here's a link: A Sinister Web Entraps Victims of Cyberstalkers.

Utah's Sex Offender Registry

In case you haven't seen it for yourself, here's a link to the sex offender registry for Utah.

Note that you have to promise not to use information you find there to harass the offenders or their families and friends, and there's a reminder that such harassment is against the law.

To search it, type in your zip code.

Sex Offenders & The Internet

I'm not all that in favor of having registered sex offenders made public for anyone to see. I would be much more in favor of sex offenders having to be registered in some sort of database. A database for employers, or anyone with a certain need-to-know, may look.

For example, a child rapist isn't going to be a concern to me, a single white adult male with no children under my care. If John Doe, two houses down, is a convicted child rapist, that's not going to matter to me. I have no need to know. However, if good ol' Johnny is trying to get a job at the local elementary school, then the school might want to do a background check on him.

Having sex offenders register with a public data base, I think, is not fair. I would like to see it be much more on a need-to-know basis.

As for the "They didn't put the whole story" claim, I wouldn't mind it if suspects/criminals had the opportunity to write up 'their side of the story' to be attached to the rest of the file. If the database had not only the initial charges, but what they were found guilty of, in addition to 'their side of the story', then anyone researching that individual would have more information on which to formulate an opinion and make a decision.

I had the USU police called on me once for an accusation which I do, and always will, claim was false. When the police spoke with me there was very little, if any, 'So what's your side of the story?’ They were very much "This is what we've been told about you, so this is what we're telling you to do." Some of the information which had been reported to them, as I saw it on the official report, was questionable as to its accuracy. The following week I inquired as to what I may do if I feel that there was information of questionable accuracy in the accusation. I was told that I could file a 'my side of the story', which I assume would then have been attached to my report. I think this would be a good option for sex offenders.

Bottom line: There should be some reform made in the way the state handles the information concerning sex offenders.

Syndicated Blogging

According to an AP story in WiReD News, a new syndication service called BlogBurst will feed stories and headlines from 600 participating blogs into the mainstream media.

Newspapers are looking to BlogBurst to provide expert blog commentary on travel, women's issues, technology, food, entertainment and local stories, areas where publishers may not have dedicated staff...

Magazines & Advertising

Question: Is a magazine ethically required to be an open forum for all advertisers who have the ability to pay?

No. Magazines and advertisers are two different species living symbiotically. But, just like species, you have different breeds of each.

In our free enterprise system, magazines don't exist for the greater good; they exist because someone somewhere has some sort of agenda. Different magazines have different agendas. For example, I have never read Ms. Magazine, but judging by its self description as a feminist magazine which is "More Than A Magazine - A Movement", I would assume that's its primary agenda is not to make a huge profit or report the news. I would guess that it's primary agenda is along the lines of liberating and empowering women in a male dominated world.

On the other hand, there are magazines like Time, whose agenda is more along the lines of reporting on important issues in today's world. Then there is a magazine called The National Review, which is a very conservative publication. It's agenda is very much conservative politics.

And then there are different breeds of advertisements; some want you to buy something, while others don't. For example, take the anti-smoking commercials which we've all seen. They aren't trying to persuade me to buy something or give them money.

So my point is this: I believe that magazines reserve the right to refuse certain or all advertisements. Magazines and Advertisers only coexist symbiotically when their agendas allow them to.

and out in the real world...

Calvin and Hobbs do ethics

Public Relations, Google Style

Google Romance

Who's a journalist these days?

Do Journalists Belong in the Media?

As if dictates from governments, media owners and advertisers weren't enough. Now journalists face a new enemy - those pesky mobile phone carrying people, with their instant reports and commentaries. Where are journalists going to go?

---

...Blood pours from his scalp as he reaches into his hip pocket, just above his trapped legs. Grabbing his handphone, he clicks on the quick-dial button, giving him a direct connection to a blog server. He clicks on "video" and starts pumping live action online.

"This is Nakasuri Hirito, trapped in the train that has just derailed in Amagasaki, Osaka, Japan. There are bodies all over," he says, as he pans over the inside of the wreckage.

Within seconds, JapanTV gets a sms to check out nakasuri.blogspot.com. The picture of the tragedy unfolding shocks them.

"We are receiving news of a train disaster in Amagasaki, Osaka," says the newscaster, as she interrupts the news bulletin. Within minutes, the blurry picture being generated by Nakasuri's 3G video handphone, is broadcasted live. Controls rooms in Atlanta, London and Kuala Lumpur, pick up the newsbreak and buy the broadcast.

Moments later, CNN, BBC and Al Jazeera switch over. The world holds its breath as the unknown Nakasuri Hirito beams the inside story of the battle to stay alive in carriage number 3.

The world has changed...

Former journalist Premesh Chandran says journalists must find ways of working with, instead of competing against, citizens reporting the news through their video/mobile phone cameras and blogs.

MORE here

Lying as psychological warfare

Our own JCOM grad in US Army fatigues, Leon D'Souza, has a frank take on the government's PR ethics here:
Infoganda: The Politics of Make-Believe News.

THE KILLING FIELDS: About Dith Pran

This should help clear up any confusion about the real Dith Pran and the actor who played his part in The Killing Fields. (Thanks, Unca Google!)

---

The portrayal of Dith Pran in "The Killing Fields" won an Oscar for fellow Cambodian Haing Ngor, who had also escaped the violence of the Khmer Rouge. But Ngor escaped the genocide in Cambodia only to be shot to death in this country. He was killed on a street in Los Angeles. Now Dith Pran, who's working in New York as a photographer for The New York Times, wants to make sure people never forget the genocide in Cambodia. He has compiled a collection of personal essays by survivors of the killing fields.

-- from http://www.cambodian.com/interview.htm (transcript of an MSNBC-TV interview with the real Dith Pran)

---

Dith Pran (born September 27, 1942 ) is a photojournalist best known as a refugee and Cambodian Holocaust survivor and was the subject of the Academy Award-winning film The Killing Fields. (He was portrayed in the movie by first time actor Haing S. Ngor, who won a Best Supporting Actor Oscar for his performance.)

In 1975, Pran and New York Times reporter Sydney Schanberg stayed behind in Cambodia to cover the fall of the capital Phnom Penh to the communist Khmer Rouge forces. Schanberg and other foreign reporters were allowed to leave, but Pran was not permitted to leave the country. When Cambodians were forced to work in forced labor camps, Pran had to endure four years of starvation and torture, before finally escaping to Thailand.

He has been a photojournalist with the New York Times in the United States since 1980. Pran has worked for recognition of the Cambodian Holocaust victims. He received an Ellis Island Medal of Honor in 1998 and is founder and president of The Dith Pran Holocaust Awareness Project, Inc.

-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dith_Pran

---

Dr. Haing S. Ngor ( March 22, 1940 –February 25, 1996 ) was a Cambodian American physician and actor who is best known for winning a 1985 Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor for his performance in the movie The Killing Fields, in which he portrayed journalist and refugee Dith Pran in 1970s Cambodia, under the rule of the Khmer Rouge.

Ngor himself lived through the Cambodian holocaust, and survived by hiding the fact that he was an obstetrician and gynecologist. As an educated person and a professional, he would have been killed under the harsh regime and purges of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge. After the collapse of the Khmer Rouge in 1979, Ngor worked as a doctor in a refugee camp inside Thailand, and left for the United States on August 30, 1980.

In 1988, he wrote Haing Ngor: A Cambodian Odyssey, detailing his life under the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. In the second edition Survival in the Killing Fields, Roger Warner, Ngor's co-author, adds an epilogue telling the story of Ngor's life after winning the Academy Award.

On February 25, 1996 , Ngor was shot to death outside his apartment in Los Angeles, California, by members of a street gang who demanded the locket around his neck. The locket contained a picture of his late wife; none of the money in his wallet (reportedly a few hundred dollars in cash) was stolen. There was some speculation at the time that the gang members were acting at the behest of Khmer Rouge sympathizers in the U.S., but this was never proven.

Three 19-year-old members of the Oriental Lazy Boyz street gang were arrested and charged with Ngor's murder. They were separately tried and convicted in the Superior Court of Los Angeles. Tak Sun Tan was sentenced to 56 years to life; Indra Lim to 26 years to life; Jason Chan to life without parole. In 2004, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted Tak Sun Tan's habeas corpus petition, finding that prosecutors had manipulated the jury's sympathy by presenting false evidence. This decision was reversed and the conviction was ultimately upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in July 2005 .

Ngor survived incredible dangers during his life in Cambodia only to die violently in his adopted homeland, but he told a New York Times reporter after the release of The Killing Fields, "If I die from now on, OK! This film will go on for a hundred years."

-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haing_S._Ngor

Mixed Signals

Did you know that NPR has an official blog site?

It's called Mixed Signals.

You Risk & Iraq

Initially I'm inclined to say that reporters don't have the right to ask people to risk anything at all, because Kant would say that is using people as a means to an end.

But on second thought, I don't think that I actually feel that way. I mean, we are only asking someone to take risks. They have the full freedom to refuse. It's only a request, not a demand. I would like to think that any reporter would communicate risks to an individual that they were asking a favor of; that a reporter would not knowingly send someone somewhere without informing that person of the risks. That would be wrong and immoral. Additionally, if someone does not want to take a risk, well... everyone has a price and I'm sure that a reporter could find someone with whom they could work out a reasonable deal.

I think that the most important things are that anyone who is asked to take a risk understands the risks and dangers at hand, and that they have the ability to decline the offer. Provided that those conditions are met, I see nothing wrong with asking an individual to take a risk.

As for the media coverage in the Middle East, I'd give them a C-. They do provide quite accurate information on factual events. When, where, who, and what are usually covered pretty well. If a suicide bomber blows something up, I have complete confidence that the media will tell me all about it with haste. However, I'm quite displeased with the not-so factual facets of the Middle East conflict. That is, how to the people over there feel about us? Sure, we know that at least part of the population hates us, but what about everyone else? Do they all hate us, or are some of them thankful for what we're doing? This war is not only a war of militaries, but of the hearts and minds of people. The media does a fair job on the militaristic facts, but what about the hearts and minds? We've won the war militarily for sure, but how about the war for the people and for their support?