Yet Reader, the oddly-titled, quarterly coupon magazine of Southern California, is a completely different beast. As evidenced by its tendency to raid journalism’s grave circa 2006, Reader is not on this frantic publishing hamster wheel. Its plagiarism is not isolated to a few sentences or a choice turn of phrase. It’s not the work of a rogue reporter trying to get ahead, or an overwhelmed reporter trying to keep up. It is the whole scale ripping off of others’ work.
Reader is a mailed advertiser—its website boasts it “now has a larger circulation than the paid circulation of nearly every newspaper in California”—that was founded on the principle “keep the price as low as possible, and the quality as high as possible.” Its website is clearly geared towards its advertisers. That’s fitting: the Reader’s advertisers do not sustain its journalism; its “journalism” is a strategy to sustain its advertisers. Plagiarism is its bold, bald business model—and it has been this way since at least 2008.
Besides a smattering of local content, a quick sampling of the last three years’ of issues would suggest all other content is taken from somewhere else. The Reader has drawn its content from many varied sources—some fair, most not—and failed to credit nearly all of them, including Newsweek, National Geographic Adventure, the 9/11 Report, Huffington Post, the Diet Channel, author Guy Kawasaki’s blog, RT, Mumbai-based CNBC TV 18, Guideposts, and Jonathan Calloway, a recent college graduate and winner of the Elie Wiesel Prize in Ethics Essay Contest (Calloway was given a byline). The Reader does not limit itself to the text of other publications; it also recycles art and photos.
CJR contacted a number of these outlets, and in each case was told by the original author or publication that they had been unaware of the republication of their work, and often times that Reader had gotten basic things wrong. Samantha Carlin, of the Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity, for example, said that not only had Reader not requested or received permission to run their contest’s prize-winning essay, it had “misrepresented the prize in its table of contents” by getting the name wrong.
A June 2010 Newsweek story, “Healthy at any Age,” by Mary Carmichael, was published as Reader’s July/August/September 2010 cover story.
Carmichael, now a higher education reporter with The Boston Globe, was dismayed to discover Reader’s treatment of her article, which included some stylistic edits (using ellipses for dramatic effect, for example) and drastic abridgement. She was relieved only that they had neglected to run her byline. “They edited it in a way that makes it sound airheaded,” she said.
But the bigger problem according to Carmichael was that what Reader published was merely the introduction she had written to a much larger package, and it didn’t make any sense on its own. “You just kind of wonder did they even read the thing that they copied and edited?”
Carmichael, who has seen her work reprinted without permission before, was surprised by the audacity involved in this case and, though not personally hurt by it, was bothered by the fact that Reader “may be making money on something that they should not have.”
“It seems like something you should A: never do, and B: never do in the age of the Internet,” says Carmichael. “I don’t often see my work or other peoples’ work presented wholly in the guise of being someone else’s the way this happened. I would be horrified if that’s the new normal.”
Yet far more egregious than these instances in which Reader lifted a single article, is its latest issue in which it borrowed almost all of its content from the Seattle-based Yes! magazine.
Doug Pibel, Yes!’s managing editor, says that Reader lifted at least 11 pieces—including the “Purple America” cover art and feature—from multiple issues of Yes! and its online content. He notes that all Yes! branding was stripped and replaced by the Reader equivalent— “a Yes! magazine take on what Americans want” became “a Reader Magazine take on what Americans want.”



Interesting, article, but I would expect a writer for CJR to know the proper use of its and it's:
"It’s design and layout are crummy and crowded..."
Disappointing. I see it all too often these days among journalists.
#1 Posted by Sally Bahner, CJR on Fri 28 Oct 2011 at 11:18 PM
The magazine should be the one RECEIVING the court notice to desist copying in part or in whole any one of the articles listed in your piece. If the publisher of the magazine isn't stopped now, he /she will become bolder and the authors listed or not listed in the articles will have even a more difficult time making them stop or getting them not to print it whole rather than even taking the time to leave out information or the author's name. Even then the court could have difficulty believing the author's dismay or stopping them simply because of the cuts in personnel on their end and lightness of the damage at this point. Also, it was allowed before, so why the fuss now???
Plagiarism on the computer is not new and is something high school kids try to do with teachers by one writing a report and then the author allows others to change their names and heading at the top and all--2 or more make copies and turn them in. I gave F's to all the papers alike since I found both the author that allowed it and the peers that copied guilty. One complained--"Ms So-and-So" didn't grade this way. and my only response was, I'm not her and besides the classes were all warned in advance not to copy. I still had to stay alert.
If high school kids think they can get away with plagiarism with both resource material and each others', they will do it later for college or work and be blacklisted. There is no excuse for the publisher in your article to be unaware of the illegality of what he did. If he were innocent, why did he not take part in a phone interview or response to e-mails sent him? He knew!!!
#2 Posted by trishjw, CJR on Sat 29 Oct 2011 at 12:40 PM
YAWN.
Some guy mooches content and uses it in a direct mail flyer.
Big deal. This isn't really journalism - it's direct mail advertising.
95% of these papers end up in trash bags or bird cages.
Plagiarism? Certainly. But what's the import to journalism?
#3 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sun 30 Oct 2011 at 11:47 AM
well the publication does share ideas that many people may never come across otherwise because of the fact that it is mailed to people for free. I'd like to read about an expose on Time and how they check their facts or create them to suit the story, case in point:
http://www.vanguardblog.com/2009.10.14/bad-facts-bad-story.html
oh wait should I not have shared this ?! --- we need free press and free speech and free internet
#4 Posted by Cheryl, CJR on Wed 2 Nov 2011 at 12:07 AM
Good story. Don't listen to padikiller - this matters. The prevalence of plagiarism needs to be shown in all of it's forms.
I think one important/unmentioned lesson that readers should take away from this is that we should be checking these smaller publications more frequently because they may feel they can fly under the radar.
I caught my editor at my university newspaper plagiarizing - as well as a few other editors/writers - and it doesn't seem like it's a big deal to the journalists there that I have told, which is disheartening - so I find it aggravating to see that same apathy here just because this is advertisement material.
The import to journalism is that journalists face theft from many people such as Chris Theodore, and so should be informed/aware. The many journalists this guy ripped off seemed to think it was important.
#5 Posted by Brian Jensen, CJR on Sun 25 Dec 2011 at 05:28 PM
From Reader's Magazine website:
"At The Reader Magazine, we hold ourselves to the highest standards of ethical conduct and personal integrity. Our values are our strength and they guide us in all we do."
There you have it, straight from the horse's mouth.
#6 Posted by Josh, CJR on Fri 16 Mar 2012 at 11:05 PM