There were minor differences: in editing an introduction to Yes!’s interview with Richard Wilkinson, Reader misspelled the researcher’s last name; it also changed the title of Yes!’s feature, “Tools for a popular uprising,” to the less bellicose, “Tools for a more perfect union.”
Pibel learned of “this amazing product” when he received an email and link from an “alert subscriber…who picked up on the fact that this was an unlikely spot for our material to appear and asked ‘Did you actually give permission to this magazine to reproduce this?’”
Following his tipster’s link, Pibel discovered that Reader not only looked and read a lot like Yes!, but that four of his contributors—executive editor Sarah van Gelder and a chairman of the board among them—had been added to Reader’s masthead. Pibel was further surprised to learn that his magazine had entered into a “special collaboration” with Reader.
Per Theodore, in the issue’s Publisher’s Note:
We’ve chosen the theme of this Reader Magazine to be Purple America, to remind us of the common hopes and ideals we share as a nation. We first heard the term “Purple America” in Yes!, a national, nonprofit media organization that fuses powerful ideas with practical actions. Because we believe many of the ideas espoused by Yes! deserve to be heard in the broader marketplace of ideas, we’ve given our voice to republish some ideas through a special collaboration.
Except, says Yes!’s Pibel, “this is a collaboration that did not involve any communication with Yes! magazine. There was no collaboration—‘special’ or otherwise.” (Even so, this one-sided collaboration appears to be the only instance in which Reader’s founder, Theodore, has sort of credited a source publication.)
“It’s particularly egregious for us because it’s really a placement that is contrary to our brand,” says Pibel. “We’re all about sustainability, economic justice and ramping down consumerism. And being used in support of shopping coupons is not usually where we prefer to show up.”
Pibel has found an attorney to represent the magazine pro bono and draw up a cease and desist letter. “We want people to reprint our stuff, we just want to have credit for it and maybe a link to our website when they do,” he says.
But more than anything, Pibel was stunned by the “chutzpah” involved in Reader’s stunt. “In today’s Internet world, I think people are getting real confused about what’s appropriate use and what’s not,” he says. “But I think it goes far beyond that to take an interview and substitute your name as interviewer. The level of audacity involved there—I don’t even know how you would even think of doing that.”
Chris Theodore, founder and publisher of Reader, wasn’t up for explaining. When contacted by CJR, Theodore refused to grant a phone interview or respond to e-mailed questions, and instead sent an e-mail threatening a lawsuit if we pursued the story. He also accused of this reporter of conspiring in a “smear campaign” with an individual “who seeks to speciously discredit our much loved publication, and is using your institution for this purpose.”
Despite the perils that the Internet would seem to present for plagiarizers of our time—it can take but a simple Google search to undress the Emperor these days—Theodore does not shy away from promoting Reader on its many platforms. Perhaps he even offers a clue about his editorial practices at his Tumblr and Facebook pages, in a post titled, “Massive Collaboration Changes Everything,” where he hints at the substance of a new social network, Wikitny, he is building and which he imagines will become the “place to add your mark to the destiny of the world.”
Perhaps also telling is this language at the Reader Magazine legal page:
The information presented here has been compiled by Noble Media, Inc. from internal and external sources. However, no representation is made or warranty given as to the completeness or accuracy of such information. In particular, you should be aware that this information may be incomplete, may contain errors or may have become out of date.
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