After noticing an 20-word verbatim quotation without quotation marks in the “Factually” newsletter jointly published by the American Press Institute and the Poynter Institute, we emailed Susan Benkelman, the API co-author of the July 2, 2020 edition of the newsletter, to find the explanation for not clarifying the attribution and/or adding quotation marks.
Benkelman directs API’s accountability journalism program.
We received a short response from Benkelman, which accounts for our use of the “Interviews” tag.
Dear Susan Benkelman,
The July 2, 2020 edition of “Factually” continues to feature a 20-word string with no clear attribution, despite the fact that an identical 20-word string appears in a Washington Post article linked in a subsection following duplicated material.
I had (privately) alerted Harrison Mantas to this problem, expecting some sort of fix such as a notice indicating the original version failed to offer a clear attribution of the material (as by using quotation marks and directly citing the source).
When 24 hours passed and I saw no change to the newsletter, I thought perhaps you do not view duplicating the 20-word string without clear attribution as a problem.
If the newsletter clearly passes ethical muster as-is, I am eager to understand the rationale backing that understanding. Supplying suitable linked material may certainly suffice.
If the newsletter had been updated with clear attribution and an appropriate update notice I would be finished writing about it. But if you view the newsletter as fine as it is without any changes, I would take the opportunity to present that viewpoint to the public in detail, of course reserving the right to present a counterargument.
We could all do with less gray area concerning what constitutes plagiarism and proper attribution.
Please be reminded that I am messaging you in my role as a journalist. When I publish on the subject readers will have access to my emails and the replies to those emails. That is, unless the replies come with stipulations such as “off the record” or the like.
Of note, I have taken issue with the accuracy of the words quoted from the Post. The Post published no evidence backing its claim that “boogaloo” group violence disrupted any BLM protest, mostly peaceful or otherwise. Poynter.org has been slow to publish my reply to the newsletter pointing out that problem.
Thanks, and have a nice weekend.