Matt McCann wasn’t supposed to spend his summer working for St. Thomas University in Fredericton, New Brunswick.
For the second year in a row, McCann, a journalism student at St. Thomas, had landed a summer internship at the Telegraph-Journal. But that ended abruptly in May when he was fired a day after the paper published a story of his on the front page.
McCann’s article reported that roughly 100 faculty and staff from the University of New Brunswick had signed a letter protesting the school’s decision to award Premier Shawn Graham an honorary degree. After it was published, representatives from the university called the paper’s publisher and editor to talk about the article.
“We were really looking to elaborate our position,” UNB communications manager Dan Tanaka told the Toronto Star. “We felt we were given a minor mention at the bottom of the story.”
Apart from that gripe, the story contained three factual errors. McCann misspelled a person’s last name (“Stropel” instead of “Strople”) and title (“university secretary for UNB Fredericton” instead of “university secretary for UNB”). He also reported that the premier has an education degree from UNB—when, in fact, he has a physical education degree.
The errors were easily preventable and should not have appeared in the story. As far as them being a firing offense, however, I’ve never heard of anyone being let go for mistakes of this nature. Far more experienced journalists have repeatedly made worse mistakes and kept their jobs. Certainly that’s nothing to be proud of, but the Telegraph-Journal held McCann to a standard that other staffers can’t possibly meet.
So, yes, the errors guy is sticking up for someone who admittedly made three sloppy mistakes. Almost no one should be fired for making three factual errors. We all make them. What matters is that you learn from them, correct them, and work to prevent them in the future. Firing someone doesn’t teach him how to be more accurate. It could also create a culture of fear in the newsroom.
Philip Lee, a professor in the journalism department at St. Thomas, defended his student in part by admitting that “…if I had been held to the same standard, I never would have had a career in journalism.”
I think that’s true for a large number of working journalists. In fact, a very high-profile journalist recently admitted to a far greater transgression.
This week it was revealed that the new book from Chris Anderson, editor of Wired magazine and author of the bestselling book The Long Tail, includes unattributed passages taken from Wikipedia.
After the theft was revealed by the Virginia Quarterly Review, Anderson quickly responded and admitted his mistakes. He attributed his failure of attribution to a mix of carelessness and a debate with his publisher about the proper way to cite material from Wikipedia.
Some people have raked Anderson over the coals. But he’s also received the full backing of his publisher. Other people, including the person who discovered the theft in the first place, are giving him the benefit of the doubt.
There’s no proof to suggest Anderson consciously tried to rip off the Wikipedia entries. But he did put them in his book without proper attribution. That’s a big mistake. There’s also no evidence that McCann was consciously trying to make the university look bad in his story. Whether he did or not is highly debatable, though the errors aren’t.
Both journalists were sloppy. But they have received very different treatment at this point.
Different media organizations often have very different ways of dealing with errors or incidents of plagiarism. Likewise, there will often be different rules for different people within an organization itself. A contract worker or intern such as McCann will typically be dismissed much faster than a union member or long-time employee. The longer you’re there, the more of a track record you have. You get the benefit of the doubt. That’s fair and understandable on one level, but at the same time, standards should be applied equally.

"... UNB communications manager Dan Tanaka told the Toronto Star."
Tanaka's name should be within commas.
"... includes unattributed passages that taken from Wikipedia."
Missing "were."
In this age of computerization (incl. spelling and grammar checkers, ...), it's sad that competent proofreading skills were left behind.
Pedantry, I know, and they're certainly not up there on the level of factual errors, but I expect better. Proofreading doesn't take all that much time.
I know, it's a truism that not all errors can be caught. We might try a little harder and test that truism.
#1 Posted by S. Keeling, CJR on Sat 27 Jun 2009 at 11:29 PM
I agree with Mr.Philip Lee that the reporter should not have been fired for the story. And I also agree with Mr Lee opinion of the story itself.
"In my view, the Saint John Polytechnic was an opportunity lost. But I wasn’t the premier. Mr. Graham was, and what did he do? He listened to the howls of protest in Saint John and shelved the report. He listened to the faculty concerns at UNB. The protesters won. So what does he get in return? This public objection to his honorary degree. Why? Because he appointed an independent commission and thought about the recommendations for a few weeks. There’s a lesson here for Mr. Graham. There’s no reciprocity with this gang. They’ll get you coming and going. Someone on the radio this morning was calling the protest an expression of academic freedom. I would call it bad manners, and a cheap shot as a premier who didn’t have it coming."
http://philiplee.ca/2009/05/12/unb-protest-a-cheap-shot/#comments
#2 Posted by John Stewart Mills, CJR on Mon 29 Jun 2009 at 04:05 PM
The Bermudan crime syndicate that owns all New Brunswick newspapers (and lord knows what else) is a real joke when it comes to publishing the truth.
Jamie Irving seems destined to be the Citizen Kane of the Maritimes (without all the sentimental garbage in the beginning).
His battles with the current mayor of Irvingville will seem like a kitten toying with a mouse once the Project for a new Irving century onfolds at taxpayer and citizen expense.
#3 Posted by Dan Fitzgerald, CJR on Mon 29 Jun 2009 at 06:23 PM
Tanaka's name should be within commas.
No, it shouldn't.
#4 Posted by Patrick, CJR on Mon 29 Jun 2009 at 09:13 PM
"And I also agree with Mr Lee opinion of the story itself."
John Stewart Mills: If you read the blog post you linked to, Lee's criticism was of the stated reasons the faculty gave for protesting the honorary degree, as well as the text of their letter.
He wasn't criticizing McCann's story.
#5 Posted by Johnny Doe, CJR on Tue 30 Jun 2009 at 09:34 AM
Johhny Doe writes, " He wasn't criticizing McCann's story. "
On the contrary.
If Lee was the editor, he might have said to the young reporter" This is a cheap shot,afterall consider the source.We're not going to run this story without balance..get some more voices with counter-agendas and make it a good piece of journalism by exposing this story for what it really is.
#6 Posted by John Stewart Mills, CJR on Tue 30 Jun 2009 at 01:41 PM
Mills:
Lee, had he been the editor, might have said that, and he might not have. It would be remiss to put words in his mouth - or into his blog.
Lee didn't say either way in the post you linked to. But what he also didn't say was that there was anything wrong with the story. In fact, if you read some of his later posts, he defends the story and the intern who was fired.
And I think if you read Mccann's story carefully, you will notice that there is, in fact, other voices in it. Namely, a UNB administrator who defends the awarding of the degree on the basis of merit, Graham having met certain criteria, and a long-held university tradition.
Seems balanced enough for me.
#7 Posted by Johnny Doe, CJR on Tue 30 Jun 2009 at 05:35 PM
First, I would like to point out, as a signatory to the original letter, that it was an internal document, addressed to the Board of Governors questioning the wisdom of granting degrees to any sitting politician. The crisis was precipitated by the awarding of the degree to Premier Shawn Graham, who was extremely slow to reject a commissioned report calling for the replacement of our university campus with a polytechnic designed to service industrial needs.
Richer's actions in the McCann case are certainly questionable, but then again, so is the entire output of the Telegraph-Journal. Most recently, Ms. Richer published a piece entitled "We are doing our job. Are you, Your Worship?" (see story at http://telegraphjournal.canadaeast.com/search/article/713984). It was published as a news item, but a journalist friend refers to it as more of an "advertorial" inappropriately placed in the "News" section of our newspaper.
One should also note that the Irving family's ownership of all three English-language dailies in the province of New Brunswick has been called "unique developed countries" in a 2006 Senate report on Canadian News Media (http://www.parl.gc.ca/39/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/Com-e/TRAN-E/rep-e/repfinjun06vol2-e.pdf).
Finally, there is a certain irony in CJR covering this story in that the Telegraph-Journal's publisher, Jamie Irving, has a Masters degree from the Columbia School of Journalism (http://propelict.com/view/directors) and Shawna Richer is a 2009 Fellow (http://www.journalism.columbia.edu/cs/ContentServer/jrn/1165270109971/page/1212610653271/simplepage.htm).
#8 Posted by Rob Moir, CJR on Wed 1 Jul 2009 at 08:11 AM
So it's a cheap shot and balanced?
Hardly a good journalism principle at work.
We'll never know whether Mr. Lee would have run the story as is.
I suppose it would have depended on his principles.
#9 Posted by John Stewart Mills, CJR on Fri 3 Jul 2009 at 09:47 AM
Although I was never under contract, I was given the cold shoulder at a small suburban newspaper when I mistook two individual's last names and incorrectly spelt the last name of another individual. No correction was run in the following issue, but a story I had already written and sent to the copy editors was pulled and other stories I had already been assigned were withdrawn and given to other freelancers. Naturally I felt horrible, especially after the drubbing I received from the editor via e-mail, but mostly I was disappointed thinking of all the stories I could have gone on to write.
I later found out that the editor was "alienating" a lot of writers, not just me, and that tenured writers and columnists had gotten far worse comments from her, and had even been called foul language. It just so happened that this particular editor was 8 months pregnant and so a temporary editor took her place during her maternity leave. The owner of the paper, aware of the hostile working environment, made the temporary replacement her permanent replacement. Was it right of them to fire her while on her maternity leave? I don't know, but since then I've been welcomed back, and recently made the front cover. Ironically, the story contained one error, this one a mistake made by the copyeditor.
#10 Posted by Christopher Olson, CJR on Sat 25 Jul 2009 at 12:43 AM
In case anyone might be interested, the editor who fired McCann was herself fired this morning.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/new-brunswick/story/2009/07/28/nb-wafergate-apology-harper-1049.html
#11 Posted by TJ Milburn, CJR on Tue 28 Jul 2009 at 02:20 PM
The chief editor was finally fired for her very serious, fabricated drive by of the Prime Minister. From her ivory tower she just could not resist using the byline of real reporters to inject her partisan sledgehammer persuasion. This control of the media message should have to be filed under electioneering expenses of the Liberal Party of Canada. But it won´t be, and there is no will in Canada to reveal anymore about this story or the sorry state of partisan journalism in Canada.
#12 Posted by Szusan, CJR on Tue 4 Aug 2009 at 12:35 PM