04/29/2002

FOUR MONTHS AGO, Ken Ringle, a staff writer for The Washington Post, took historian Stephen Ambrose to task for his plagiarism. The reporter wrote, "When you start cranking out books as fast as assembly lines crank out cars, there's danger that the books, like the cars, will all start looking alike. And that you may find yourself pressed into hurriedly borrowing parts from similar models."

Then in last month's Post, Jonathan Yardley blasted Doris Kearns Goodwin for her indiscretions. "Goodwin grinds out books the way Oscar Mayer grinds out wieners, though apparently with less attention to what manner of offal might end up inside."

Both pieces attacked and ridiculed in language meant to lampoon and damage the reputations of the two authors. These are authors who have spent a lifetime working to bring important pieces of history to broad public audiences. When dealing with reputations, The Post should tread carefully. It should examine its own record before uttering such sanctimony.

In the midst of the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal, washingtonpost.com published a by-lined article, written by Gayle Worland, entitled, "Scandals Throughout Presidential History." The article chronicled the indiscretions of presidents throughout history and the corresponding scandals that resulted. When I read the piece, I was sure I had read those very words before. That night at home, I pulled off the shelf a book entitled The Complete Book of U.S. Presidents, written and edited by William DeGregorio. The book is one of those great references that provides an insightful overview and gives insights into the backgrounds, administrations and even the scandals of each president. I had bought it for a dollar a few years before.

Sure enough, the words and thoughts from the Post article were not the words and thoughts of Worland, but those of DeGregorio. His work had been published more than seven years before the Post piece, and the Post article had lifted them in true second grade encyclopedia-style copying.

For example, DeGregorio wrote, "As the United States moved closer to entering the conflict against Germany, Carrie threatened to expose their affair unless Harding, now a U.S. Senator, voted against a declaration of war. Harding called her bluff and voted for the declaration anyway."

The Post piece read, "As World War I ignited overseas, Philips threatened to expose their relationship unless Harding, then a U.S. senator, voted against a declaration of war with Germany. He called her bluff and voted for the declaration anyway."

When I made this discovery three years ago or so, I spoke to a couple of close friends and decided to let it be. While plagiarism is a serious violation of the trust between newspaper and public or historian and reader, I hardly wanted to be the one who ruined some poor reporter's life. But after reading the feeding frenzy of attacks on these two historians, I felt differently. The mean attack by The Post was unnecessary. The attacks focused not on the blunders, but on the fact that they were successful, money-making writers.

Yardley wrote, "When the ultimate goals are (a) to make as much money, and (b) to be on television as often as humanly possible, something's got to fall by the wayside. Integrity, scruples, dignity,take your pick."

Yes, Ambrose and Goodwin failed, but to try and undermine all their work is inappropriate. They should not be publicly flogged because they are commercially successful. In some ways, their commercial success (less the plagiarism) should be lauded because their work has connected history to many for the benefit of history. History should not go the way of dead languages.

When I raised The Post's indiscretion with its editors, their response was remarkably dissimilar to their all-out attack on the historians. Instead of a series of news pieces and a column, they ran a clarification buried in the depths of the online version of the paper. The clarification read, "The article also contains some phrases that are identical to phrases in DeGregorio's book, and those phrases should have been put in quotation marks and attributed to the book."

It may be me, but The Post's "clarification" had a remarkably different tone than the paper's assaults on Ambrose and Goodwin.

All writers should be ever vigilant in their organization of thought and word and be sure to properly recognize those ideas that are not theirs. This includes Ambrose and Goodwin. But when reporters and editors shine the light on a newsworthy error or indiscretion, they should focus on the important issue and lose the hyperbole. They should take seriously the power they wield.

Newspapers, not unlike car-making facilities or hot-dog-making plants, are not clean rooms. Sometimes the ink spills and it should be cleaned up so that it does not stain.

Joshua N. Fenton is a Providence public-relations man.