Gawker 
Enter your username and password.
New York, 10:58 PM
Sun Dec 6
13 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip Your Editors:
Tipline: 646-214-8138
Editor-in-Chief:
Gabriel Snyder |
West Coast Editor:
Richard Rushfield |
Contributing Editors:
Valleywag:
Ryan Tate |
Media:
Hamilton Nolan |
Politics:
Alex Pareene |
Investigations:
John Cook |
Entertainment:
Brian Moylan |
Nights:
Adrian Chen |
Azaria Jagger |
Ravi Somaiya |
Weekends:
Foster Kamer |
Video Editor:
Richard Blakeley |
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
11/30/09
11/30/09
I hope it does turn out interesting, but it's not like there weren't any partisan print media outlets in the mix before. Sure, the WSJ, FOX, and the Examiner may not claim to be "avowedly" anti-Obama or pro-Republican, but we all know that's BS. I think it's nice to have some actual liberal media outlets infitrate the Villager sewing circle.
11/30/09
05/20/09
And as to the cry-baby Times, Hamno's point re hypocrisy seems overdone: Old media's main complaint seems to be that the Internet literally appropriates its actual original product through aggregation and makes money on the service. This has nothing to do with papers that see a good story idea and do their own version, with original reporting, writing and packaging.
Oh, and good morning to all.
05/20/09
Excuse me, but HUH?
But for about 2 words, it's the same exact (long) sentence. She didn't get it from "a friend" through a conversation. That's impossible. Either "a friend" sent her the text or there is no "friend" and she read it herself.
I really don't get your point. It wasn't even a paraphrase. It was the same exact sentence. Not a "widely expressed idea," a specific way of communicating a specific idea.
Bush is an idiot: that's a widely expressed idea. But I banged out 150 words on exactly why I think he's an idiot and saw 148 of those words in Thomas Friedman's column the next day without attribution, I wouldn't be thrilled. That's called plagiarism.
05/20/09
...yeah.
05/20/09
modo, who scoffed at bloggers
modo, who complained about obama not being awesome enough then turned around and wrote that he was the awesomest
modo, past, over
05/20/09
Yes, but unfortunately, the corpse will keep walking, to say nothing of writing and publishing for some time, zombie pundit in a zombie medium.
05/20/09
05/20/09
05/20/09
But before now I didn't know Josh Marshall existed. Maureen Dowd, long-time maven of the NYT, she did this thing....
I would give part of my of liver to have her think what I had to say was worthy to steal.
I know. She should have given credit.
But in the long run, it was maybe a good thing for him? I will look for him now. Maureen Dowd thinks he's that.
Kudos to Gawker for pointing out who's who and and who's doing the work.
I know. Dumb. But still, its the highest compliment he could have been given. He was gracious.
Unfortunately she gets the $$$ for the work today. If he was enough to borrow from, then his day is just about right now.
05/18/09
05/18/09
05/18/09
05/18/09
My view on it is the opposite of zero tolerance, I guess: Apparent acts of plagiarism which are isolated and plausibly unintentional aren't worth more than momentary attention. A correction, an admonition to be more careful next time -- that satisfies me.
Because if you insist on taking a zero-tolerance policy, well, pretty much everything that isn't your experience can be footnoted to somewhere in the mediasphere. Yet I don't think newspaper columns that look like law-review articles would be of much use to anyone.
I submit that tolerance of a certain level of isolated, unintended, theoretical plagiarism is a lot more efficient and fair than turning every bit of simultaneous expression into a potentially culpable act. And frankly, I don't instinctively trust the folks who wind up as standard-setters on this issue.
If I were JMM (and I were smart), I'd be happy with an acknowledgment, a correction, and maybe a minor kerfuffle that lasts a day or two -- rather than letting the supposed guardians of journalistic ethics enter the story and dominate it with their long-winded treatises on things that didn't actually happen in this case.
I distinguish intentional plagiarism and apparently "unintentional" acts that nevertheless show a pattern. But am I the only one who thinks that fusses over who-copied-from-whom divert energy and attention from improving actual journalism?
05/18/09
05/18/09
Her explanation makes perfect sense to me if by "talking" she meant "IMing while on my third dirty cosmotini".
05/18/09
05/18/09
05/18/09
05/18/09
05/18/09
05/18/09
Her writing, however...
05/18/09
I've always been scrupulous about crediting people with original words and ideas when I wind up using them. For me, it's a matter of maintaining my credibility.
05/18/09
05/18/09