Red-handed

Jonah Lehrer has made the blunder of all blunders. Plagiarism. His articles have been featured in reputable publications like the New York Times Magazine and Wired. For a comprehensive, detailed account of the scandal, you’re free to visit these sites: "New Yorker Writer Jonah Lehrer Plagiarizes Himself Repeatedly" and "Jonah Lehrer's Plagiarism Scandal: But Wait, There's More!" For those who prefer a more concise summary, Lehrer has served as a writer and contributor for a handful of publications, and it has recently come to light that he has pulled paragraphs, word for word, from pervious articles and used them in others without stating he has done so.

In December of 2010, Lehrer wrote a piece for The New York Times, "A Physicist Solves the City". The article addresses the problem of urban growth and how metropolises can hinder or enhance human innovations. Almost a year and a half later, Lehrer submitted a piece to Wired called "The Cost Of Creativity". The overall theme of the articles is the same, though the Wired piece is a bit shorter. What Lehrer failed to mention in his second article is that at least three paragraphs are taken from the first without much change between the two.

At first, I’ll admit that I didn’t see the immediate problem since he was using his own work, instead of passing someone else’s writing off as his own, though there have also been reports of copying things like press releases and other writers. However, I now realize that it’s a credibility issue. Most likely, these publications that had hired him were under the impression that the articles he was supplying were entirely original. The content of Lehrer’s blogs usually have scientific or technological themes. He doesn’t write personal blogs like Dooce.com.  Many, if not all, of his blog posts contain some scientific basis, like a research study or discussions with scientists in particular fields. These references help Lehrer establish credibility with his audience and most likely, help increase his readership. When given the choice, most people would opt to read a blog from a blogger that uses cited sources rather than strictly opinion based statements. It is part of the blogger’s responsibility to build trust between his or her audience. According to Jill Rettberg’s “Blogging,” an audience may “trust or distrust bloggers on the basis of our perception of their honesty” (93). It isn’t as if Lehrer is making any sort of exaggerated claims and the content of all of his blogs is relatable and plausible. If anything, the content that he addressed was always relevant and timely compared to current events or news stories.

An example of this would be Lehrer’s “The Future Of Reading,” in which he addresses the implications of e-readers on the stimulation of brain activity. This very real problem ties in with Lehrer’s own personal experiences with reading, both in hardcopy formats and on his Kindle. In Carolyn R. Miller and Dawn Shepherd’s “Blogging as a Social Action: A Genre Analysis of the Weblog,” many factors are discussed regarding the appeal of the blog as part of a social action. “What many bloggers find so compelling about blogs is the ability to combine the immediate real and the genuinely personal” (Miller and Shepherd, 6). Lehrer does just that. He tends to use a balance of scientific basis – recent studies, scientific research, interviews – with personal anecdotes and pop culture references. He makes topics approachable to those that may not necessarily have a background in science, but still want to keep current on these topics. Furthermore, as Miller and Shepherd point out, most blogs are automatically assumed to be nonfiction unless otherwise stated (5). Personal details as well as any studies, linked or not, are expected to be real give the nature of Lehrer’s posts.

Since many of Lehrer’s posts were determined to either be partially fabricated or self-plagiarized, it not only affects his credibility, but the credibility of the publications for which he worked. Rettberg explains this type of authority and good standing:

“Blogs rely on personal authority, whereas traditional journalism relies on institutional credibility. We trust or distrust an article in a newspaper on the basis of our perception of the newspaper, which is partly shaped by the society around us and partly by our own personal knowledge of the newspaper. Who the reporter is sometimes matters, but primarily it is the reputation of the media outlet that is most important” (Rettberg, 92-3).

Lehrer has written for publications like The New Yorker. The name alone exemplifies influence and clout and, quite possibly, smoking polished pipes in leatherback chairs in front of a fireplace. If one of their writers is found to be a plagiarist, what does that say about them as an institution? Not only does Lehrer’s work need to be sifted through with a fine-toothed comb, but his sources also need to be checked and verified. It’s probably an arduous process for everyone involved. In the future, they may even choose to be more careful with whom they choose as writers. Now, and this may be a stretch, but lawsuits may even arise if any member of Lehrer’s audience somehow acted on the policies and values in outlines in his posts. He does feature some in regards to depression and mental heath. These are serious issues that should be treated as such and not cut and pasted from previous works. It shows a laziness on Lehrer’s part, which reflects on The New Yorker and whomever else was impacted by Lehrer’s plagiarized submissions.

But as Rettberg goes on to say, authenticity in blogging can sometimes be counterfeit and, sooner or later, this pretend expertise will be exposed (93). With so many of his articles available on the Internet, it was only a matter of time. According to Jeffrey Galin’s “The Fair Use Battle for Scholarly works, he outlines four factors that aid in determining fair use. Granted, Lehrer is using his own work, but in my opinion, it blatantly violates two of the three factors. The first being purpose. More than likely, Lehrer was paid for these articles. He did not use them strictly for “educational purposes” or “transformative uses” (Galin, 7). When comparing “A Physicist Solves the City” and “The Cost Of Creativity,” both articles have the same point: how human innovations are affected by growing metropolises. Second is the amount that he takes from one article and supplants it into another. At least a third of “The Cost Of Creativity” is taken from the other article.

By plagiarizing himself, Lehrer not only damages his own reputation, but the reputation of those for whom he worked. His work is not solely original, but instead a Frankenstein of past articles and inaccurate quotations. He portrayed himself as being credible and knowledgeable when, quite frankly, he was just being lazy. It’s easy to take things at face value, especially on the Internet. However, when an audience visits Wired or reads The New Yorker, they expected a certain level of quality control and truth in what they’re consuming, which can ultimately lead to distrust from their readers. A slippery slope could eventually follow, in which a decrease in readership occurs, then a loss in sales, and if there’s one thing no one wants to lose, it’s money.