Signal suspends all local columns after Lutness admits to plagiarism

As Tim reported below, Signal columnist and one-time Democratic challenger to Cameron Smyth, Carole Lutness, has been accused of plagiarizing parts of an education column she sent to The Signal in November.

Today, she admitted to that fact. From The Signal:

“It’s plagiarism,” admitted Lutness, a local Democratic activist. “I went to Google and I typed in ‘history of public education in the United States’ and I took a paragraph from it. … It was succinct and I was wrong.”…
“In this day and age of Google, you can find so much so easily and it’s very easy to cut and paste,” Lutness said. “There’s no excuse for it.”

Lutness further admitted that there might be more plagiarized work in her published columns.

Following this, The Signal posted a second lengthy article, condemning Lutness’ plagiarism and suspending all local Signal columnists for one week, pending review of how the paper reveiws local columns. This email was sent by Josh Premako, Opinion Editor, to local columnists:

All,

As you may be aware through postings on several local Web sites, a Nov.
10 Democratic Voices column by Carole Lutness contained several examples
of plagiarism. This comes on the heels of a similar case of plagiarism
in a Right Here, Right Now column by Lynn Vakay.

This is disappointing on several levels, and has only reinforced to me
that we as a paper need to step back and retool some of the steps a
column must go through before being published.

As a result, effective immediately we are suspending all local columns
for a week, and will resume publication of local columnists on Wed. Jan.
6, 2010.

Over the next several days The Signal’s editorial board will discuss how
we can better prevent plagiarism, and revised and strengthened
guidelines will be communicated to you, our valued columnists, as soon
as possible.

Thank you for your understanding. Please feel free to contact me with
any questions.

Best,

Josh Premako

Opinion and Business Editor

The Signal Newspaper

These two acts of gross plagiarism leave me furious on a number of levels. In Catholic school, I was taught that plagiarism was as close to an unforgivable sin as one could get. Plagiarizing even short portions of a published work could lead to suspension or expulsion, even in junior high.

In high school and college I resisted the temptation to not only plagiarize, but to let others copy from me in exchange for money or favors.

That these two pillars of their respective political schools simply Googled some work and CTRL-C,CTRL-Vd their way into a column for our paper leaves me shocked and angry.

Yet I can’t blame the two disgraced columnists completely. If my 6th grade nun teacher had the means to check for plagiarism, surely the Signal can. There’s multiple websites out there- articlechecker.com, Plagiarismdetect.com, TurnItIn.com, and more, many of which are free. If professors at COC can check dozens of papers submitted to them every semester (and they do, believe me), why can’t The Mighty Signal check a few measly columns a week?

Note that these two acts of plagiarism have occurred under Ian Lamont’s watch. The same Ian Lamont who denigrated bloggers as irresponsible in the past, saying “your local bloggers cannot be expected to provide” accurate and valued content.

Isn’t it ironic that it was two local blogs that pointed out both cases of plagiarism!

And now we all lose out as other columnits -on both the left and the right- are punished for the sins of two and the lax attitude of The Signal.

Comments (17)

FredDecember 28, 2009 at 4:15 pm

The only thing these folks have going for them is the plain fact that many writers/editors don’t have a clear definition of what constitutes plagiarism. It’s shameful to be sure, but it’s regrettably true. I have seen this time and again. For example, that first lady who was plagiarizing her friend’s article thought it was “Okay” because he gave her permission. That may be true, but even then, if he has already published the material, she was obligated to give him credit. Even if it wasn’t published she should have given it to him. But most disturbing is the fact that most people don’t see plagiarism as being a “big deal.” It’s an internet age, stuff is readily available, posted on many different websites, etc. It’s just assumed that if it’s already there, then anyone can just copy and paste. Such, of course, is untrue and the copying and pasting in our internet age can get a person into trouble. Fred

SarahpoofDecember 28, 2009 at 4:16 pm

I don’t believe the The Signal has a liberal or conservative bend. I think it offers a fair amount of space to the left, the right, the environmentalists and the pro-business. That said, the paper does a horrible job reporting the facts in their entirety. Most stories are largely coloured using quotes directly from city spokespeople while ignoring or minimizing key quotes from opposing viewpoints. The paper is itself lazy. For all the nice quotes about “Courage” and Littlejohn’s recent call for “Independent Thought,” it has precious little of either. The sad thing is that they know it and do nothing to change it. Firing unpaid columnists with a story/lecture on responsible journalism misses the root of The Signal’s problems. The problem is at the head, not the tail.

mikecDecember 28, 2009 at 5:38 pm

I wonder if folks from both sides are gonna start checking other op-eds and attempt to score some points?

JeffDecember 28, 2009 at 9:30 pm

On reflection I think I was being a bit too harsh on the Signal on this. They do a fine job posting local content; it’s not their fault two cheaters have abused the system. That said I hope they come up with some method to minimally check submitted work.

Timothy MyersDecember 28, 2009 at 9:45 pm

I still think the only failsafe is to confine local columnists to LOCAL issues; much harder to find generic things to cut and paste.

Jim FarleyDecember 28, 2009 at 10:05 pm

Sarahproof: The Signal indeed has a liberal bias. I would not have said this years ago, but what I’ve seen printed lately shows a clear lean to port. Go back and look at the coverage of Congressman McKeon’s townhall and tell me the story was not left leaning. The letters to the editor are definitely more left leaning than right. Having first hand experience of the city favoring the view of city officials versus those of the opposition I have to agree with your second point. I read the Signal every day either directly or through their new ‘E’ version. My wife is so disgusted with them she wants to cancel the subscription. I’m still prevailing in keeping the subscription but the Signal should know they are turning off a lot of readers.

NickelDimeDecember 28, 2009 at 10:58 pm

@Tim – I disagree – while it would possibly deter, there are local issues that are still subject to plagiarism. Growth, education, water – these could easily be plagiarized from another local resource! To Jeff’s point, there are myriad tools that need to be integrated into the Signal’s process. I have vivid memories of handing in a floppy disk in college, with the professor warning that a random sample would be checked for plagiarism (this was when such services actually cost money and uploading was via 14.4 dialup). Jeff, Lamont’s piece from last year surely struck a chord; reading it today and re-reading your post I admit to some fist pumping for the blogosphere. There’s a coda to the irony, though – the-signal.com has an obvious gap for blog-style commentary common to modern news sites, which has created the niche for sites such as this….

NickelDimeDecember 28, 2009 at 11:04 pm

Sorry, to clarify the point to Tim on local issue plagiarism – an individual could easily plagiarize a Corvallis Gazette-Times (Oregon for the Pac-NW uninitiated) LTE and do a search-replace to muster up an opinion on ThinkSCV.

pattisoulDecember 29, 2009 at 12:28 am

To answer the question, does The Signal lean to the left or lean to the right; I think the beauty or the ugly lies in the eyes of the beholder. As a liberal, I perceive a Signal bend towards the conservative side. It seems to me there are many more conservative LTE’s published than liberal LTE’s and my take on the coverage of Buck’s Townhall was both pro Buck and pro GOP. Obviously SCV conservatives won’t agree. So, whether The Mighty Signal leans to the left or the right; the only way to end the fight, fight, fight is to tally all the LTE’s and do an unbiased, scientific study to detect partiality in news articles; if that’s even possible. But then, folks who didn’t get the answer they wanted probably wouldn’t accept the results anyway.

pattisoulDecember 29, 2009 at 12:49 am

If this blog was unbiased the title of the post under discussion would have been “Signal suspends all local columns after Lutness AND* Vakay admit to plagiarism”. The fact of the matter is, The Signal editor’s decision to suspend all local columns for a week was motivated by the cumulative effect of evidence of plagiarism by BOTH* Vakay and Lutness, not by just one or the other. (*caps for emphasis)

mikeDecember 29, 2009 at 7:08 am

Yeah Jeff, what’s with the right wing bias?

MGutzeitDecember 29, 2009 at 10:33 am

The signal did the right thing. Other writers should not be punished or restricted just because some people forgot what we were taught in Junior High.

navigatorDecember 29, 2009 at 11:19 am

“It seems to me there are many more conservative LTE’s published than liberal LTE’s” That comment seems a little contradictory when one local far left writer appears in the LTEs on what seems to be a close to weekly basis condeming everything conservative.

mikeDecember 29, 2009 at 12:37 pm

Jim, Navigator, I wouldn’t be so fast. Perhaps the liberal letters raise your ire so you recall them more vividly? FWIW, I looked at all the letters still listed on the site. Of the 29, 11 had no political viewpoint, concerning local issues, animals, religion, etc.. Of the politically oriented letters, 12 came from conservatives and just six from liberals.

navigatorDecember 29, 2009 at 2:04 pm

Mike, Check out the mind numbing, countless LTEs by Paul Sibek over the past year if it’s possible.

AleksGajewskiDecember 29, 2009 at 7:58 pm

Although it might seem unfair The Signal suspended (or “punished”) all columnists from being published, keep in mind it is only for a week. It gives the editorial board a chance to review opinion submissions and to incorporate a way to check for plagiarism. Those who have not plagiarized will be welcomed back. And hopefully, we’ll be welcoming some new voices as well. And although The Signal is responsible for publishing plagiarized content, you cannot blame them for trusting 2 local, politically active writers. Everyone knows plagiarism is a big “no-no” in the world of journalism. It’s sad to think that it is something The Signal has to worry about among its local columnists. They should know better. In regards to whether The Signal is biased: Let me tell you that none of the reporters (to my knowledge… and I would know… I am one) have an agenda to toot the conservative or liberal horn. We do our research, interview our subjects and write our stories to the best of our ability given the time constraints of that particular day. And every day is different. Pattisoul said it best: “I think the beauty or the ugly lies in the eyes of the beholder.” In regards to letters: The copy editors/paginators try their best to layout balanced letters on each page… but sometimes we cannot because the amount of space available on the page dictates what we can and cannot do. If that means 3 conservative letters fit in the hole better than 1 conservative, 1 liberal, and 1 random letter, guess what we’re going to go with? It really has nothing to do with being choosy. It also depends on the letter writers themselves. Living in Santa Clarita, a predominately conservative community, we are (more likely than not) going to receive more conservative letters than liberal. That’s just the way it is.

pattisoulDecember 30, 2009 at 2:18 am

Bravo, Mike, the tally you made of 29 LTE’s is the kind of impartial review I was talking about. You restated my point with different words. A conservative may readily recall the liberal letters he reads because they raise his ire; just like I may be more apt to recall conservative LTE’s because they’ve raised my dander. We are all biased one way or another, whether we acknowledge it or not.

FredDecember 28, 2009 at 4:15 pm
The only thing these folks have going for them is the plain fact that many writers/editors don’t have a clear definition of what constitutes plagiarism. It’s shameful to be sure, but it’s regrettably true. I have seen this time and again. For example, that first lady who was plagiarizing her friend’s article thought it was “Okay” because he gave her permission. That may be true, but even then, if he has already published the material, she was obligated to give him credit. Even if it wasn’t published she should have given it to him. But most disturbing is the fact that most people don’t see plagiarism as being a “big deal.” It’s an internet age, stuff is readily available, posted on many different websites, etc. It’s just assumed that if it’s already there, then anyone can just copy and paste. Such, of course, is untrue and the copying and pasting in our internet age can get a person into trouble. Fred
SarahpoofDecember 28, 2009 at 4:16 pm
I don’t believe the The Signal has a liberal or conservative bend. I think it offers a fair amount of space to the left, the right, the environmentalists and the pro-business. That said, the paper does a horrible job reporting the facts in their entirety. Most stories are largely coloured using quotes directly from city spokespeople while ignoring or minimizing key quotes from opposing viewpoints. The paper is itself lazy. For all the nice quotes about “Courage” and Littlejohn’s recent call for “Independent Thought,” it has precious little of either. The sad thing is that they know it and do nothing to change it. Firing unpaid columnists with a story/lecture on responsible journalism misses the root of The Signal’s problems. The problem is at the head, not the tail.
mikecDecember 28, 2009 at 5:38 pm
I wonder if folks from both sides are gonna start checking other op-eds and attempt to score some points?
JeffDecember 28, 2009 at 9:30 pm
On reflection I think I was being a bit too harsh on the Signal on this. They do a fine job posting local content; it’s not their fault two cheaters have abused the system. That said I hope they come up with some method to minimally check submitted work.
Timothy MyersDecember 28, 2009 at 9:45 pm
I still think the only failsafe is to confine local columnists to LOCAL issues; much harder to find generic things to cut and paste.
Jim FarleyDecember 28, 2009 at 10:05 pm
Sarahproof: The Signal indeed has a liberal bias. I would not have said this years ago, but what I’ve seen printed lately shows a clear lean to port. Go back and look at the coverage of Congressman McKeon’s townhall and tell me the story was not left leaning. The letters to the editor are definitely more left leaning than right. Having first hand experience of the city favoring the view of city officials versus those of the opposition I have to agree with your second point. I read the Signal every day either directly or through their new ‘E’ version. My wife is so disgusted with them she wants to cancel the subscription. I’m still prevailing in keeping the subscription but the Signal should know they are turning off a lot of readers.
NickelDimeDecember 28, 2009 at 10:58 pm
@Tim – I disagree – while it would possibly deter, there are local issues that are still subject to plagiarism. Growth, education, water – these could easily be plagiarized from another local resource! To Jeff’s point, there are myriad tools that need to be integrated into the Signal’s process. I have vivid memories of handing in a floppy disk in college, with the professor warning that a random sample would be checked for plagiarism (this was when such services actually cost money and uploading was via 14.4 dialup). Jeff, Lamont’s piece from last year surely struck a chord; reading it today and re-reading your post I admit to some fist pumping for the blogosphere. There’s a coda to the irony, though – the-signal.com has an obvious gap for blog-style commentary common to modern news sites, which has created the niche for sites such as this….
NickelDimeDecember 28, 2009 at 11:04 pm
Sorry, to clarify the point to Tim on local issue plagiarism – an individual could easily plagiarize a Corvallis Gazette-Times (Oregon for the Pac-NW uninitiated) LTE and do a search-replace to muster up an opinion on ThinkSCV.
pattisoulDecember 29, 2009 at 12:28 am
To answer the question, does The Signal lean to the left or lean to the right; I think the beauty or the ugly lies in the eyes of the beholder. As a liberal, I perceive a Signal bend towards the conservative side. It seems to me there are many more conservative LTE’s published than liberal LTE’s and my take on the coverage of Buck’s Townhall was both pro Buck and pro GOP. Obviously SCV conservatives won’t agree. So, whether The Mighty Signal leans to the left or the right; the only way to end the fight, fight, fight is to tally all the LTE’s and do an unbiased, scientific study to detect partiality in news articles; if that’s even possible. But then, folks who didn’t get the answer they wanted probably wouldn’t accept the results anyway.
pattisoulDecember 29, 2009 at 12:49 am
If this blog was unbiased the title of the post under discussion would have been “Signal suspends all local columns after Lutness AND* Vakay admit to plagiarism”. The fact of the matter is, The Signal editor’s decision to suspend all local columns for a week was motivated by the cumulative effect of evidence of plagiarism by BOTH* Vakay and Lutness, not by just one or the other. (*caps for emphasis)
mikeDecember 29, 2009 at 7:08 am
Yeah Jeff, what’s with the right wing bias?
MGutzeitDecember 29, 2009 at 10:33 am
The signal did the right thing. Other writers should not be punished or restricted just because some people forgot what we were taught in Junior High.
navigatorDecember 29, 2009 at 11:19 am
“It seems to me there are many more conservative LTE’s published than liberal LTE’s” That comment seems a little contradictory when one local far left writer appears in the LTEs on what seems to be a close to weekly basis condeming everything conservative.
mikeDecember 29, 2009 at 12:37 pm
Jim, Navigator, I wouldn’t be so fast. Perhaps the liberal letters raise your ire so you recall them more vividly? FWIW, I looked at all the letters still listed on the site. Of the 29, 11 had no political viewpoint, concerning local issues, animals, religion, etc.. Of the politically oriented letters, 12 came from conservatives and just six from liberals.
navigatorDecember 29, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Mike, Check out the mind numbing, countless LTEs by Paul Sibek over the past year if it’s possible.
AleksGajewskiDecember 29, 2009 at 7:58 pm
Although it might seem unfair The Signal suspended (or “punished”) all columnists from being published, keep in mind it is only for a week. It gives the editorial board a chance to review opinion submissions and to incorporate a way to check for plagiarism. Those who have not plagiarized will be welcomed back. And hopefully, we’ll be welcoming some new voices as well. And although The Signal is responsible for publishing plagiarized content, you cannot blame them for trusting 2 local, politically active writers. Everyone knows plagiarism is a big “no-no” in the world of journalism. It’s sad to think that it is something The Signal has to worry about among its local columnists. They should know better. In regards to whether The Signal is biased: Let me tell you that none of the reporters (to my knowledge… and I would know… I am one) have an agenda to toot the conservative or liberal horn. We do our research, interview our subjects and write our stories to the best of our ability given the time constraints of that particular day. And every day is different. Pattisoul said it best: “I think the beauty or the ugly lies in the eyes of the beholder.” In regards to letters: The copy editors/paginators try their best to layout balanced letters on each page… but sometimes we cannot because the amount of space available on the page dictates what we can and cannot do. If that means 3 conservative letters fit in the hole better than 1 conservative, 1 liberal, and 1 random letter, guess what we’re going to go with? It really has nothing to do with being choosy. It also depends on the letter writers themselves. Living in Santa Clarita, a predominately conservative community, we are (more likely than not) going to receive more conservative letters than liberal. That’s just the way it is.
pattisoulDecember 30, 2009 at 2:18 am
Bravo, Mike, the tally you made of 29 LTE’s is the kind of impartial review I was talking about. You restated my point with different words. A conservative may readily recall the liberal letters he reads because they raise his ire; just like I may be more apt to recall conservative LTE’s because they’ve raised my dander. We are all biased one way or another, whether we acknowledge it or not.