GREENSBORO, NC -- There is a letter to the editor in today's News & Record from Michael Crowell, a professor at the UNC School of Government, complaining about the News & Record having published a copyrighted work of his on its editorial pages and editing it without his knowledge or permission. The News & Record attaches a weasley anonymous note to the letter to the editor explaining that the piece was "shortened" to make room for an advertisement. There is no explanation or apology for using the article without permission.
In truth, the News & Record did more than shorten it, substantially, without permission, they also added portions the author did not write and deleted portions that affected the meaning. Here are some selected comparisons of significantly edited portions.
Original:
For the last 30 years North Carolina, like most states, has been making it easier to register and vote. In the early 1980s the only way you could register was to go before an official of the local board of elections in person.In the News & Record's copy:
For the last 30 years, North Carolina has been making it easier to register and vote. In the early 1980s, you had to register in person at your county board of elections office.---------------
Original:
Did any of the expanded opportunities to register and vote added since 1980 appreciably affect voter turnout or not?
The answer is not clear cut. In tracking voter turnout with election law changes since 1980 it is hard to discern that any particular election law change has made an appreciable difference in how many people vote. Yes, voting in North Carolina in the last two presidential elections was notably higher than before, but other presidential elections have not brought as many people to the polls, and turnout in non-presidential elections is still as low as ever. It may be that the 2008 and 2012 presidential year jumps are simply anomalies, with unusually high interest, and not indicative of any trend.
In the News & Record's copy:
Did any of the expanded opportunities to register and vote appreciably affect voter turnout?
The answer is not clear. Yes, voting in North Carolina in the last two presidential elections was notably higher than before, but turnout in nonpresidential elections is still as low as ever. It may be that the 2008 and 2012 jumps were anomalies, with unusually high interest.---------------
Original:
While this review of North Carolina data is not very sophisticated, it is consistent with recent political science research, discussed below, which suggests that early voting may actually decrease voter turnout. The same research shows, on the other hand, that same-day registration and voting can increase turnout somewhat. When done together, early voting and same-day registration neutralize each other. And, as one might expect, factors other than election laws have more to do with how many people vote.In the News & Record's copy:
[Removed entirely.]---------------
Original:
Data about voter turnout and election law changes in North Carolina from 1980 through 2012 is found on this chart... [snip] A list of all elections may be found here.In the News & Record's copy:
[Removed entirely.]---------------
Original:
What do the data show about turnout over the 32 years? The chart is a busy document and offers an opportunity for lots of interpretation. Here are a few observations about the data:In the News & Record's copy:
What do the data show about turnout over these 31 years?---------------
Original:
Turnout in presidential election years varied little between 1980 and 2000, regardless of the closeness of the contests or any election law change. The turnout percentages for those six elections, and the results of the presidential voting in North Carolina:
1980 — 43.9 percent (Reagan edges Carter 49.3 to 47.2 percent)
1984 — 48.8 percent (Reagan routs Mondale 61.9 to 37.9 percent)
1988 — 43.7 percent (Bush routs Dukakis 58 to 41.7 percent)
1992 — 50.1 percent (Bush edges Clinton 43.4 to 42.7 percent)
1996 — 44.4 percent (Dole beats Clinton 48.7 to 44 percent)
2000 — 49.6 percent (Bush beats Gore 56 to 43.2 percent).
Turnout in presidential election years varied little between 1980 and 2000, regardless of the closeness of the contests or any election law change. The low, as noted, occurred in 1988; the high was 50.1 percent in 1992.---------------
Original:
Possible conclusions?In the News & Record's copy:
No obvious effects---------------
Original:
The changes in election law since 1980 do not appear to have appreciably affected voter turnout as a whole.In the News & Record's copy:
The changes in election law since 1980 have not appreciably affected voter turnout as a whole.---------------
Original:
In sum, based on this limited analysis, the changes in North Carolina’s registration and voting laws over the last 32 years appear not to have made a significant difference in how many people vote. While it has become noticeably easier to register to vote, and to stay on the rolls, about the same proportion of citizens go to the polls now as before. It seems more likely that voting depends on factors such as the nature of the election, how much seems to be at stake, the level of media coverage, and how much effort candidates and parties put into identifying and mobilizing their voters. The one state election law change that might be argued to have boosted turnout is the 2007 legislation, repealed in 2013, to extend the deadline for registering by allowing same-day registration and voting during the early voting period. With even the most generous assumptions, however, that change in the law could not be said to account for more than 1.5 percent of turnout.In the News & Record's copy:
In sum, based on this limited analysis, the changes in North Carolina’s registration and voting laws over the last 31 years appear not to have made a significant difference in how many people vote. While it has become noticeably easier to register to vote, and to stay on the rolls, about the same proportion of citizens go to the polls now as before. It seems more likely that voting depends on factors such as the nature of the election, how much seems to be at stake, media coverage, and how much effort candidates and parties put into identifying and mobilizing voters.
Update (4/4/2014): Title changed for accuracy's sake.
The big question to me is permission. Did the N&R have permission to republish this article at all? And if so, did the terms of that permission require the article to be republished verbatim?
ReplyDeleteBecause if the N&R had permission and was not required in writing to publish verbatim, well, stuff gets cut for space, or rephrased to save space, all the time.
But the copyright question concerns me deeply. I want to hear more from my local daily about that. A lot more.
Good question. I have updated the post to reflect the fact that the author only explicitly says that the changes were made without his permission. I will attempt to contact him to see if he have the N&R initial permission to reprint the piece.
ReplyDeleteWell, you could always have asked us. Yes, we had permission. Prof. Crowell even sent us his mugshot at my request and his original graphic. No, there was no requirement attached that we publish the article word for word at its full length.
ReplyDeleteThat said, it was our intent to publish it as close to its original length as possible, and we would have done so if not for the addition of the quarter-page ad two hours before the Ideas section was scheduled to go to press. We had to remove one story entirely and replace it with a shorter one and make significant edits to Crowell's article. There was no time to consult with him about this. My biggest mistake, for which I apologized to Prof. Crowell, was in not letting him know before publication. My second mistake was not including a note in the print edition indicating the article had been shortened and letting readers know where they could find the original. I did this on the online version and provided a link.
I am sorry this happened, but we found ourselves in an unfortunate situation with little time to react. However, while we have run articles from School of Government faculty before, we have never promised them, or any other writers, that we would not edit or adjust for length.
Doug,
ReplyDeleteYou will notice that this post was updated with a clarification from the author at the time of your comment.
I'm reluctant to contact the News & Record directly on such matters any more because of the nature of its dealings with me which span fro editor Margaret Moffit-Banks directing a reporter not to discuss an article with me in which the reporter allowed a politician to make a criminal allegation against me without any substantiation or without checking with me for a response to, most recently, publisher and then-editor Jeff "Grits" Gauger ignoring my email inquiries on an issue with an ultimate explanation that he saw "no upside in engaging [me]."
So that's the standard I've adopted. I'll engage the News & Record when there is something in it for me, just like your publisher.
Thanks for commenting.