This letter from the editor ran on page A2 in Friday's Montreal Gazette (subscription required):
As every journalist knows, a newspaper's integrity is its most important asset. We work hard every day to maintain The Gazette's credibility, and we know from experience how easily it can be damaged.
This week, we learned about an incident that undermines the integrity of The Gazette. In her column of July 13, our writer Janet Bagnall used material from a column by Nicholas Kristof that was published in the New York Times on July 3. Six paragraphs of Bagnall's column on the environmental record of Portland, Ore., were taken, with minor changes, from Kristof's column on the same subject. In her column on page A21 of today's paper, Bagnall explains how this happened and apologizes to Kristof, her colleagues and her readers.
Whatever the cause, this should not have happened. Taking other writers' work without attribution amounts to plagiarism, a serious infringement of the ethical rules that guide our work. On behalf of The Gazette, I apologize to you, our readers, for this lapse in our professional standards.
Actions have consequences. In this case, Bagnall has been formally reprimanded and her column will not appear for several weeks.
While plagiarism is serious, every case is different and must be handled according to the individual circumstances. In this case, it involves a journalist with a long and previously unblemished professional record.
More importantly, The Gazette will take steps to minimize the possibility that such an incident happens again. We will be meeting with staff members to underline the seriousness of such lapses. And we will be drawing up a more detailed and rigorous policy regarding plagiarism and how to avoid it.
And here is the apology that Bagnall, who is also on the paper's editorial board, offered up at the end of her column that day (wait, weren't we just told that "her column will not appear for several weeks"?):
In my column of July 13 on the Bush administration's position on the Kyoto Protocol, "U.S. city shows benefits of going green," I used several paragraphs of text from a July 3 column by the New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof.
My use of the paragraphs, which listed steps taken by Portland, Ore., to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, as well as a quote from the mayor of Portland, was inadvertent.
I had printed out Kristof's column in the same text type as The Gazette's, along with other information, including notes I had made several weeks earlier based on the original source both Kristof and I consulted, a June 2005 progress report on Portland's action plan.
Writing my column, I thought I was transcribing my own notes, when in fact I transcribed his fact summary and quote.
However unintentional, an incident such as this can damage the credibility of the newspaper, of which I am mindful. I apologize to Nicholas Kristof, to my colleagues at The Gazette, and to my readers.
Bagnall does have a solid reputation, and she is one of the better voices on the paper's older male-dominated op-ed page. But her explanation seems a bit strange. Most writers are able to distinguish their own notes and quotes and will instinctively know what is and what isn't their work. We'll have to take Bagnall at her word for now.
There are, however, a few things that bother us here:
Why didn't the paper take the time to review some of her other columns to spot check for other instances of plagiarism? This could prove that this was indeed a one time mistake, or reveal a pattern of behavior. As of right now, all we have is her word. Reputation matters, but facts are better. UPDATE/CORRECTION: After an incident of plagiarism at the Gazette caused a freelancer to be fired in May 2006, we received word from the paper's editor-in-chief that Bagnall's previous work was in fact run through plagiarism detection software. More about this here.- Exactly what "reprimand" did she receive? Will she not be paid during the period in which her columns will not run? Has a note been put in her file? Will she still serve on the paper's editorial board?
- Why did her column run after the editor's letter said her columns will not appear for a while?
- How long will her columns be absent for?
Tough times for the Montreal Gazette. First, a marquee columnist and editorial writer admits to plagiarism. Then it identifies a lawyer -- and not his client -- as someone charged with impaired driving. This ran under the Gazette's usual "For the Record" correction heading yesterday, along with a photo of the lawyer:
