Thank you, John Tietjen, for highlighting the importance of original thought and meaningful discussion (Letters, 11/27). The context of my letter (11/7) is that I was organizing a viewing of the film Vaxxed II in our area. The filmmakers provided a press release and media kit to me, and I tweaked it to include relevant information from our region, trimmed it to 250 words and submitted it to Eugene Weekly.
I wasn’t thinking of it as “plagiarism” and neither does the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA). In an article titled “Of Press Releases and Plagiarism,” their CEO stated: “PRSA views the issuance of a news release as giving implicit consent to re-use and publish the news release’s content. Certain exceptions would apply; attribution is recommended, for example, when a direct quote [from a person] is re-used, or facts and figures are cited.”
The article then asks and answers the question, “But is it really necessary to attribute dates and times or other general information contained within a press release, when this information is provided specifically for the purpose of publication? Not really.”
PRSA’s answer deflates your accusation. Nonetheless, I appreciate your commitment to originality and discourse. Those two things are dangerously lacking in the media today with regards to vaccine safety concerns.
While I agree my blurb could be perceived as unoriginal, it “boldly questioned prevailing authority” and “provided a voice for the oppressed and dismissed,” both of which are a stated part of EW’s mission.