Share All sharing options for: “I made mistakes”: Jill Abramson responds to plagiarism charges around her new book

Jill Abramson’s new book, Merchants of Truth, is a lot of things — a paean to print journalism, a commentary on the digital revolution in news, and a lamentation for what she considers declining journalistic standards.

There are, no doubt, some interesting arguments in the book. But Abramson, who became the first female executive editor of the New York Times in 2011 and remained in that position until she was fired in 2014, has been engulfed in controversy over a series of factual errors and, this week, charges of plagiarism.

On Wednesday, Vice’s Michael Moynihan highlighted a series of passages in Abramson’s book that he says range from ethically questionable to clearly plagiarized. Freelance journalist Ian Frisch also identified seven passages in Abramson’s book that he claims were lifted from a 2014 profile he wrote in a now-defunct magazine, Relapse.

*All three* chapters on Vice were clotted with mistakes. Lots of them. The truth promised in Merchants of Truth was often not true. While trying to corroborate certain claims, I noticed that it also contained...plagiarized passages. — Michael C Moynihan (@mcmoynihan) February 6, 2019

Abramson’s book was already under attack for a host of factual errors, notably about journalist Arielle Duhaime-Ross, who was interviewed by Abramson and appears in the book. In January, Duhaime-Ross highlighted a single paragraph in Abramson’s book that contained at least six errors, including about her professional background and her gender identity.

The irony here is impossible to miss: a book that talks at length about journalistic ethics and praises legacy media titans like the New York Times and the Washington Post while lambasting new media companies like Vice and BuzzFeed for sloppy reporting that is, well, filled with errors and what appears to be very sloppy reporting.

A couple of weeks ago, I scheduled an interview with Abramson planning to discuss the trajectory of the news business. But almost overnight, the story evolved, and our interview on Friday morning took a different turn.

A lightly edited transcript of our conversation follows.

Sean Illing

So this is an interesting book about the state of media and what’s gone wrong in the industry as a whole. I definitely want to talk about that. But I want to begin first by addressing some of the charges against you.

As you know, you’ve been accused of plagiarism by Vice’s Michael Moynihan and others. What’s your response to this?

Jill Abramson

I’ve made a public statement about this, and I’ve given answers to every reporter that’s inquired. You know, there are some missing citations and errors in the footnotes of the book, and there are 70 pages of footnotes.

All of the allegations that I lifted material or plagiarized — that’s not true — but I did make mistakes in the footnotes, and there are some uncited passages. Those sources are credited in other footnotes; it’s just those specific quotes are not, and that’s an error and it will be fixed pronto.

I feel really terrible about it. I didn’t want there to be anything wrong in the book, and I really wanted it to be about the importance of truth and facts. I don’t think these issues should overshadow what I think is a really interesting book.

Sean Illing

There are indeed 70 pages of footnotes in the book, but there are problems with it —

Jill Abramson

I’m owning that. Some of these things I should have just quoted in the text. But look, I was trying to write a seamless narrative, and to keep breaking it up with “according to” qualifiers would have been extremely clunky.

But in retrospect, I wish I’d done that.

Sean Illing

Right, but let me finish the point I was making, because I think the specifics matter. Even in cases where you did reference the sources, it’s often not in the body of the text, or it is cited but the page numbers are wrong — I think you’d admit that that’s problematic.

Second, and more importantly, there’s at least one piece you borrowed from, I believe it was Jake Malooley’s essay in Time Out, that is not referenced at all in the footnotes.

How do you explain that?

Jill Abramson

Yeah, I can’t find that Malooley citation in the book. But it should be in there, and I can’t find it. But we will get it corrected pronto.

Sean Illing

Would you call any of this plagiarism?

Jill Abramson

No, I wouldn’t. This was completely unintentional. I mean, I have 70 pages of footnotes and I tried to credit everyone’s work as best I can. What we’re talking about here are sets of facts that I borrowed; obviously, the language is too close in some cases, but I’m not lifting original ideas. Again, I wish I had got the citation right, but it’s not an intentional theft or taking someone’s original ideas — it’s just the facts.

But I’m owning it and I’m disappointed in myself for these mistakes.

Sean Illing

I grant that plagiarism is a fluid concept and it’s not always clear where the lines are —

Jill Abramson

I teach journalism, and if this had happened at the Times and someone didn’t credit someone else, and took their words in this way, it would have to be corrected. So yeah, it’s an error. When you make a mistake, you’ve got to correct it and be honest about it. This is what I teach my students, and it’s what I believed when I was the editor at the Times.

Sean Illing

Plagiarism is as much about riding the coattails of another person’s labor as it is about stealing their exact words — would you at least agree with that?

Jill Abramson

You mean in that one case?

Sean Illing

I mean in any case.

Jill Abramson

No, I think if you credit it and have a citation, you aren’t lifting it. You’re saying that’s where it comes from.

Sean Illing

Right, but we’re talking about a lack of citations here, or at least unclear citations. I’m asking because you just said that the passages in questions don’t contain original ideas and are just a matter of restating basic facts, but those facts had to be collected and corroborated by the people you borrow from, so in that sense, you are stealing their labor, no?

[Author’s note: Abramson made a similar defense in 2008, when Slate’s Jack Shafer accused Times reporter Alexei Barrionuevo of plagiarism.]

Jill Abramson

I’m not going to get into a semantic argument about whether this fits some definition or not. I really think I’ve talked about this in full, and really would love to move on.

Sean Illing

I get that, but I don’t think is a mere semantic dispute. This is a long book with lots of quotes and citations, and I think most people understand that mistakes happen. But here’s the thing that gives me pause: Some of these passages that overlap with your source material have been tweaked just enough to avoid outright plagiarism, which suggests they were written self-consciously.

Is that fair?

Jill Abramson

No, they were not.

Sean Illing

Maybe it would help if you could explain your process. How do you go about fact-checking and citing source material? How do you explain the multiple factual errors ...

Jill Abramson

I had a fact-checker and several people helping me with research, and I did many drafts of many chapters full of factual materials, and, you know, mistakes were made. They have all been corrected in the e-book and will be in the next edition of the print book.

I think I’ve really answered your questions. You can keep pressing me, but I feel I’ve been very open and candid with you.

Sean Illing

Are you blaming your assistants and fact-checkers for the bulk of the mistakes?

Jill Abramson

No, I don’t. I’ve said three times to you that I own it.

Sean Illing

Let’s try and connect these threads to the major themes of your book. I think it’s fair to say that you’re dismissive in a lot of ways of new media outlets like Vice, BuzzFeed, and even Vox ...

Jill Abramson

No, I don’t think I am. I know that’s a meme on Twitter, but no, I was fascinated by Vice and BuzzFeed and they’ve done some great journalism. I thought they were tremendously innovative companies, and both of them jumped into news pretty late and learned it pretty quickly.

I know people are saying that I’m carrying water for legacy media, but that’s not true. I cast a critical eye on all of these places, and any good reporter really digs and asks the right questions, and I think I applied equal scrutiny to the Times and the Post and to Vice and BuzzFeed.

Sean Illing

I agree that your discussions of Vice and BuzzFeed are more balanced than some of the criticisms would suggest, but I also believe your book implies that these new digital startups have lowered journalistic standards, and I wonder if you think that’s because the journalists at these places are less qualified or committed.

Jill Abramson

No, I think some of them — and I don’t want to paint with too broad a brush — haven’t been trained, and it’s only recently that BuzzFeed had established printed ethical standards for their newsroom.

But I don’t think I suggest that these companies have lowered news standards. Have there been some bumps along the way? Sure. But there have been bumps at every media outlet during this transition to the digital age.

Sean Illing

I ask because I think you were unfair in some of your descriptions of various new media reporters ...

Jill Abramson

Well, you’re obviously entitled to your opinion. But I spent a ton of time at BuzzFeed and was amazed by what I saw, and not in a negative way at all. You’re obviously entitled to your view of the book, but I just don’t see it that way.

Sean Illing

You don’t think characterizing journalists at Vice and BuzzFeed as overly “hip” and “woke” numerous times smacks of condescension?

Jill Abramson

You know, I didn’t mean it that way. I’m aware some people disagree with that, but I think what’s interesting about BuzzFeed and Vice is that they do have, in general, a much younger and more diverse newsroom, and what I write is that that factors into them jumping on some lines of coverage before the mainstream media did.

I certainly didn’t mean to offend anyone or cause any distress, or be disdainful in any way.

Sean Illing

I would say, though, that your analysis does tease out an important tension: Many of these new media journalists are working with far fewer resources than their counterparts at the Times or Post, and they do pretty remarkable work in spite of that deficit.

Jill Abramson

Yeah, and I think they often take a very smart approach. Vice’s HBO show is a good example of this. They’re not trying to compete on every story about the Mueller investigation. They pick certain things that they drill very deeply on, and I think that’s immensely valuable. So they take their shots, and I’m often really impressed.

Sean Illing

Do you think the digital revolution — and the changes it wrought — has somehow compromised journalism?

Jill Abramson

Well, the public has had high distrust of the media for a while, even before the internet was born. So it’s too sweeping to answer yes or no, but it’s certainly brought incredible changes and it’s made technology and design and reporting fuse as one, whereas in the old world, technology, to the degree that it existed, was mostly part of the business side.

Traditionally, there’s been a much higher wall between the business side and the news side. At the Post, for instance, Jeff Bezos has provided incredible resources to bring the Post back to its glory days, and he has technologists sitting right next to reporters at the news desk, and that makes for a better user experience, but the Post and the Times are now also all in on native advertising, and I think that’s dangerous and blurs the lines between what’s news and what’s advertising.

So it’s obviously complicated, but the digital revolution has completely changed the industry.

Sean Illing

Speaking of public trust in the media, do you worry that the mistakes you made in this book will damage the media’s credibility in precisely the way you claim Vice and BuzzFeed occasionally have?

Jill Abramson

I certainly hope not. Do I worry about that? Yes. Do I think mistrust would be the right reaction to my book? No, I don’t. I think reading my book will be an eye-opening and interesting experience for anyone who wants to go deep into the news and why it’s such a huge and timely topic right now.

Sean Illing

Is there a viable business model for quality journalism moving forward, given all the changes you outline in this book?

Jill Abramson

Yes ... if it’s truly high-quality news that can’t be found everywhere else. I think a sustainable business model will have to be focused on reader revenue. We see the Times’s last quarterly report and they’re doing fantastically in terms of having people sign up and pay for subscriptions.

Some of this is obviously part of the Trump bump, but I think we can see a way forward in all of this.

Sean Illing

Looks like our time is up. I appreciate you doing this, Jill.

Jill Abramson

Of course. I don’t feel defensive talking about all this. I appreciate your questions and value our conversation and hope we’ll have another one.