In response to a Daily Beast article by David Frum, the Washington Post has retracted its story alleging that Fareed Zakaria lifted a quote without attribution from a book by foreign policy expert Clyde Prestowitz.

The paper runs this correction:

This article incorrectly states that in his 2008 book, “The Post-American World,” Fareed Zakaria failed to cite the source of a quotation taken from another book. In fact, Zakaria did credit the other work, by Clyde V. Prestowitz. Endnotes crediting Prestowitz were contained in hardcover and paperback editions of Zakaria’s book. The Post should have examined copies of the books and should not have published the article. We regret the error and apologize to Fareed Zakaria.

So that should be the end of this part of the Zakaria-plagiarism story, right? After all, the Post—and Prestowitz—-got it wrong.

But there was one thing that didn’t make sense to me: The fact that when the Post asked Zakaria about the alleged lack of attrbution, Zakaria didn’t say, “No, that’s wrong, here’s the endnote.” He said, what’s the big deal, it’s standard practice to use quotes without sourcing them, everyone does it, I’ve done it “hundreds” of times, and people constantly do it to me.

This last part of Zakaria’s explanation was deeply disingenuous, as the specifics he provided suggested that while people had used quotes from Zakaria’s TV show without attributing them to him personally, they had attributed the quotes to CNN. That’s not as specific as an attribution probably should be, but it is a clear indicator that this was not their work, and shows good faith.

But to the larger point: Why would Zakaria say that he engaged in this practice if he actually had sourced the quote to Prestowitz? My guess is that he probably assumed that he had just lifted the quote and didn’t even bother to check his own book. The Post, however, embarrassed by its mistake, shed no light on that question.

So last night I emailed Clyde Prestowitz and asked if he could clarify the situation, raising the same point that I made above.

Here is his response:

Dear Mr . Bradley,

Yes, I am afraid I have been somewhat mistaken. I have attached a statement that I released earlier today. The problem was that the end note format used by Norton for Fareed’s book is extremely sketchy and confusing. There is no end note for the quote from my book. There is an end note for a quote from a Tom Friedman book that directly follows the quote from my book. If you read that end note, it references Tom’s book and then at the very end makes a reference to my book for the quote from the preceding paragraph. Very confusing and not at all obvious. So I missed it. But a reference is there. So it is not strictly true that there was no attribution.

However, you are entirely correct that Fareed’s rationale is all wrong. If you saw his comments to Paul Farhi at the Washington Post, you know he said that there are “hundreds of comments and quotes in there (the book) that are not attributed.” Well, in my view, that tells you all you need to know about Fareed’s philosophy. I’m afraid that it’s not only Fareed, however. The whole media/publishing industry seems to think that accuracy and clear attribution are quaint relics of the past.

Best wishes, Clyde Prestowitz

And here is the statement he attached:

STATEMENT BY CLYDE PRESTOWITZ RE FAREED ZAKARIA
When Fareed Zakaria’s Post American World first appeared in 2008, I found that it contained a quotation from my 2005 book, Three Billion New Capitalists. There was no end note number next to the quote. Thinking it may have been an oversight, I sent a note to Mr. Zakaria suggesting the addition of an end note. I received no response.

Recently I suggested that Mr. Zakaria may have neglected properly to attribute the quote. However, since carefully reviewing several editions of his book, I have discovered that in an odd juxtaposition, reference to my book is made at the conclusion of an end note to one of Tom Friedman’s books. I had overlooked this reference earlier because the note was attached to Tom’s book title.

While I believe that the current standards and format for attribution have become confusingly sketchy and misleading, the error was mine and I offer sincere apologies for the confusion, misunderstanding, and hurt that my suggestions and inaccurate reading caused.

So…I don’t know if that does clarify much. I don’t agree with Prestowitz that journalistic standards regarding accuracy and attribution are “quaint relics”—all the attention given to Zakaria’s “work” would suggest otherwise—but maybe I am naive. And clearly Prestowitz was wrong to fault Zakaria, whose attribution may have been sloppy or unorthodox, but it was certainly there.

Yet the point remains that Zakaria acknowledged that he has used quotes without attribution hundreds of times. And that, despite his assertion to the contrary, is far from standard practice.

So what are we to make of all this? Look—Zakaria’s career shouldn’t be destroyed over what we know so far; agree or disagree with him, he’s a serious guy who has done a pretty good job of popularizing discussion of foreign affairs. (Quick: Name another foreign affairs-oriented show on television. Other than Homeland. …. Yeah, me neither.)

But this brouhaha does show that standards do matter, and that people who outsource their written work to pursue more lucrative branding opportunities will eventually pay a price for this unethical shortcut. Whether the price is higher than what Zakaria has earned giving $75, 000 speeches and the like is a question only he can answer.