New York Magazine Reporter Accused of Plagiarism
Ross Barkan has worked as a New York-based journalist for more than 12 years. He has written for some of the biggest publications including New York Magazine, The New York Times, The Guardian, The Washington Post and many more.
In addition to his work as a journalist, Barkan is also an essayist and a novelist, publishing his latest novel, “Colossus” just last month.
In that time, he has established himself as a leader in New York journalism, in particular among left-leaning publications.
However, over this past weekend, that reputation took a significant hit, at least from many of his peers. Allegations have begun to surface that Barkan plagiarized passages from at least three separate articles.
Barkan, however, strongly denies these allegations and says that, at best, they are a non-issue and an example of journalists attempting to make a mountain out of a molehill.
So who’s right? The answer is surprisingly complicated.
The Story So Far
The story began on Thursday, May 14, as fellow reporter Drew Harwell posted on X (formerly Twitter) that Barkan, in an article for New York Magazine, had plagiarized a lede from a story he wrote for the Washington Post.
He quickly followed up, saying that an editor at New York Magazine reached out to him, saying that they reworked the passage and added a note crediting The Washington Post’s reporting.
However, the story did not end there. NPR reporter Bobby Allyn decided to do a “spot check” of Barkan’s work and found two more instances that he described as plagiarism.
According to Allyn’s report, others agreed with his assessment. Matthew Schmidt, the editor of Compact Magazine, one of the publications that Barkan allegedly plagiarized from, called on New York Magazine to address the issue.
New York Magazine, for its part, has said that it is performing its own investigation into Barkan’s work.
Barkan has staunchly denied any wrongdoing. He has taken to X to say Allyn did not give him enough time to respond and that the issue, as of right now, centers on short passages from three articles. He further argues that he attributed the passages via hyperlinks and that the citation was sufficient.
Barkan added that he has published over 150 columns and that he stands by his work.
Unfortunately for Barkan, many of his peers are not accepting that explanation. Duane Hatherly at Media Week, for example, said that the “hyperlink defense falls flat.” Hatherly also cited Edward Wasserman, a journalism professor at the University of California, Berkeley, who said that, “This kind of laziness is a real embarrassment to the publication.”
So this begs a simple question: who is right? The answer might be “no one.”
The Complexities of Plagiarism
Right off the bat, I have to completely debunk Barkan’s hyperlinking defense.
To be clear, hyperlinks are an important part of citation on the internet. As we discussed before, when you use verbiage from another source, you have an obligation to cite both the words and the information/idea behind them. A hyperlink is perhaps the best way to cite the information, but it does not indicate that material was reused verbatim.
To indicate that, you need to cite the text. You can do this in a variety of ways, including using quotation marks, block quotes, callouts, etc. If you are going to use someone else’s words, you need to indicate what is yours and what is not.
To be clear, Barkan did use the words of other reporters and did not fully cite them. Whether he intended to or not is something that only he can know.
That said, I do think that Barkan has one valid point. At this time we’re only talking about three columns and short passages from them. Simply put, mistakes happen and if this is the depth of Barkan’s plagiarism, then I will agree that it is a tempest in a teapot.
However, we won’t know if that’s the case until New York Magazine completes its investigation. In fact, we may not even know after that. I would hope that New York Magazine would be transparent about its investigation and release its findings to the public, but there is no guarantee that will happen.
Ultimately, what disturbs me more than the alleged plagiarism is Barkan’s response to it. Rather than admitting a mistake and moving on, he’s doubling down, saying that he gave all the attribution he needed and that he is being unfairly targeted.
Accidents happen, people make mistakes. Sometimes they don’t paraphrase as well as they should or forget to put quotation marks in. Errors are inevitable. However, Barkan’s response hints at a much larger issue and a deeper misunderstanding of what constitutes plagiarism in journalism.
That makes me very worried about what New York Magazine’s investigation will find. If he views this as acceptable behavior, then it’s more likely that he has been doing it for some time. That is a much larger issue than three flawed articles.
Bottom Line
One thing that isn’t getting enough attention is New York Magazine’s role in this story. While they did the right things by launching an investigation and correcting the known issue, they also need to reflect on how this happened.
It is much easier to check for plagiarism before publication than it is after the fact. By waiting until there is a potential issue, they have wasted time and resources that could have been used elsewhere.
My hope is that New York Magazine will be transparent about its investigation and findings. This helps the public rebuild trust in the publication; it also helps Barkan clear his name if there is no habitual wrongdoing. However, it’s far too often that institutions who champion transparency elsewhere fail to live up to their own standards.
In the end, while Barkan’s response is worrisome to me, I’m going to hold off on making a final judgment until I see what New York Magazine finds.
Right now, we have some mistakes and issues that, while serious, can eventually be overlooked. Other journalists have come back from far worse situations.
Either way, I hope that Barkan, as well as other journalists, learn from this story. Hyperlinks are a great way to cite information, but they do not indicate that the text is not original. If you are using material from another source, you need to indicate both.
While this doesn’t feel like something that I should be warning established journalists about, it is abundantly clear that at least some are not aware of this. The best time to learn is before the story breaks on social media.
Want to Reuse or Republish this Content?
If you want to feature this article in your site, classroom or elsewhere, just let us know! We usually grant permission within 24 hours.