Oh, why couldn't they have opened the pool, back when Ana Marie was the Wonkette? Few would've been as qualified to see, if Laura was into ass-fucking.
"Throwing avowedly partisan web sites into the mix is, well, interesting."
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.
@Helio: You beat me to it. It's more of an acknowledgment that certain blogs are considered mainstream media. Could right-wing blogs be far behind? That depends on whether any of them decides to get serious, though it would be really, really cool to see somebody from, say, The Drudge Report, ask the President a question at a news conference and get smacked down like the twit he is.
Unlike many talking about this, Marshall has it about right, I think. Let's review: A friend provides Dowd with a well-turned phrase capturing a widely expressed idea and Dowd drops it into her column without attribution to the friend. Should she have written "as a friend said"? Maybe. Why not. Sure. Major case? I think not. Writers draw from their experience and circle of friends all the time.
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.
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.
@j.blo: She attempted to explain away the plagiarism by claiming that a friend had fed her that phrase ("over the phone", I think) and that she liked it and used it without questioning its origins or attributing it to her friend.
OK, I'll say it: I think plagiarism witch-hunting has gone too far for some time, and insistently ignores the actual process by which ideas are gathered for representation in written work.
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?
@skahammer: I agree with you. But Dowd beat the drum over Joe Biden's plagiarism, so it seems fair (at least in this case, from the holiest of the holier-than-thous) to let her have it for at least a week or two.
I still have a hard time believing that she would consciously choose to take that risk. While her story is certainly sketchy, I highly doubt she copied and pasted from the TPM website. More likely: a friend sent her the passage via email, failed to attribute it to it source, and she thought it an adequate statement to build a column around.
@The One: Fair point, I'm in no way defending her actions. I just think on the acceptable professional suicide spectrum this is a pretty minor offense.
@FuzeLine: I have to respectfully disagree with you, because I believe that plagiarism is in a tie (with lying) for the worst sin a writer can commit.
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.
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