I had hoped that I would have an order from one of my writing clients today, but that hasn’t happened. I really wanted to begin working on a continuation of work I had begun for her, but. . . last night happened. Last night, that is, and a certain speech that, uh, “borrowed” substantially from someone else’s words. Today, of course, the news cycles are all a-twitter, if you’ll forgive the phrase, with your use of First Lady Michelle Obama’s speech. To be more specific, with parts of three paragraphs of her speech given at the Democratic National Convention in 2008. You know, the speech where she introduced her nominee husband, Barack Obama?
I cannot believe your speech writer really thought we wouldn’t catch the similarities. Or that we would wave them off with little more than a shoulder shrug. And here’s why.
I am a Writer with a Journalism Degree
In 2005, I returned to college to earn my second bachelor degree. My first is in social work and my second is in journalism and mass communications. “Mass Communications,” meaning public relations. Mrs. Trump, I have to tell you, the optics of what your speech writer did, the speech you delivered last night (which was brilliant, by the way) and the lack of reaction from your husband’s campaign staff are atrocious.
In my journalism classes, I learned about good news writing, the inverted pyramid. . . fair use, the New York Times actual malice rule. . . and plagiarism.
Definition of Plagiarism
From Columbia University Libraries, plagiarism is defined as “a form of cheating that has been defined as the false assumption of authorship; the wrongful act of taking the product of another person’s mind and presenting it as one’s ‘own.” (Emphasis mine) That includes saying that your ideas are yours, when they belong to someone else.
That’s what happened last night. You have already said you wrote the speech yourself with “a little help as possible.” That, Mrs. Trump, is called “intellectual theft.” Even worse, saying that the speech you gave is completely yours can be considered fraud if you are trying to gain an advantage (say, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue?). Morally, it is all kinds of wrong.
The Similarities Between Your Speech and Mrs. Obama’s
I’m sure you don’t want to see your words thrown up, yet again, next to those of Mrs. Obama. According to NPR, about one minute of your speech is in question. NPR says that one-half of the words in that section are very similar to Mrs. Obama’s.
It’s hard to come up with something original. I know. I’m a writer and I have to do that day after day. But don’t you think your speech writer could have been just a little more careful? After all, campaign staffs and speech writers have been writing campaign speeches that were much more original than yours was last night. It’s a definite that they would have made sure they hadn’t copied (or “cribbed,” as Paul Manafort said) from other speeches).
When I submit my work, it is sent through a plagiarism detector. That’s standard in my profession. Most, if not all, of my clients have these in their submission programs. And, quite unlike Gov. Christie said this morning on the Today Show, a seven percent plagiarism rate would be unacceptable. The acceptable rate is actually much closer to two percent or lower.
Is it Theft?
What happened last night is much more than “just copying.” I won’t go into the exact content of the “copied” portions. I’m sure you know just what they are. Do I believe your husband’s staff’s excuse? (That you “worked with a team of writers who took notes on your life’s inspirations,” as Vox says happened?) Honestly? No. No, I don’t.
Quite the opposite, in fact. I believe your speech writer (or speech writers, as the case may be) used substantial portions of Mrs. Obama’s speech from 2008. They stole. And yes, it is theft.
The Denials are Lame
According to what Paul Manafort said, your speech contained “common words and values,” according to FactCheck.org. Okay, I can buy that. To a very small extent. You see, Mrs. Trump, it’s in how those common words are arranged where the problem crops up. Words like “work, hard, bond, word, dignity, treat, respect, people, generation, children, height, limit, achievements, dreams, reach, work, willingness.” I’m sure these words all sound familiar, because we all use them multiple times a day. But. . . if you arrange those words in just the right way, you can end up using the ideas and words of someone else. . . like Mrs. Obama, who gave a strongly similar speech eight years ago. Manafort’s “explanation” needs crutches because it’s so lame. I won’t go into Gov. Christie’s poo-pooing of the high percentage of originality of your speech. Because it would still fail those plagiarism detectors.
Why Plagiarism is so Wrong
I’m sure you had a benign intent in what you tried to do last night. Your effort, sadly, has been drowned out by all the chatter of “plagiarism!” You just wanted to show the human side of your husband. Knowing him for as many years as you have, I’m sure you’ve spotted it on occasion.
Wouldn’t you know, it took a journalist to catch just how close your speech was to Mrs. Obama’s speech? (Of course, that’s what they are trained to do, as well as reporting on the news of the day.)
As it turns out, the original writer of that speech you delivered last night was written by none other than Sarah Hurwitz, who was one of Mrs. Obama’s speech writers. Ironically, Ms. Hurwitz used to write for none other than. . . Hillary Clinton, according to NBC News. Apologies are due to Ms. Hurwitz, it seems.
What You Told Matt Lauer
Matt Lauer, who is an anchor for the Today Show, was on your husband’s plane yesterday morning. You were as well. I’m sure you remember, though you may want desperately to forget that fact. According to The Hill, Mr. Lauer asked you who wrote the speech. You said, “I wrote it myself.” ‘Nuf said. I see all kinds of lies creeping out from under the bed.
Why Your Husband’s Statement is so Odious
Politifact posted a statement from your husband’s campaign. I’ll post fragments here: “In writing her beautiful speech. . . her life’s inspirations. . . included fragments. . . her own thinking. . . . which made it such a success.”
I am gobsmacked. His campaign passed Michelle Obama’s speech off as yours. Over the past year, your husband has trashed President Obama for being “weak” and “having no ability.”
I find it extremely ironic that he would praise a speech that in all reality, came from Mrs. Obama and her speech writers. In praising her speech, he was trying to cover for you. And that’s about reason #1,000 that I will not be voting for him.
Fair Use: What it Is and What it Isn’t
Now, it comes to pulling out one of my journalism texts: The Law of Public Communication, 2005 edition, written by Kent R. Middleton, William E. Lee and Bill E. Chamberlin. The ISBN is: 0-205-34350-3. I’m on page 257, looking at Fair Use. “Fair use” means “to copy a limited amount”. Sadly, there is no quantification of “fair use,” so that ends up being argued in courtrooms all around the country.
If you had used a phrase or even just a sentence of Mrs. Obama’s speech, you could have claimed fair use—and you may have been covered by that doctrine.
Fair use is used for teaching, news reporting, comment, research or scholarship. Not giving a speech where you are trying to humanize someone who frightens the stuffing out of three-fourths of this country. It occurs to me that both you and your husband would benefit from a trip to your city library, where you can check this book out to study it.
What Twitter Users are Saying
It’s truly ironic that Twitter is your husband’s preferred mode of communication, because Twitter users are absolutely trashing your use of Mrs. Obama’s words:
“It wasn’t easy growing up a black woman in Chicago, but I believe the world is safer for my 2 girls, Sasha and Malia.” Over this tweet—your photo from last night.
“Remember earlier today when SteveKingIA said Blacks didn’t contribute to society? If we don’t contribute then why steal our speeches?” Why indeed?
These tweets say it all. Moving on. . .
Joe Biden and the Differences
Joe Biden plagiarized from a British politician. This happened in 1987. I am a staunch Democrat and I am saying it. I don’t hide it, skitter behind someone else or avoid it. Your own husband has brought up this misuse of someone else’s words. Then, according to Buzzed, your husband says, “I’ve had a great record, I haven’t been involved in plagiarism.” Bully for him. Up until now. Now that he’s defending your actions and words, he’s “involved in plagiarism,” even if indirectly.
I learned about your use of Mrs. Obama’s words last night and I was livid. I am still angry, but writing this helps a little. You’ll notice that, for all but two sections, I linked to news stories or definitions. For the one section where I couldn’t do this, I provided the name of the book, authors’ names, edition and even the ISBN. I strongly urge you to pick up a copy of this book, which I used in my Media Law class. It’s not the most interesting reading. . . but it could keep you out of the courtroom.