Plagiarism vs. Censorship

A recently launched discussion on LinkedIn generated several comments (including mine). Which is worse: plagiarism or censorship?

I suppose that anyone whose work has ever been plagiarized would find that the bigger offense. The only time I recall my work being plagiarized was when a radio anchor repeated - verbatim - the lead paragraph of a story I had on Page 1 the day before. I wasn't all that upset about it, just annoyed. Of course, I didn't know how many people were listening either.

Censorship, on the other hand, is different. For anyone who firmly believes in the First Amendment, censorship is a battleground when national security is not at stake. It hides or distorts both truth and opinion. And in a free society, we must be able to express both, no matter how much it hurts. That's a chief reason I entered journalism (remember Vietnam and Watergate?). And while I respect the concerns of the families of U.S. soldiers killed in battle, I agree with the Obama administration's decision to reverse an 18-year-old ban on photographing the coffins of soldiers who made the ultimate sacrifice. It sends a message that war is ugly but there is indeed a price to pay to maintain our freedoms, especially freedom of expression.

The Dawn of 'Freelance Nation?'

There was an intriguing question posed the other day on one of the LinkedIn groups of which I'm a member. The question asked group members to read an article from CNN.com that said more media outlets were sending more work to freelancers in the middle of the current recession.

I found it easy to agree. Media outlets, specifically print, and most especially today, will look to freelancers if doing so will help them cut costs. In my comment, I said I'd expect to see that demand for freelancers even when the economy turns around.

In fact, the growth and ubiquity of technology, along with the emergence of Web 2.0 as a primary means of communication, is making it increasingly likely that media will rely on outside contributors who will be paid per piece rather than be part of an editorial staff.

Here's my theory: The new generation of professional journalists - those in their 20s - have grown up on technology and use it to a much greater degree than the older generations do. Their high degree of Web savvy gives them an advantage when it comes to research and makes them more productive. So if, say, a magazine asks someone to take on an assignment, he or she only needs to look at the Web to become acclimated to the magazine's editorial mission to get a strong idea of what it needs and who it writes for.

You see a lot of this in the blogging world today; expect it become more pervasive. What this also means is that journalists should also learn some basic business skills, such as accounting and negotiating.

I'd welcome others' thoughts on this.

(By the way, see my LinkedIn profile here.)