I argued below that Reuters erred in suggesting that certain material in Brentwood Academy came from “the court’s opinion,” when it actually came from Justice Stevens’ Part II-A, which was joined by four Justices but repudiated by five. But let me focus on something else instead; here’s a paragraph from the Reuters story:
Stevens said the association’s limited regulation of recruiting posed no significant free-speech concerns, given that member schools remain free to send brochures, post billboards or otherwise advertise their athletic programs….
Here’s a corresponding paragraph from Justice Stevens’ opinion:
Given that TSSAA member schools remain free to send brochures, post billboards, and otherwise advertise their athletic programs, TSSAA’s limited regulation of recruiting conduct poses no significant First Amendment concerns.
My guess is that this would probably violate normal plagiarism guidelines for students or scholars. When whole phrases are copied with nearly no change — compare especially “given that member schools remain free to send brochures, post billboards or otherwise advertise their athletic programs” with “Given that TSSAA member schools remain free to send brochures, post billboards, and otherwise advertise their athletic programs” — such copying should be noted with quotation marks, rather than presented as a paraphrase.
The violation is not nearly as serious as it would be if the original author’s name was omitted, and the article presented the idea as the article author’s invention. But — and please correct me if I’m wrong — I think it still would be a violation, since one must expressly note, using quotation marks, the use of another’s literal words.
Now I’m not sure that what Reuters did is particularly bad for newspaper or wire service prose. My guess is that Reuters decided to omit the quotes here because it had expressly quoted Stevens in the surrounding paragraphs. The thought, I suspect, was that having too many quotation marks would look distracting to the reader.
But students should be expressly warned, I think, that even if this fine for newspapers, they can’t follow the same approach in their papers. The danger is that seeing such locutions — where the original author is identified, but the fact that his words are being literally used is not — in many authoritative places may mislead students into adopting norms that will serve them ill when they’re in school.