As Fareed Zakaria’s trial-by-blogosphere for alleged plagiarism continues, Jonah Lehrer, whom the same jury convicted of fabricating quotes last month, has received a measure of clemency from an old employer.
Last week, Time magazine and CNN suspended Zakaria for borrowing passages from a New Yorker article, without attribution, in pieces he wrote about gun control for both outlets. But critics have thrown out a related charge that Zakaria used a quote in his bestselling book, The Post-American World, without giving credit to the man who first recorded it.
On Monday, The Washington Post’s Paul Farhi reported that Zakaria had lifted a comment from the former CEO of Intel, which originally appeared in a 2005 book by Clyde V. Prestowitz. The Daily Beast’s David Frum looked up the original hardcover and paperback editions and found documentary evidence that Zakaria had, in fact, acknowledged Prestowitz in his footnotes, however.
The Post corrected its story Wednesday morning and Poynter’s Andrew Beaujon, one of many bloggers who repeated Farhi’s false allegation, also had to set the record straight, posting a note he’d received from Zakaria’s publisher, which affirmed that the author had “adhered to” its standards.
Beaujon’s credulous echoing of Farhi’s claim is indicative of a trend toward indiscriminate repetition in the media that’s arguably as troubling as the general loosening of attribution standards. Still, Beaujon was right to criticize Mother Jones’s Kevin Drum for suggesting that Zakaria didn’t need to credit Prestowitz in the first place, and he justly rejected every line of defense related to Zakaria’s light rewriting of a passage from Jill Lepore’s April 2012 New Yorker article about the National Rifle Association.
Some pundits have argued that the almost word-for-word transcription of Lepore’s work either doesn’t qualify as plagiarism, or amounts to a relatively benign and forgivable form of plagiarism. Others have suggested, without offering any supporting evidence, that Zakaria’s piracy may have resulted from the contributions of research assistants. All of these exculpatory arguments fall flat, Beaujon wrote, linking to a number of solid rebuttals from around the Net. Zakaria admitted that he made a “terrible mistake,” and there’s no excuse for what he did. But if Lehrer is any guide, he will bounce back quickly.
BuzzFeed’s Ben Smith reported Wednesday morning that Lehrer will retain his features contract with Wired magazine, which used to host Lehrer’s blog, The Frontal Cortex. According to Smith:
The new scandal “does not diminish his work as a valued contributor to the magazine and website,” said [Wired spokesman Jon Hammond], who added that Lehrer’s continuing contract with Wired, a Condé Nast sibling of the New Yorker, meant that “a couple of pieces that were already in the works” and that the magazine anticipates future contributions from him.
Wired is also “continuing our process of vetting” Lehrer’s past blog items, Hammond said; the magazine is satisfied his print pieces are original and stand up to fact-checking, he said.
That’s not good enough. It’s wrong to allow Lehrer back into the fold so soon. Based on what we know from his own statements, his lies have the feel of the desperate strokes of a man in over his head and willing to do almost anything to stay afloat. Zakaria’s failing, on the other hand, appears for now to be a plausibly honest, and isolated, mistake. That’s not to suggest he doesn’t deserve our censure and scrutiny—he does—but rather to make some distinctions in what has become a dismayingly common problem in journalism. Indeed, some editors and publishers have a tendency to forgive and forget too easily, especially when the journalist in question is a star. That’s not fair to the vast majority of reporters who play the rules and navigate this increasingly fast-paced and fluid information age without cutting corners, intentionally or otherwise.
Update: On Thursday morning, Wired’s managing editor, Jacob Young, contradicted Hammond’s comments to BuzzFeed. In a statement posted on Wired’s website, Young said Lehrer “has no current assignments” for the magazine.

--Correction:
This article incorrectly states that in his 2008 book, “The Post-American World,” Fareed Zakaria failed to cite the source of a quotation taken from another book. In fact, Zakaria did credit the other work, by Clyde V. Prestowitz. Endnotes crediting Prestowitz were contained in hardcover and paperback editions of Zakaria’s book. The Post should have examined copies of the books and should not have published the article. We regret the error and apologize to Fareed Zakaria.
The Washington Post is finally taking full responsibility for its appalling behavior.
#1 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Wed 15 Aug 2012 at 05:04 PM
The extremely slow response of The Washington Post to its problem is indicative. (I can't see evidence that the Ombudsman was alert.)
The Washington Post should communicate urgently to reporters and editors the need to keep in close touch with the fortunes of sensitive stories by checking "past 24 hours" in Google Advanced Search.
This is a powerful practice if you can internalize it, and if you can respond to what you see.
I have known for a long time that the practices in universities, and in journalism schools, in sensitizing students to texts are feeble.
I offer as an example the textual history of the various iterations of Noel Polk's "Absalom, Absalom!" I will post a comment on that.
#2 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Wed 15 Aug 2012 at 05:14 PM
Professor Allen: The various "Absalom, Absalom!" texts under the Noel
Polk corrected text label are a collective mess. They have been such a
mess for 20 years. This is a disgrace for the American Faulkner
industry. Clayton.
Clayton Burns
11:34 AM (2 hours ago)
to jwatson
1.Absalom, Absalom! (Modern Library) (Hardcover) by William Faulkner,
John Jeremiah Sullivan
page 19:
as if for Christmas... this ogre of djinn...
Vintage International 1990
page 16:
as if for Christmas... this ogre or djinn...
original Modern Library 1993
page 18:
as if for Christmas... this ogre of djinn...
Modern Library 1993 now in the Chapters Robson bookstore
page 18:
as if for Christmas... this ogre or djinn...
2.original Modern Library 1993
page 33:
who did not know that language...
Modern Library 1993 now in Chapters Robson
page 33:
who did not know that one language...
Vintage International
page 27:
who did not know that the language...
3.Original Modern Library 1993
page 100:
this man miscast for the time and knowing it, accepting it for a
reason obviously good enough to cause him to endure it and apparently
too serious or at least too private to cause him to endure it and
apparently too serious or at least too private to be divulged to what
acquaintances he now possessed...
1993 Modern Library now in Chapters Robson
page 100:
this man miscast for the time and knowing it, accepting it for a
reason obviously good enough to cause him to endure it and apparently
too serious or at least too private be divulged to what acquaintances
he now possessed...
Vintage International
page 78:
this man miscast for the time and knowing it, accepting it for a
reason obviously good enough to cause him to endure it and apparently
too serious or at least too private to be divulged to what
acquaintances he now possessed...
This is just a sampling.
Over the years, Noel Polk and I have had telephone and e-mail
discussions about the 20 major errors in the original 1993 Modern
Library.
He has never been able to deal with these textual issues in an
acceptable way. All of these texts are tagged with Polk's name and
identified as the corrected text. He is unfit to be an editor of
Faulkner based on this behavior.
Clayton Burns PhD Vancouver 604 272 3455.
#3 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Wed 15 Aug 2012 at 05:26 PM
I strongly disagree that leaving out the name of the interviewer who got a quote into the public record is either plagiarism or bad behavior.
In a book length project, it is good practice that there should be some listing of all the sources, which Zakaria did in full. But it is by no means required, especially in an work of opinion. Do you think Bill O'Reilly bothers listing sources in his books? Please, and no, it isn't required, just good form.
As for naming the interviewer in a shorter piece like a blog post or column, that is just silly. I don't want to read pointless asides for every public quote I come across in daily reading.
It is fair use to take a public quote, and merely good manners or fastidiousness to name to whom it was said. Period. There is NO story here, other than the Post's making one up out of thin air.
#4 Posted by Steve Mannerheim, CJR on Wed 15 Aug 2012 at 11:22 PM