Is it plagiarism? - March 10, 2008
A couple of weeks ago, there was a dustup on the campaign trail about Sen. Obama’s use of a line of argument, and specific wording, that had been used by his close friend, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick. Sen. Clinton said that he was plagiarizing. But there has been some discussion that there are real differences between modes of communication- speaking versus writing. Watch this clip from the Feb. 24th Meet the Press:
Download Title
What is the difference between plagiarizing a text and plagiarizing a speech? Or is the difference that these are political speeches, typically written by ghost writers? What are the limits- can a politician use anyone else’s lines that they wish to use, or must they have permission to do so?
I would not call Barack Obama’s borrowing of one of Deval Patrick’s oratical constructs plagiarism. This is mainly due, certainly, to the fact that it was a political speech and that Deval Patrick share the same political ideas. Besides, I think we cannot call it “sheer” plagiarism in the sense that he did not steal his ideas, he repeated the line “just words” several times as Deval Patrick did. The other lines were taken from the declaration of Independence , FDR, and Martin Luther King and are thus not stolen from Patrick. After watching Obama repeating these line, I almost have the feeling that he did it intentionally, for we can perceive some irony in his tone, and in that sense, he is obviously acknowledging the fact that these lines are not his, but they are so powerful, vital and shared by the entire audience that they are worth being repeated.
Now If we transcribe the speech, for we can not visualize the speaker and were cut off from the enunciation setting, and then I think we’re bound to mention that some of the lines were taken form an other author.
Given the current political context and its abundance of speeches and debates, it seems almost impossible for speech makers not to use lines that have not been previously used by other candidates.
I do not consider Obama’s speech to be an act of plagiarism because in the US entitlement to property must be properly recorded, and when text is written down the person is, in a sense, claiming that as their property. This is why people like Larry the Cable Guy and The Rock have exclusive written rights to the commercial use of their taglines. I think that one of the commentators made an important distinction when she mentioned the difference between the spoken and written word. I think that this is partly due to the fact that speaking has multiple dimensions and can therefore manipulate the text in various ways. A text can be referenced from different angles (depending on the argument presented), the speaker can elicit different emotional responses from the audience, or there may be mechanical variations such as changes in the rhythm of the text, or emphasis on certain words. In this sense, the same text can never have the same meaning because each speaker offers something unique, and each audience has unique interpretations. A written text is less subject to change because the only element that can manipulate meaning is the audience’s interpretation (which is influenced by cultural or environmental characteristics).
I’m surprised that Hilary chose this aspect of Obama’s campaign as a means to discredit his image, because it seems expected that candidates share texts and build on one another’s ideas (which the anchors clearly demonstrated). Sometimes this is carefully planned to show alliances or to gain credibility by using previously successful speeches. This works best when the speaker has permission to use someone else’s ideas because there will be less negative attention drawn to the rhetor. However, even if spoken words are challenged as an act of plagiarism, the accusation wouldn’t carry enough legal weight to damage anything other than (possibly) the person’s moral reputation. This was Hilary’s intention, but it backfired because it is clear that Obama has Patrick’s support, and even worse, Hilary looked like a hypocrite when she too was caught using other someone else’s lines.
I also think that Obama’s borrowing should not be cast as plagiarism. Discourse is so fluid in these public speech acts that it seems that overlap and blending are inevitable. While Obama could have acknowledged the source of these particular lines during his speech, it would have been very unusual for a candidate to do so. And I agree with the previous comment that Obama was very aware of his borrowing. There’s a self-conscious series of references throughout this speech, so I don’t think that the audience is necessarily fixated on the idea that all of Obama’s words are “his own.”
One of the commentators mentioned that these actions of linguistic borrowing are very common. Although its prevalence does not make it ethical, I feel that all of our interactions would get repetitive and boring if we weren’t able to incorporate other people’s utterances into our own communication. Even in less visible interactions, we are all constantly incorporating phrases and expressions that we have gathered from other people. Tracing the ownership of language that has been printed on the page is much easier, since its documentation is so concrete. Oral communication, on the other hand, is much more involved in the collective’s general articulations. The language we use has been influenced by countless people before us, and it will surely transform to reflect the needs of later generations. I feel that our speech acts respond to these changes much more quickly than our written language. As rhetors, we all collaborate with one another, borrowing and creating new expressions constantly.
Also, the fact that this is the worst charge Hilary could use against Obama should make him sleep easier at night. Her accusations look very desperate here, and I agree with Cristen’s observation that Hilary comes out looking like a hypocrite who’s just clutching at straws.
i plan to post later tonight on this clip…but something I saw in the news was interesting to me and relates to our class. I’m sure many of you saw it but there was a story on CNN about a Clinton ad featuring a young girl sleeping, as it turns out the footage of the girl was from a automobile ad that clinton bought the rights to. CNN interviewed the girl who didn’t even know she was a part of the Clinton ad and it turns out she’s a huge Obama supporter…here’s the link to the story
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=46681§ionid=3510203
According to Encyclopedia.com plagiarism is “the practice of claiming or implying original authorship of (or incorporating material from) someone else’s written or creative work, in whole or in part, into one’s own without adequate acknowledgement. Unlike cases of forgery, in which the authenticity of the writing, document, or some other kind of object itself is in question, plagiarism is concerned with the issue of false attribution. Plagiarism can also occur unconsciously; in some cultures certain forms of plagiarism are accepted because the concept can be interpreted differently.”
Going from this definition I do not believe Obama’s use of similar quotes and statements should be considered plagiarism. Barack acknowledge that Deval Patrick was one of his co-chairs and I doubt he would have made that statement on national t.v. if it was not true. There was no indication that Obama claimed that the words were his. Also, if this is considered plagiarism then even time a coach uses a line from “Any Given Sunday” or “Miracle” or a reverend quotes MLK Jr. without formally acknowledging it was his; then those would be considered plagiarism as well.
In my opinion, Clinton is backpedaling fast during her accusation of Obama. She doesn’t really have an argument and the only thing she can pull out is a smart alic comment about the Xeros, which is witty I will give her credit for that, but not very “politically” smart. When Obama made this speech he basically quotes it word for word and his tone is different. I don’t know maybe it’s just me but when people are quoting or using others words their voice alters slightly.
I agree with the previous posters that Obama did not plagiarize his speech. To me, plagiarizing is stealing someone else’s material without their knowledge, whether it be written or verbalized, and not crediting them. The fact that Patrick was a close friend and campaign supporter means that Obama probably had permission to use the key phrases like “Just Words” that he did in his discussed speeches. Had the speech been literally stolen or had Patrick opposed the use of his phrase, then he would have spoken out against Obama’s rhetoric. Since he did not and continues to endorse Obama to this day, I feel like Obama had permission to use the language he did.
Also, I agree with Sarah in that Obama’s tone changes when he is quoting Patrick. I don’t think changing your tone automatically means you’re not plagiarizing, but I do feel this demonstrates the fact that Obama was not consciously stealing someone else’s material.
Clinton (and others) attack of Obama, while it comes as no surprise, seems unnecessary. What I mean by it doesn’t come as a surprise is that both senators are involved in a heated, close presidential race and should be doing whatever they can (legally and ethically, of course) to get themselves elected. Obviously, this means finding flaws in the opposing candidate – it is their job to prove that they are the better choice, after all. But since it seems pretty clear that Patrick did not mind, and most likely even endorsed, Obama’s use of his rhetoric, Clinton’s attack seems kind of petty. Also, she looks like something of a hypocrite since she has used rhetoric previously employed by Edwards and even Obama himself. Obama alleges that Clinton has use the phrase “Fired up and ready to go!” which most of us associate with Obama’s campaign. I feel like she needs to stick to more substantial arguments in order to better discredit Obama in the future.
Overall, I feel a politician must have the permission of another person before using their words in a speech, spoken or written. Since ghostwriters are not credited in political speeches, I would have said prior to this debate that no credit is necessary as long as there is permission. In light of how people reacted to this so-called “plagiarism”, however, I would suggest that credit be given. It would not have been difficult for Obama to have said “As my good friend Deval Patrick said…” Maybe if he had done that, he could have avoided this controversy.
I have to agree with what pretty much everyone who posted before me has said. I do not feel that Obama’s use of phrases that match Patrick’s classifies as plagiarism. He did not seem to defend the notion that those words or phrases were his own, he acknowledged the previous use of them by Patrick. Since he has Patrick’s support, I do not feel that he should be criticized for using helpful elements of that support. Is it unethical for someone to use another’s words when they are both using those words and ideas to reach the same goal, together and when the person who’s words are being borrows does not object? Personally, I do not think so.
Another aspect of this controversy is that it is a speech act and not a literary act of imitation. In literary acts, one can cite and reference others easily. When giving a speech, one can mention other people in it, but there is no lasting text that will be available to most of the viewers for them to notice that reference. When one looks at the definition of plagiarism, it says that the imitation or use of another’s ideas and words must without their permission. It is obvious that in this context, Patrick does give Obama the permission to use his phrasing. While it is not specifically stated in Obama’s speech, as it would be cited in a written text, it still does not constitute plagiarism. Obama has the permission of Patrick and that is enough for me to feel it is not plagiarism.
Clinton’s accusations come across as incredibly petty when the hosts are able to provide not one, but two clips of her engaging in a similar borrowing of phrases and ideas from those supporters and peers around her. In order to make a better criticism of one’s opponent, I feel that politicians should stick to ideas that have more merit and more importance. Not to say that plagiarism is not important or a judge or ethical standards. It is important, but should be scrutinized in more important aspects of one’s campaign. If a candidate plagiarizes whole speeches or acts referring to their actually standpoints on issues, or their ideas for future action then there would be cause for concern. In permissibly using a supporters phrasing for an energizing statement (opposed to a content based statement on policy/issues) there should not be as much controversy.
To me, the difference between plagiarizing a text and plagiarizing a speech lies in the permanent value of the language. A text is written down and is a lasting record of someone’s thoughts. A speech is momentary; it is at a single point in time and with a specific audience. Although speeches can be recreated and the same language can be repeated the overall effect is different because the other elements (time, location, audience) change.
In politics, taking a line from another speech seems almost inevitable.
This is not to say that each instance is right, but in this situation I do not consider what Obama did plagiarism. Patrick is one of the national co-chairs of his political campaign and advised him to use the line. Obama and Patrick have the same goals and feed off of each other to write speeches like this and so it is only assumed that the best and most effective lines make it into the speech, regardless of who thought of them.
It seems as if Clinton’s campaign was just looking for anything to strike Obama with and I think it backfired. Obama handled the accusations quite well and it was clear from the cheering that he had audience support.
In some sense plagiarizing text and speech are exactly the same offense, both are stealing the words and ideas of another whether it be in speech form or text. The difference lies in that in the Hilary v. Obama plagiarism debate the speech at hand is a very special subset, the political speech. These speeches themselves are almost universally written by ghost writers and therefore in their very nature are plagiarism as previously defined. In many instances the candidates themselves probably don’t even know that they are speaking other’s words. In the case of Obama, he was using the words of a friend an colleague in order to convey a point he himself was trying to make, and in Clinton’s case she obviously had permission to use lines from one of her husband’s speeches. I really liked the way that David Brooks summed up the issue on “Meet the Press,” explaining that politicians give so many speeches over the courses of their careers that inevitable they are going to become a hodgepodge of ideas they have collected from various sources.
As I watched Obama quote Deval Patrick’s lines, my first reaction was “Plagiarism! Plagiarism! Plagiarism!” But then when Clinton questioned him on it, Obama explained that Patrick had told him to use those lines. In this case, Obama had permission to use the lines that Patrick had constructed. While they were largely made up of matter from historic speeches, the emphasis and the point was the same for Patrick and Obama. Because of permission granted, I changed my mind and would say that he did not plagiarize. I find it very ironic that Clinton would attack him on this when she did the exact same thing, almost as if she had forgotten her early speeches. I would venture that permission to use parts of speeches is inherent when married to a fellow politician and therefore Clinton did not plagiarize either. However, it was unwise that she would even broach the issue as a complaint because it could ultimately backfire on her as a hypocrite.
I’m going to try to come at this from a different tack than the ten comments above simply because it’d be what everyone else said (so that’s my opinion on it). If this is so easily explained away, and most of us buy it, then why do it? Anyone could say, well Hillary’s campaign is run by crazy monkeys that are just throw poo at the wall until something sticks. That may still be true, but these are group of sophisticated advertising people (at least Mark Penn) and so why do it? This isn’t a major policy difference, and can just go away easily, why waste time? Its to introduce doubt.
Its not even a huge attack, a small little plagiarism, who cares? It does two things. First, it makes us at home lose just a little bit of value in Barack. Second, by point out all this stuff about speech writers and so on, it makes Barack’s most powerful asset, his ability to speak, seem sort of empty and manufactured. Of course every candidate has someone write their speeches, but it doesn’t matter. Barack is trying to sell himself as a genuine person, as really anyone running for a major elected office is, and we’re not supposed to see the man behind the curtain.
In this case I don’t think that it was plagiarism. I think Senator Obama really makes a good point when he says that Gov. Patrick is part of his campaign staff, and is a personal friend. While I don’t consider myself a plagiarism expert, it seems to me that this verbal verification that Gov. Patrick gave Senator Obama should be cause enough to eliminate the possibility of plagiarism. I think that written plagiarism and spoken are different; I know that I hear lines from movies and speeches and recount them without remembering where in the world I heard it first — I do not think I should be guilty of plagiarism, and I don’t think the writers of said lines would want to charge me with it. I do realize that he is held to a different standard running for President than I am as a random undergrad, however I’m inclined to think that this is more of an effort by the Clinton campaign to dig at Senator Obama.
I also think it’s a little bit ridiculous only because in each of these speeches they are using phrases that hold important meaning to U.S. citizens– 85% of the words in both speeches are historical and thus similar.
I don’t think that politicians can just use anybody’s words carelessly, but I think it’s naive to assume that we don’t incorporate things we hear from other people in our own speech. To me that seems like a common element of communication; saying it doesn’t mean you necessarily came up with it. When you write something down, however, I think you are putting your name to what you’ve written in a different way than you do when you’re speaking– there is more responsibility there. Yes, it seems like there is an obvious double standard, but I just don’t see how that could be erased.
In a related comment, the Xerox comment was a little bit painful to watch. Not her biggest crowd pleaser. Yikes.
It appears that Clinton did not have a single supporter in her accusation, both among our class and among the commentators on the Meet the Press. If anything, rather than helping her campaign, this accusation hurt Hillary’s reputation and logic. What a ridiculous accusation that merely required a one-sentence explanation from Obama to receive a satisfied roar from the audience!
I do not think, at face value, that it is wrong to share information, taglines, words, etc among fellow campaigners and friends. Absolutely not. If given explicit permission and advisement from Patrick that Obama felt that he could use these lines and not even cite them, and Patrick was on board with this, that’s their deal; there is no legality surrounding the issue. To use someone’s material without their permission or knowledge might be a different issue. I think it would depend on the level of manipulation of the tone or content of the line. For example, the “I see” construction utilized by many politicians encourages the American people and can hardly attacked as malicious or hurtful in the way it has been used. However, if a candidate were to manipulate it, mock it, or discredit its original use, that could be considered infringing on its original purpose. Obviously, this enters a subjective realm of enforcement, but in my opinion, a competent and reliable citizen should be able to make this distinction and refrain from use if at all questionable. This is why I consider Obama’s use legit. This is why I consider the example that was posted earlier about Hillary using that car’s clip (an Obama supporter) in her ad more controversial and inconsiderate. Hillary basically has made a fool of herself accusing Obama of something that she is participating more heinously in.