Borrowing Words

Everyone in public relations knows that leaders rarely write their own speeches, memos, quotes, or books. It’s not “plagiarism” if you pay someone for the rights to their words. Presidential candidate Barak Obama claims to have “written most of my speeches”. My guess is that he has had a good deal of help with those speeches, ranging from modifying a draft speech to relying on researchers and fact checkers to fill in the blanks.

Speechwriting is a rough sport whose rules of engagement can seem fuzzy. It would never be acceptable for a painting to be attributed to its benefactor, or for song lyrics to be attributed to their singer or a student to submit a paper written by someone else. But the currency of words are unique. We can’t really know which brilliant zingers by Jon Stewart were written by others. We know that Anderson Cooper is generally reading from a teleprompter, but the second those words exit his mouth they become his quotes.

The Clinton camp has accused the Obama team of lifting words from Governor Patrick Duval. Obama’s defenders say that Duval gave permission, and in any case this practice falls more into the “common public rhetoric” field, as described by former Bill Clinton speechwriter Kusnet. In the playing field of political rhetoric politicians routinely use phrases and references that are not unique. Obama downplays the plagiarism accusation by essentially arguing that he did not steal words, he borrowed them.

The Obama/Duval remarks are less about plagiarism and more about politics. Plagiarism is a loaded term that can spark deep reaction. Plagiarism translates to cheating and that can seriously undermine credibility. Some of the most trusted public figures have survived allegations of plagiarism with their career intact, such as historian Doris Kearns Goodwin. Others have not - and this list is much longer than the former.

A recent scandal in Virginia shines a light on the limits of political ghostwriting. Apparently a lobbyist drafted an op ed and asked a number of people to publish the piece. This is common practice among many advocacy organizations - -they pen a sample letter to the editor or opinion piece and ask supporters to publish a version of it in their name. When an elected official submitted the piece for publication the newspaper balked because it had already been published under a different name in a different publication. The elected official was accused of plagiarism.

Plagiarism worries should also guide internal writing as well. Just over a year ago the American Association of Public Opinion Research issued new recommendations for RFP’s (Requests for Proposals) intended to reduce plagiarism. The Association found that some organizations were lifting text from proposals submitted by third parties and using that text in RFP’s.

New communications technologies are making plagiarism easier to detect. Many academic institutions, including high schools, are requiring students to submit their work electronically so they can be run through software programs that detect plagiarism. In July 2008 the third international conference on internet plagiarism will explore these issues.

The double standards that allow ghost writers to remain hidden are firmly intact outside of academia, as long as each unique piece is only used for one author. My prediction is that many years from now these standards will also begin to erode, and some type of attribution will be required when a public figure is not delivering her or his own words.