I’m supposed to watching the media, but Denver Post reporter Lynn Bartels puts me to shame.

She can not only “half listen” to CNN from the “other room” but, at the same time, recognize that someone is saying something on CNN that Jane Norton said during a speech over six months ago.

As she reported on The Post’s blog, The Spot, Bartels heard Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) use a quotation that came from Norton’s mouth when Norton launched her senatorial campaign Sept. 15.

But there was one big difference. Rodgers properly attributed the quotation to former President Gerald Ford. And Norton did not.

Norton said, “I believe a government big enough to give you everything you want, is a government that’s big enough to take everything you have.”

Ford said, “A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.”

Bartels’ discovery of this was pretty impressive, but her blog post didn’t offer any perspective on whether this is plagiarism on Norton’s part.

Journalists should take plagiarism ultra seriously, right, since some of them get fired for doing it. Not to mention the fact that plagiarist isn’t a skill we’re looking for in our future elected officials.

So I emailed a leading poobah in field of journalism ethics, Robert Steele, to find out whether Norton’s apparent act of plagiarism should, in fact, be considered plagiarism and what would happen to a journalist who did what Norton did.

Prof. Steele is the Nelson Poynter Scholar for Journalism Values at The Poynter Institute and the Director of the Jane Prindle Institute for Ethics at DePauw University.

Here’s what he wrote:

If one uses a common understanding of plagiarism — using the specific words or nearly exact thoughts of someone else and claiming them as your original writing or thoughts — then Norton’s use of this quote falls into that category.

My guess is that many politicians have used a variation of this phrase over the years to capture an ideological position about the role of government in our society. If Norton had just taken the broad concept and stated it in her own words, she might have been OK. For instance, if she said something like, “A government that gives can take. We should be wary of big government that promises too much and makes us pay back all we receive,” she would have made her point (albeit with a less resounding quote) and avoided the plagiarism trap.

Given her use of the exact wording, Norton should have attributed the phrase to Ford (assuming he was the originator of the phrase and didn’t borrow it himself from someone else). 

If a journalist used this same exact phrase without attribution, I would want to know how it happened. I would ask the journalist how and why she/he used that phrase and why it wasn’t attributed. I would also check other work produced by that journalist to see if there are other problems with attribution. I would discipline the journalist based on the extent and reason for the failure in this case and whether the journalist has a history of plagiarism. That discipline could range from a serious reprimand to a suspension to dismissal.

In this case, I would ask Norton some questions. How did this happen? Did you write this speech? If so, where did you get that line? If not, who wrote the speech and/or that line? Perhaps one of her speech writers did this. Norton, as the person who used the words is still primarily responsible, of course. I would also do some plagiarism checking of her other speeches to see if this is a recurring problem.

I made certain that Steele saw that Norton’s words weren’t exactly the same as Ford’s.

“Norton’s words are very, very close to the exact wording of the Ford quote and her expression of this thought is almost verbatim to Ford’s expression,” he wrote back.  “Norton should have attributed the statement to Ford. By not doing so, she claimed it as her original thought. That’s wrong.”

Even if you don’t agree with Steele, you’d still want to hear more from Norton about the Ford quote, given that she wants to be Colorado’s U.S. Senator.

Reporters should follow up with her, along the lines Steele suggests: How did this happen? Has it happened before? What have you done to stop it from happening again?

A politician can commit plagiarism and be forgiven, perhaps more easily than a professional writer. Look at Joe Biden. But it’s up to reporters to take Norton’s transgression much more seriously. Get all the facts on the table, and let us decide.

The day after reading that Republican Ken Buck reportedly thinks Jane Norton has a “lack of comfort discussing campaign issues with reporters,” I opened up the up-and-coming Denver Daily News and found a few hundred words from Jane Norton, beginning with this paragraph:

“It’s questionable which is more insulting: Senator Bennet’s hypocrisy on earmark reform or the fact that Republicans joined him to help kill this commonsense measure,” said Norton.

This looked quite articulate, and there was no indication that the statement came from a news release or other form of controlled campaign communication. So I emailed Denver Daily News Staff Writer Peter Marcus, who wrote the piece, and asked if he had interviewed Norton.

He replied that Norton’s words were extracted from a news release and that he usally does state when comments come from a news release.

The source of a quote (interview vs. news release) is important info for readers who may want to know if a reporter has had the opportunity to challenge a interviewee and follow up with critical questions.

Marcus wrote me: “I haven’t personally had trouble speaking with [Norton]. In fact, on caucus night, she was very available, and Nate, her communications director, has worked with me to get her on the phone.”

That’s good news, because it’s in the public interest for reporters to have access to candidates, Democrat and Republican, and to talk to them. And if they don’t have access, they should tell us about it.

It’s good to hear that the Denver Daily News is getting access and using it. With fewer media outles covering breaking political news, the Denver Daily News‘ original content has become an important part (and getting more so) of the local media scene.

Here’s proof that TV journalism shouldn’t start and stop when the camera rolls.

Denver FOX 31 correspondent Eli Stokols quoted an “off camera” comment by U.S. Senate candidate Ken Buck Thursday.

You don’t see TV reporters quoting off-camera discussions with newsmakers often enough, and by not doing so, they’ve gotta be withholding a ton of material that should be aired in the public interest.

In this case, Stokols of Fox 31, reported that U.S. Senate candidate Ken Buck “openly questioned [his opponent Jane Norton’s] ability to hold up under the scrutiny of the media and noted her apparent lack of comfort discussing campaign issues with reporters and at candidate forums.”
 

According to Stokols, Buck said, “Can you imagine her against Romanoff in a debate? That’d be like tennis with the net down.”

Give Stokols credit for putting this comment into the public record.

After 23 quoteless weeks, The Denver Post ran a direct quotation from Jane Norton today.

Norton’s quoted words, which appear to have traveled from the Senate candidate’s mouth into reporter Lynn Bartels’ ears, in a two-way conversation, were first these:

“Coloradans are incredibly passionate because the direction of the country is wrong. The overreach of the federal government is absolutely unprecedented.”

And then these:

“I am a conservative. That’s who I’ve always been.”

The Post’s article referred to Norton’s newsworthy statements of late–shadowy stuff that should have been in the newspaper previously, but was left out.

For the first time, The Post reported that Norton called Social Security a Ponzi scheme and that she accused the Obama administration of caring more about the rights of terrorists than the lives of American citizens. It also mentioned her proposal to eliminate the Department of Education, which The Post had already reported but which her spokesman previously refused to discuss with The Post because he was asked about it on a “holiday,” 

That’s a huge step forward. Now Post reporters should query Norton about her basis for believing these things–and her other extreme ideas, including her reported support of a flat tax or national sales tax, which would amount to a major overall of the U.S. tax code.

The Post should ask where Norton how her thinking evolved on these issues.

Today’s Post article pointed out that Norton and the GOP Senate contenders are “driving as far to the right as possible in hopes of rallying the base and appealing to the Tea Partyers.” While some think Norton, who openly attacks Planned Parenthood, is trying to hide her right-wing beliefs, The Post’s article today argued that Norton “has to battle the perception she’s the establishment candidate.” This perception is fueled by her support from “powerul D.C.-lobbyist brother in law Charlie Black and others in the capital,” including Sen. John McCain, today’s Post article stated.

I’ve been lambasting The Denver Post for not talking directly with Colorado Senate Candidate Jane Norton.

And I was ready to lambast The Post again this afternoon, after reading its coverage of last night’s caucuses and the Colorado Senate race. Neither Jane Norton nor Michael Bennet were directly interviewed.

Instead, The Post’s article stated that U.S. Senate candidate Jane Norton’s quote came from “prepared remarks.” And Michael Bennet’s quote came from “a release.”

This was a major political event–and you’d expect The Post to interview the major candidates directly or–at least–to tell us that the candidates declined a request to be interviewed.

But I asked Post reporter John Ingold, who wrote the caucus article along with Jessica Fender, about the story, and his response provides a window into the complicated world that reporters operate in–versus the simplistic one occupied sometimes by a media critic.

Both Jessica and I tried last night to get live comments from the candidates themselves. (It was a bit of a complicated process because we needed comments for the first-edition story before results were in, then we needed new quotes for the final-edition story after results were released.)

 In the mini-chaos of the evening …• both for us and the candidates …• we weren’t always able to get direct quotes. I can’t say for the candidates we didn’t speak to whether that was a conscious choice on their part, but we ultimately felt it was better to use prepared statements from the candidates themselves rather than live comments from their spokespeople. Of course we would much, much rather speak directly to the candidates. 

As for why we didn’t say that we tried and failed to get live comments from the candidates, I didn’t feel it was worth the space in the story to make that point. We had only 25 inches to cover a lot of ground on three significant contests, and we had to do it on a tight deadline. To the extent readers are inclined to draw a distinction between direct comments and prepared statements, I think the story provided them with enough detail to do so.

So in this light, I can see why the controlled information by Bennet and Norton (statements and news releases) was used in the newspaper, and the approach makes sense. I also understand why Ingold and Fender did not write that the candidates “declined comment.” It sounds like the candidates never really declined the interview request, but neither did they make themselves available. So the reporters went with what they had. That’s what happens on deadline. Ingold rightfully didn’t want to speculate about the candidates’ motives, but it looks like they were just manipulating deadline-driven journos.

The Post’s piece on the caucuses and the Senate race last night did include direct quotes from Ken Buck, Andrew Romanoff, pollster Floyd Ciruli, and political analyst Steve Welchert.

It’s still a mystery to me why The Post hasn’t quoted Norton, directly in a two-way conversation, in 23 weeks. Her releases and spokespeople have been quoted in 13 articles.

But I’m thinking this will change as the campaign gets going.

Bennett has been quoted directly, about campaign matters, in 12 articles in a two-way conversation with reporters during the same period, with his last quote on campaign matters appearing seven weeks ago. His releases and spokespeople have been quoted in 12 articles.

Andrew Romanoff has been quoted directly in 13 articles, and three quotes have appeared from releases and spokespeople.

Now wait a minute, you say, in The Post on Nov. 11, in the year 2009, there’s a quote attributed directly to Norton, not to one of her spokespeople or to a news release.  Norton was quoted as saying, “The very heart and soul of who we are as Americans is being eroded. We’re seeing Washington’s giant hand grabbing everything in sight.”

Yes, that’s a Norton quote, but alas the Nov. 11 quote is taken from a speech she gave at a Republican forum. The words went from Norton’s mouth to the ears of a reporter. But this doesn’t count, because it wasn’t a two-way communication, as far as I can tell. The reporter just quoted her speech.

So you have to go all the way back to October 4, 2009, to find a Post article containing words that came directly from Norton’s mouth into a reporter’s ears, in a two-way conversation.

That’s over 22 weeks since Norton has been quoted directly in The Post.  And since she launched her campaign back on Sept. 15, 2009, she’s been quoted in a two-way conversation a grand total of two times.

How many times has her spokespeople been quoted during the 22 weeks? Eleven times in the print edition. (See information on Bennet and Romanoff on a Feb. 24 post on www.bigmedia.org.)

During Norton’s 22 quoteless weeks, reporters probably had no reason to talk to her directly, you’re probably thinking. Otherwise, why wouldn’t they just pick up the phone and ask for her?

Actually, Post reporters have had a string of excellent reasons to talk directly to Norton. Just today Talking Points Memo published a video in which Norton describes Social Security as Ponzi scheme. I’m sure there’s a few hundred thousand Coloradans curious to hear directly from Norton about what she means.

Post readers would also benefit from hearing from Norton about the gross misrepresentation or outright lie found in one of her first political ads. Denver’s FOX 31 (KDVR) aired an interview with Norton Tuesday, showing that she did not cut the budget of the Colorado Department of Health and Environment, as she claimed in a recent political advertisement.

Post readers also need to hear directly from Norton about these lingering questions:

 ·         Why does she favor the elimination of the Department of education? The Post tried to obtain a comment from Norton’s campaign on this, but was told by a spokesperson, “It’s a holiday. Nobody cares.” The spokesperson told The Post that Norton would address the issue after Jan. 1. That’s two-and-a-half months ago, and it appears The Post hasn’t followed up.
 ·         Why does she support a national sales tax and flat tax, and why does she think a “simplified flat tax with exemptions for mortgages and charity” would be more viable than a pure flat tax? (The Post published a Norton statement about this on its blog but hasn’t questioned Norton directly.)
 ·         Why does she think health care reform is unconstitutional? Not addressed in The Post.
 ·         On what basis does Norton think that the “rights of terrorists are more important in this administration than the lives of American citizens”? This statement was quoted in an opinion column in The Post, but no reporter has asked Norton about it.
 ·         If she’s never been a lobbyist, as she’s claimed, what was she doing from 1994-1999 as head of the lobbying department of Medical Group Management Association (MGMA)?  An MGMA spokesman did tell the Colorado Independent that Norton headed the organization’s lobbying department. In one instance, on Oct. 25, 2009, in an article about Norton’s ties to high-powered Republicans, like her brother-in-law Charlie Black who advised John McCain, The Post told readers that “Norton, through her spokesman, declined to comment.”

I actually don’t know why The Post hasn’t quoted Norton directly in 22 weeks (from her mouth to a reporter’s ears in a two-way conversation), and a Post spokesperson declined to comment for this blog post. All I can do is speculate.

But as more and more time goes by, and the good reasons to talk to Norton pile up, you have to think that Post reporters just aren’t doing their job to represent the public, at least in this case.

The following description of Senate candidate Jane Norton in an article on the Steamboat Today website Monday looks innocent enough at first glance, but read it closely: