PLAGIARISM IS defined in dictionaries as the “wrongful appropriation,” “close imitation,” or “purloining and publication” of another author’s “language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions,” and the representation of them as one’s own original work, but the notion remains problematic with nebulous boundaries.
The modern concept of plagiarism as immoral and originality as an ideal emerged in Europe only in the 18th century, particularly with the Romantic Movement, while in the previous centuries authors and artists were encouraged to “copy the masters as closely as possible” and avoid “unnecessary invention.”
The 18th century new morals have been institutionalized and enforced prominently in the sectors of academia and journalism, where plagiarism is now considered academic dishonesty and a breach of journalistic ethics, subject to sanctions like expulsion and other severe career damage.
Plagiarism is not a crime per se but is disapproved more on the grounds of moral offence, and cases of plagiarism can involve liability for copyright infringement.
IF THE above brief is bylined Bong Z. Lacson, then I am a damned plagiarist.
Attributing it properly to Wikipedia makes me a “researcher.”
Plagiarism is plain and simple stealing. The scale and scope of what is thieved make the difference between pilferage and plunder. A sentence, a paragraph copied verbatim and passed on as one’s own comprises the former, a whole body of work – feature, essay, research paper, speech, critique, etc. – the latter. Still, and all, a violation of the Commandment “Thou shalt not steal.” And “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s goods” too.
Mere translation of another’s work in another language does not make it as the translator’s own. Nothing lost in the translation, the original ideas, thoughts therein remain reposited in the author.
As when a former Senate president translated into Tagalog part of a speech of the late US Sen. Robert F. Kennedy and appropriated it as his own that instantly merited public denunciations.
Yes, the plagiarist is in no way exculpated by his reformatting of the work, so long as the original ideas are kept in toto. It is like Barbie or Ken – pardon the banality of the analogy – no matter how a child dresses them her way, they remain Mattel’s.
Even more vulgar, as the Filipino witticism holds: Mag-amerikana man ang monkey, unggoy pa rin. Magpabango man si porky, baboy pa rin. Gone a bit off-tangent there maybe.
In a past not-so-distant, there was this fixation on ethical questions rising from the publication of press releases vis-à-vis plagiarism.
“What is unethical? Publishing a press release or writing for a government agency and for a newspaper at the same time?” So, asked one local paper reporter.
Replied I: No question of ethics in publishing a press release, so long as you don’t claim authorship of it if you did not write it. For then, it becomes plagiarism, plain and simple.
A prize-winning journalist from a national daily totally agreed, but then: “Problem is, young writers these days just delete the names of PIA writers and claim it as theirs in toto. Bad!”
As it happens, it is not only young writers that claim authorship of press releases, whether coming from the Philippine Information Agency, the public relations department of the Clark Development Corp., NLEX Corp., the Bases Conversion and Development Authority, the Clark International Airport, SM malls, or from the information offices of the Capitol, and the cities of San Fernando, Angeles, and Mabalacat.
Outright plagiarism has become common practice here, reflective of the indolence, if not of the incompetence of many in the local media. Bad, really bad.
Many a time you see the same story bylined differently in other papers but taglined “Press Release” with the corresponding source in Punto!
Yes, it is our policy to attribute the press release whence it cometh. If it is re-written and infused with additional facts and figures by our writers, then we find it meriting of his/her byline or tagline but still carrying PR – for press release.
Writing for a government agency and for a newspaper at the same time, is a totally different matter. Ethics dictates that such writer identifies himself/herself as working with the government so the readers will have foreknowledge of his/her biases.
Plagiarism though is not always as easily delineated or defined as in the case of press releases. Or as always willful, on the part of the writer.
I have been in journalism since the mid-1970s and still I am in constant dread if I have inadvertently or unwittingly taken parts of someone else’s work and incorporated them in my own without the proper attribution.
It is easy – and I do this diligently – to cite reference works and authors quoted in my articles when I am directly noting them from the internet or from books on hand.
Due diligence however becomes fairly impossible when dredging one’s memory bank while writing, especially nearing deadline. It’s like: Are these sets of words, phrases coming to mind originally mine? Or are they figments of long memorized passages from hundreds of books and periodicals read, or maybe my personal impressions of them?
Authors may have been long forgotten but their ideas are still remembered. Or remembered in name but not in work.
There is absolutely no willful intention in me to take another’s work as my own. If you notice anything in my writings suspiciously similar to another’s, then – please – let me know ASAP.
I will call out that other for plagiarizing my work. If his came after mine.
I will damn myself, don sackcloth and sit in ashes. If mine came after his.
There’s no justification to plagiarism. Once you did it – and are found to have done it – there’s no other recourse but to own up to it and not simply apologize but repent and recompense.
That is the only right thing to do. As much for the writer as for the editor.
(First published in September 2012, republished and updated in the wake of the Rappler apology for academic and journalistic works published elsewhere plagiarized by a researcher-writer)
