Perspectives on World History and Current Events


Talking Point: Producing Indefensible Plagiarism?

Update: Since publishing this article, we have received e-mail responses from both Janes' Copyright Managing Editor Keith Faulkner and BBC Talking Point's Daniel Mermelstein. Both e-mails concluded with standard corporate confidentiality statements - hence we will not quote them. Talking Point ignored most of our questions, however it did change its article - instead of stating that the BBC's Linden Kemkaran wrote the article it now credits the original author, Charles Heyman, Editor of Jane's World Armies. Ironically, the BBC has also reverted to an identical copy of the Jane's article (with the exception of a single comma), as opposed to the swapped-around version originally presented.
For the present, PWHCE will retain the original article unchanged at this address.

If you have any comments relating to this article or related issues,
or if you would like to submit an article for publication,
please e-mail pwhce@yahoo.com.au.

By TREVOR STANLEY with DANIEL BECK	It is widely recognised that plagiarism is increasingly common within the media - for example, a small website operator can reproduce news content from a reputable, established source without attributing or compensating that source. It would be nice to imagine that we can depend on the more 'reputable' sources to set a higher standard, but unfortunately even those outlets with enough resources not to need to borrow without attribution and the experience to know better, sometimes do so anyway.
	Daniel Beck, researching material for an upcoming feature on this site, discovered remarkable similarities between two articles relating to special forces. The first was published in the military intelligence source Jane's on the 5th November 2001, the second on the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC)'s Talking Point page, on the 18th December 2001.
	Essentially, almost the entire BBC piece is a duplicate of a section of the larger Jane's article with very superficial changes and no acknowledgement of the source.
	The extent of the similarities is apparent when the Jane's article is compared, sentence by sentence, with the BBC article. Bold print in the Jane's article represents words omitted in the BBC article. Bold print in the BBC article indicates changes or additions. Italics represents a change in word order.
	The original, from Jane's World Armies, on the www.janes.com site Click to view webpage The Talking Point piece Click to view webpage Notes 05 November 2001 (Title) Tuesday 18 December Con from the USA asks: Special forces and the reality of military operations in Afghanistan Special Forces and U.S. Marines, what's the difference? By Charles Heyman, Editor of Jane's World Armies The BBC Defence producer Linden Kemkaran writes: Note claim the article was actually written by Kemkaran. There is confusion over what constitutes a Special Forces soldier and a real problem is the way in which different countries classify their Special Forces. There is confusion over what constitutes a Special Forces soldier and a real problem is the way in which different countries classify their Special Forces. Identical. In general terms, real Special Forces include the US Delta Force, Green Berets and Navy Seals, plus the UK SAS and SBS (Special Boat Service). In general terms, real Special Forces begin with the UK SAS (Special Air Service) and SBS (Special Boat Service). In the US they have Delta Force, Green Berets and Navy Seals. Other highly trained soldiers such as the US Rangers and the UK's Royal Marine Commandos do not really fall into this category, although they do have soldiers who have special skills and can undertake more difficult and arduous operations than other soldiers. Other highly trained soldiers such as the US Marines and Rangers and the UK's Royal Marine Commandos are not really Special Forces, more an elite fighting force, although they do have soldiers who have special skills and can undertake more difficult and arduous operations than regular soldiers. Superficial alterations, partially to 'tweak' the article to suit the question. Highly skilled This is not for one second to downgrade the superb skills and specialist military operations that some of these formations are capable of. This is not to downgrade the superb skills and specialist military operations that some of these troops are capable of. However, their selection process is different from that of the Special Forces and in general terms they are organised and equipped for much larger-scale operations. However their selection process is different from that of the Special Forces and in general terms they are organised and equipped for much larger-scale operations. Note the comma after the word 'However'. Otherwise identical. Special Forces tend to work in small groups and stay out in the field, largely unsupported, for long periods of time. This last sentence in the BBC article is the only one for which an equivalent can not be found in the Jane's article.
	PWHCE is awaiting a response from the BBC on this issue. If the BBC had Janes' permission to reprint this excerpt, one wonders why the original article was not credited, and why several otherwise pointless alterations were made to the excerpt. If it is plagiarism, it is a shame that the BBC has been unable to uphold even basic principles of journalistic ethics in this case, much less living up to the high standards for which it once strove. Whether it is plagiarism or not, it appears to be - what sort of example is that to the inexperienced start-up independent media outlets to which certain mainstream media outlets condescendingly allude?
	We wonder what defence the Defence Producer could produce to explain this, and we look forward to the BBC's response.

We are always looking for contributors.
If you would like to submit an article, make a comment,
or ask a question, please e-mail pwhce@yahoo.com.au.

^^^ Top ^^^

Copyright ©2002 Perspectives on World History and Current Events, Trevor Stanley