Malaysia editor in plagiarism row

that's new straits times.

I have been following this tread (the plagiarism bit) and found it extremely amusing to see all and sundry kump on the bandwagon of accusations. Reading both the articles (Albom's and Pereira's), one can'r help feeling that this is just storm in a teacup. If it had been plagiarism, would;nt Albom have made a statement? And one wonders why no decent thinking journalists (and their editors) made the trouble to check with the alleged 'victim' and get his comments in the name of fairness in reporting. It is understandable that bloggers pursue this line of thought with hidden agendas (including - bot not limited to - rising popularity and traffic gain), that Pereira ''plagiarised' (could it be mimicking, insteasd?), but for qualified journalists working for prestigious news agency not checking the facts and reporting impartially, now that's a sad day for journalism. Good day, Gentlemen.

It looks like plagiarism to me when I compared the two articles. The internet bloggers are merely reporting what happened and are the watchdogs of what goes on in the country especially where the media is controlled by the ruling political party. If the internet bloggers are having hidden agendas and are not reporting true stories, then the Govt would have closed them down and have them arrested immediately. But, the Govt can't because they are careful to report what is true.

Before these bloggers, we only get to hear what the media (controlled by the Govt), wants us to hear. Now, we get to know about the skeletons in the closet and get to expose them for the purpose of pushing for good governance both in the Corporate world as well as in the Govt.

I think Jacob P, you are the one that is having a hidden agenda.

I wonder if it is right to call the imitating of another writer's LITERARY STYLE as 'plagiarism'. Don't forget that we are talking about creative writing here, not academic research. If so, no writer would be free from such a charge - all writers have been influenced by great writers of the past.

Of course, whether this particular Malaysian author has pulled it off in mimicking Albom's style is a different question altogether. He might not be original or good, but would it be too harsh to call him a thief?

To apply the concept of 'plagiarism' indiscriminately might end up heavily dampening writers' creativity. From now onwards, all writers would have to look over their shoulders everytime they write. Now - is that right?

---------------------------------------------------
NWP Publications
The Quarterly Fall 2002
Creative Copying, or in Defense of Mimicry
By Rebecca Dierking
http://www.writingproject.org/cs/nwpp/print/nwpr/448

"Mimicking, unlike plagiarizing, is an approach by which the author tries to better himself, to become more skilled. Just as a student musician is influenced by the playing or composing style of those he admires, a student writer is also influenced by other writers.

I think it is important that these young writers understand that writers have always drawn on the work of other writers. Shakespeare himself stole plots from mythology, history, and even his contemporaries. No one seems offended by these borrowings. Rather, we are awed by his ability to transform the mundane into the sublime."

I have a different view. Call it what you will 'plagiarism' or 'mimicking' so long as the reasonable-man-in-the-street looks at the article and feels that it is not original and is an abridged version from another person's article, that to me is plagiarism.

Shakespear may have stole plots from mythology, history, and even his contemporaries and perhaps no one seems offended but that does not mean he has not plagiarised some else's work.

If you need to copy or mimic some else's article or style of writting, would it be too much to give the original writer the due credits?

Malaysian: I like your perception of a free press. Come to the US or go to the UK if you think the press is altogether free and uncontrolled. For Pete's sake, don't be naive. Search the web and examples will smother you to death.
Although I agree with you that bloggers offer alternative views, and their presence helps to check misdeeds that could have gone unreported, how sure are you that they only report? I have personally read blogger comments that border mischief, sometimes malice, on the blogrollers. I think these people are sending a message to the reading world that bloggers are not to be taken seriously, perhaps even comic relief. Debs

They way I see, It is plagiarism purely for the reason that Brendan Pariah he used Albom's phrase without giving credit to Albom. Many have used and pun many of Clinton's famous quotes but without fail to attribute it to him.

For me it is part vindication to many Malaysian to see this awful journalist who has been twisting fact, putting up lies, and denying right to replies. All this is just to make the mediocre and verbally challenged Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Bodowi look bigger than life.

It is somewhat sad to see a private newspaper entity forfeited journalistic integrity and business growth just to be used to spin news and ridicule personalities for the political bosses ie Prime
Minister.

Debbie Lispen: "Malaysian: I like your perception of a free press. Come to the US or go to the UK if you think the press is altogether free and uncontrolled."

Just because you think there is no press freedom in the US or in the UK doesn't mean that we should not press for total press freedom in Malaysia. If you get the level of controlled news that our Govt wants us to hear and not what we actually see ourselves, perhaps then you will realise how cocooned we are and understand us. Granted that there are bloggers with bad intentions everywhere but realised that while we may have a poor govt, it does not mean we are less educated. We can see the difference and these bloggers will die a natural death once readers finds that they are bias or mischievious. The good ones will eventually survive and even grow. The truth hurts but we need to hear it nevertheless and there will always be those out there that will try to discredit the independent watchdogs that do not lean their way.

for everyone's benefit, attached are the two articles in question. now judge it for yourself.

----------------------------------

Article by Brendan Peirera of the NST

WE never saw June 7 coming. Sure, there were whispers that he was not happy with the way his successor was running the country; with the way ministers and business friends were not returning calls.

But no one saw June 7 coming. That was the day Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad accused the PM of stabbing him in the back; of reversing his policies; of cancelling projects, including the half-bridge to Singapore. He attacked with the ferocity of a street fighter and suggested that Abdullah was the second choice for the top job in the country.

He wanted to know why Tengku Mahaleel Tengku Ariff was no longer running Proton, why development in Putrajaya had slowed down. He wanted to know why the person he left in charge of the country was no longer dancing to his tune.

Looking back, that was the day when he crossed the line. History records these watershed events because they change the mood of the country, pit kin against kin and dominate the landscape.

If June 7 is the day we never saw coming, June 6 is the day we will not see again for a while. And how we miss it.

We miss going to lunches or dinners and just shooting the breeze, instead of spending hours dissecting the latest tirade and figuring out why power is so hard to let go.

We miss those days when people didn’t make you feel that you’re one of us or you’re one of them.

We miss the time when "half-past six" was used in a moment of levity between childhood friends.

We miss the time when exclusive interviews about Malaysia on CNN, BBC, CNBC or Bloomberg were about the country and its prospects, not about a political sideshow.

We miss when a can of aerosol can was not considered a weapon.

We miss the days we watched leaders in other countries slug it out in public and said: "At least our leaders don’t do that."

We miss when we didn’t war among ourselves over a war being waged by an individual.

We miss when we spoke to a friend and didn’t hear a voice in our heads whispering: "I wonder whose side he is on?"

We miss when peace talks referred to discussions between the Tamil Tigers and the Sri Lanka government or between the warring factions in Palestine.

We miss the feeling when there wasn’t a cloud hanging over the political landscape, and a feeling that no words or explanations can be a balm to this festering sore.

We miss the days when the mention of Dr Mahathir’s name unleashed a vision of a leader handing over power at the peak of his powers, not a mental picture of someone seeking to bring down someone in power.

We miss the days when the prime minister had to defend his policies, not parry personal attacks.

We miss when a volley referred to a sweet left foot strike by Wayne Rooney, not a barb fired across the bow by the former PM against his perceived enemies.

We miss when we spoke of a legacy in glowing terms not with a sense of doom.

We miss when the world looked at us with pride and wondered why other young countries could not have a smooth change of guard.

We miss when Dr Mahathir spoke like a statesman.

We miss the time when we did not have to rake up our dark past and remember stories of former prime ministers taking on incumbents. Tunku Abdul Rahman and Tun Hussein Onn deserve their rest and place in history.

We miss the days when the battle lines were clear — government versus opposition.

Yes, we miss June 6.

MITCH ALBOM: Remembering the day before the day
September 10, 2006

BY MITCH ALBOM
FREE PRESS COLUMNIST
Tomorrow, we remember.
But today, we lament.
Tomorrow, Sept. 11 -- the five-year anniversary -- we see the deluge of grizzly images, we hear speeches from politicians, we make vows to avenge those who perished, we make grim promises to fight on in the war on terror.
But today is just as sad an anniversary. Today, in some ways, aches even more.
If Sept. 11 was the day we never saw coming, Sept. 10 was the day we will never see again.
And we miss it terribly.
We miss when you could pull up at an airport without bracing for a military exercise.
We miss when toothpaste was not considered a weapon.
We miss when the most well-known Muslim names in America were professional athletes.
We miss when a "cell" was a biological term.
We miss when politicians didn't make you feel that you're one of us or you're one of them.
We miss when one party didn't call the other party cowards and consider that a foreign policy.
We miss Sept. 10.
The tragic reminder
We miss when going to New York City meant a mandatory trip to a Broadway play, not a mandatory trip to a large, sad hole in lower Manhattan.
We miss when seeing someone reading the Quran didn't make us nervous.
We miss when we actually celebrated how free and open our borders were.
We miss when Al-Jazeera was just another TV channel we'd never heard of.
We miss when we saw war crimes and said, "Our soldiers don't do that," instead of, "Well, look at what the other guys do."
We miss when Islam was just another religion in the world.
We miss when pilots used to let kids come up to see the cockpit.
We miss when movies would open with shots of a skyline and two giant blue towers.
We miss when we never thought of sending anthrax through the mail, or lighting a shoe on fire, or putting explosives in sports drink bottles.
We miss simplicity.
We miss Sept. 10.
A troubled future
We miss when "jihad" was a foreign word.
We miss when belts could stay on.
We miss when we didn't war amongst ourselves over a war somewhere else.
We miss when we thought paying for gas was just an expensive habit, not a means of enriching our enemies.
We miss when we spoke to our Arab neighbors and didn't hear a voice in our heads whispering, "I wonder whose side they'd be on?"
We miss when you didn't have to show ID for everything.
We miss the feeling that there wasn't a large cloud hanging over our future, and our children's future, and our grandchildren's future, a feeling that nothing could be trusted, that you were never really safe, that this enemy which is only too happy to die for its cause wants to make sure we go first -- and this enemy is not going away.
We miss sleeping soundly.
We miss not being so smart.
We miss our naiveti.
We cry on Sept. 11.

As an academician and a filmmaker, I would consider this as plagiarism. Brendan has taken the structure and idea from the original writer and claim it his. He even make it to look as though he is such a lazy copycat by copying few line and change only the dates,
So sorry Pereirra. You are out my friend, caught red handed.

there are much more than journalism that is considered plagiarism in malaysia,some of the policies and campaigns,if closely examined,many other carbon copies of Brendan P might face the same fate.

Just my 1 sen worth...

As a frequent reader of Mitch Album article, I would have to say that Mr.Peirera indeed plagiarized. However, regarding his firing, that was different story as no total freedom of press exist in Malaysia.

I'm a Malaysian.

According to the Concise Oxford English Dictionary, the word "plagiarise" means "take (the work or an idea of someone else) and pass it off as one's own."

Having read through both writers' articles, by seemingly mimicking a similar style and some wording used by Mitch Albom in his article, Brendan Pereira could be accused of plagiarism on grounds of seemingly adopting the "idea of someone else," in terms of style.

However, the issues referred to, the place and time they took place are different.

Pereira's article is about the time in Malaysia before and after former Malaysian prime minister, Tun Dr. Mahathor Mohamed accused the present prime minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi of "stabbing him in his back" and his subsequent accusations and falling out with his successor.

Albom's article is about the situation faced by citizens in the United States before and after the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon.

Having lived in the west, I myself have often reflected and commented on how the atmosphere of tolerance and accommodation with minorities in the west, especially in the United States built up since the Civil Rights movement of the 60s led by Dr. Martin Luther King and others; has suffered a major setback and even reversal after 9/11.

For Americans, in the Post 9/11 period, they've seem more inconvenience, fear, suspiscion and growing intolerance, while the clash between Mahathir and Abdullah is an entertaining sideshow for some Malaysians -- something to talk about over coffee or beer.

Also, while Pereira's style is similar to Albom's, his wording is different.

Pereira did not take Albom's article word for word and claim it as his own.

Also as mentioned by another commentator above, neither Albom nor his publication made an issue about this.

So while I'm no lawyer, I feel the plaintiffs' have a strong point in favour of their case.

While the styles are similar, the countries are different, the incidents different, the consequences on respective citizens different and the times they happened different.

There is nothing "straight" about the New Straits Times. In the old days, it was (fondly) called "The Crooked Times" by its staffers. It has never had the backbone to stand up to the government - colonial or otherwise. As for Brendan, this just a storm in a kopi-O! I am more worried about his fate. Will Brendan John son of John Pereira (or Brendan Pereira) now be allowed to open his paper or forced to migrate?