NYT's Dowd Admits Plagiarizing Blog

Columnist Took Paragraph Virtually Word-For-Word From Josh Marshall's blog Talking Points Memo

(AP)  New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd has admitted to using a paragraph virtually word-for-word from a prominent liberal blogger without attribution.

Dowd acknowledged the error in an e-mail to the Huffington Post on Sunday, the Web site reported. The Times corrected her column online to give proper credit for the material to Talking Points Memo editor Josh Marshall.

The newspaper is expected to issue a formal correction Monday. A request for comment made by The Associated Press was not immediately returned by the Times late Sunday.

The error appeared in Dowd's Sunday column, in which she criticized the Bush administration's use of interrogation methods in the run-up to the Iraq war.

In the original column, Dowd wrote: "More and more the timeline is raising the question of why, if the torture was to prevent terrorist attacks, it seemed to happen mainly during the period when the Bush crowd was looking for what was essentially political information to justify the invasion of Iraq."

Marshall last week wrote virtually the same sentence. But where Dowd's column used the phrase "the Bush crowd was," Marshall used "we were."

Dowd, who won a Pulitzer Prize for commentary in 1990, told the Huffington Post that the mistake was unintentional. She claims she never read Marshall's post last week and had heard the line from a friend who did not mention reading it in Marshall's blog.

In the updated version on the Times' site, Dowd's column had this note: "An earlier version of this column failed to attribute a paragraph about the timeline for prisoner abuse to Josh Marshall's blog at Talking Points Memo."

[globalcoolin]

Without trashing Bush it becomes almost impossible to sell Obama in a convincing way. We are supposed to pardon the theft becuase it is a really REALLY good (bad!) pice of agitation propaganda stolen, then used for A Good Cause.
Journalism of the left is about mantra, copy cat, regurgitation, repetition....
The pool is so tiny and shallow lefties are going to be bumping into each other constantly.

[caligula1--2008]

< "brianbwb-2009 - what distinguishes a neo-capitalist from a straight forward capitalist?" Posted by jimmyc1955

The straight capitalist is only concerned with financial advocacy, while the neo seeks also to insert twisted social issues, which it wishes to impose upon others.>

So in your view is a wood pulp company who wants to open public land for controlled harvest a normal capitalist or a neo-capitalist bent on harming the "green" movement? The outcome is, afterall, the same, regardless of intention. Yet he HAS to have a label, no?

Most corporate efforts in the area of social advocacy can be traced, at one point or another, to corporate matters even if they are just related to public relations. Sometimes you have an activist entrepreneur/CEO that uses his own money for purely philanthropic reasons, but those are the exception not the rule, particularly with publicly traded companies.

The wood pulp and federal agencies don't want hemp legalized for all sorts of reasons, and none of them have anything in particular to do with the dangers of Marijuana, so what do you call a government that maintains the facade of the war on drugs for social reasons when in fact they're acting on the behalf of corporate and other interests. Neo-Democracy? By STRICT definition this level of entanglement is fascism, less the element of an ongoing regime, unless you can consider our "two party and no one else" system to be a single regime.

[alanrobisch]

It was plagiarism plain and simple and is often the basis for a person to be fired. I am sure she will not be though it would do my soul good. She is the most snobbish arrogant writer I have ever seen

[puzzler125]

With the vast amount of information we take in daily from newspapers, magazines, television, film, and of course the internet, it would hard to be original 100% of the time. The best course of action is to admit a mistake and give credit to an original source as soon as a mistake is realized.

[brianbwb-2009]

"... So again I am puzzled. Are you a laissez-faire capitalist or a democratic socialist? Which model do you prefer? ..." Posted by jimmyc1955

The problem with Americans is that these are the only two choices that they understand. they cannot conceive of a mix of the two poles, in which there is a floor, below which no one should be allowed to fall, but no ceiling as to how high you are clever enough to rise.

There are several examples of the success of this approach, visit Singapore, for example, and you will see a well ordered, tidy (so tidy in fact that it could use some character, but that is a very minor issue) society, where very rich people live along side a relatively stable middle class, and the non rich classes are at least not homeless vagrants discarded by their society, left to fend for their own.

[brianbwb-2009]

"brianbwb-2009 - what distinguishes a neo-capitalist from a straight forward capitalist?" Posted by jimmyc1955

The straight capitalist is only concerned with financial advocacy, while the neo seeks also to insert twisted social issues, which it wishes to impose upon others.

"I assume your not a marxist - or you wouldn't run your own company to be profitable you would run it to ensure the rewards are shared fairly with all - even those who have done little to nothing." Posted by jimmyc1955

I profit share, and there is no one in my company that does little to nothing, each of my employees' roles is vital, if one fails, we all fail. I place no subjective valuation on the contributions of my employees, no one is worth more than the others. I myself frequently get less than my people, and they see it, this is why they are loyal to me, and attempts by so-called rivals to buy them off have been to date unsuccessful.

Call it marxism if you will, it works for me and my company we have done alright, as evidenced by the fact that we have entered the EU market successfully, and are preparing to go into the US market.

Investors? We don' got no investors. we don't need no steenkin' investors.

[jimmyc1955]

brianbwb-2009 - I need to be useful today. I have enjoyed the discussion, though I will remain puzzled by your posiiton.

But it is clear in my mind that Maureen Dowd plagerised those words - and that for every other writer found guilty of that by the NYT (an by Dowd herself who justifibly accused Joe Biden of the exact same crime) a punishment of loosing their job was exacted upon them. It remains to be seen if Ms. Dowd is above the ethics of journalism - which is what I suspect will happen. A few days dust up - actually less since no news media is choosing to run this story - and everything back to normal.

[brianbwb-2009]

brianbwb-2009 - What your arguing is that intellectual property is only of value if the person can defend it and profit from it before others do the same. I think that is usually refered to as anarchy..." Posted by jimmyc1955

Nope, it is called capitalism, it is what it has become, ever since any competing ideas have been so demonized that mere mention of them causes fits of apoplexy among the neos.

You might remember your US history lesson, land claims by those who "settled" the west were only valid for those who could defend them.

As for genetic research, genes are a fundamental building block of living beings, and as such shouldn't be "owned" by anyone, and if that discourages investment, ok by me, we've survived for ages before the concept was dreamed up. Even now the situation is starting to appear that you may have, in the future, to copyright your own genes, before someone else does it, then "owns" your family lineage.

Think that far fetched? Ask the farmers whose corn crops were wind-pollinated by Monsanto's GM corn, who were then sued by Monsanto for copyright violation, they lost enough money to tell you that it is not.

[jimmyc1955]

brianbwb-2009 - what distinguishes a neo-capitalist from a straight forward capitalist?

I assume your not a marxist - or you wouldn't run your own company to be profitable you would run it to ensure the rewards are shared fairly with all - even those who have done little to nothing.

[jimmyc1955]

brianbwb-2009-This point of computers is not one of denial but time.

Yes - those who could afford computers in the early days got one - those who couldn't didn't. Over time that product when from exclusive to commodity and is available in any corner of the world. The only difference is time. You seem to be saying that protection of IP is infinite - but you know it's not. In most countries it's seven years or less.

And the Asian market, one you seem to feel to be the "reality" of markets is far more basic capitalistic than any wester european or US market which are regulated.

So again I am puzzled. Are you a laissez-faire capitalist or a democratic socialist? Which model do you prefer? I

[brianbwb-2009]

"... But you seem to feel that is a neo-capitalist position (though I have no idea whatever what is neo-capitalist is) and therefore repugnant. I am not sure what exactly your defending." Posted by jimmyc1955

Ahh, you're getting there, grasshopper. There is hope for you yet.

I do feel that the neo capitalist view on economics is repugnant, but since I am in no position to influence it's prevalence, I am forced to accept it, and work within it.

My position on it is if I have to be held to the limitations imposed by their ideals, then I expect them to be held to the same standard.

Maybe after finding out that others play their repugnant game even more ruthlessly than they do, they won't be so adverse to the idea of mitigating the negative effects of their advocacy.

[brianbwb-2009]

"brianbwb-2009 - Somebody pays you for your work? You receive income from some source. If you provide the service and don't get the agreed to compensation what do you do? Do you shrug your shoulders and walk away? I wager you have an attorney on retainer for just such an incident. I would also wager that people pay you, indirectly, for what you know..."Posted by jimmyc1955

You obviously don't know Asia, it ain't like the US, you can be 1,000% right on paper, and still lose the case, especially if your adversary is highly placed, as most are. (On second thought, maybe it is like the US, just without the rose-colored glasses.) For this reason, no, I don't have an attorney on retainer, and most cases yes, I do simply shrug it off.

My product is such that if potential clients go elsewhere, they will pay much more, because I incorporate many disciplines into my service, to go elsewhere would entail hiring at least 10 people to do what I do. In other words, I have made a service that few can perform at my cost, so I get a good market, and i insist on the "C.I.A." method, "Cash In Advance".

As a composer and producer, multi-intrumentalist, computer programmer and certified technician, yes, I am paid for what I know, but what I know is how to help my clients achieve their results cheaper than if they go anywhere else.

"But somehow you don't feel it fair to extend that protection to those who create. The unions fought long and hard for the "a fair wage for a days work". And they won, and we are all better off for it. Now you seem to feel that intellectual property is infact worthless and of no value." Posted by jimmyc1955

As for Unions, I agree with you 100%, but as for "intellectual property," there is no value that can be automatically attached to speculative guesses on worth, yet million of dollars are wasted, and lives are ruined because of people claiming rights that should not have been codified until their is a fair way to assess value.

I do create, and I take advantage of the market realities to receive compensation, rather than vainly and foolishly attempt to force the market to my advantage.

Take for example computers, we all have become used to, and even dependent upon the tremendous assistance they provide to society, but who are you to tell another country that it cannot use such technology simply because they cannot afford the US market valuations placed on hardware and software? You would have them remain behind and forgo the benefits?

Good luck with that one.

[jimmyc1955]

brianbwb-2009 - The more I think about your postion I can't distinguish between your concept of "being savvy enough to make money" from their own idea and somebody else making money from that idea/creation first I realise that your tacitly approving theft.

Intellectualy property is a legally recognized principle, and protected by copyright laws all over the globe. Your posiiton is one of a the most fundimental lassie fare capitalism. He who gets there first - regardless of how they get there - wins.

But you seem to feel that is a neo-capitalist position (though I have no idea whatever what is neo-capitalist is) and therefore repugnant. I am not sure what exactly your defending.

[jimmyc1955]

brianbwb-2009 - What your arguing is that intellectual property is only of value if the person can defend it and profit from it before others do the same.

I think that is usually refered to as anarchy.

Your point about invention is fine if we are inventing a new gadget for the kitchen. It won't fly for genetic research or newer, high efficiency batteries where vast sums need to be spent in research to achieve a breakthrough. Who exactly will invest millions or hundered of millions in that type or research without promise of reward?

[brianbwb-2009]

"So what is a crime? When is wrong wrong? To allow theft to occur simply because its difficult to stop is to tacitly approve the crime and making it legal." Posted by jimmyc1955

Again, you attempt to redefine the word "theft". In the case of intellectual property, the idea is still available for the person to use, that person simply must be savvy enough to figure out how to make money from it.

It became a crime only recently, don't you remember cassette tapes? No one thought it a crime to record material until recording companies bribed the legislature into making it so.

Also you may have noticed, the existence of "piracy" hasn't stopped me, or anyone else with an idea from expressing it, your statement that "please realize that you will be supporting the end of invention and creation..." is a false assumption, "extrapolation ad absurdium" I like to call it, akin to the neos assertion that, for example, simply talking to Iran will turn the US into a Islamic theocracy.

"... People create to be rewarded and appreciated." is only tangentially true, most inventions in history were made by people looking for easier ways to accomplish their own tasks. Invention and creation will never end, as long as their is a way to make life easier, or more pleasant, someone will find it, others will copy it, and the world will go on.

[jimmyc1955]

brianbwb-2009 - Somebody pays you for your work? You receive income from some source. If you provide the service and don't get the agreed to compensation what do you do? Do you shrug your shoulders and walk away? I wager you have an attorney on retainer for just such an incident. I would also wager that people pay you, indirectly, for what you know.

But somehow you don't feel it fair to extend that protection to those who create. The unions fought long and hard for the "a fair wage for a days work". And they won, and we are all better off for it.

Now you seem to feel that intellectual property is infact worthless and of no value.

[jimmyc1955]

brianbwb-2009 - Read them side by side - they are identical - exactly the same.

They NYT has ADMITTED it was plagarism when they issued a correction.

The writer of the orininal piece is outraged that Dowd stole his work.

This isn't a common idea being voiced by two different writers - it is the copying of one writers work by another without being given credit,

Please - read them. It is over 40 words - exactly the same.

[brianbwb-2009]

"I assume you receive a paycheck from somebody. I assume you feel entitlted to that check. Isn't that what labor unions were created for - the "rights" of working people?..." Posted by jimmyc1955

An incorrect assumption, I own my own company, if we don't make money, I don't get any. I find that eminently fair, and would hold all companies to the exact same standard.

"Are you saying that labor unions are illegal? Or that unions a a neo-capitalist plot? Sorry - you can't have it both ways." Posted by jimmyc1955

I am in fact saying just the opposite, that unions are not only a good thing, but if the neos want to kill them off, then they have no right to complain about unfair practices they perceive against themselves, but then condone the same against others.

It is the neos who try to have it both ways, I simply say that even when I disagree with them, as I usually do, if I am forced to accept their view, then I also hold them to the exact same standards from which they seek to excuse themselves.

[brianbwb-2009]

"I assume you receive a paycheck from somebody. I assume you feel entitlted to that check. Isn't that what labor unions were created for - the "rights" of working people?..." Posted by jimmyc1955

An incorrect assumption, I own my own company, if we don't make money, I don't get any. I find that eminently fair, and would hold all companies to the exact same standard.

"Are you saying that labor unions are illegal? Or that unions a a neo-capitalist plot? Sorry - you can't have it both ways." Posted by jimmyc1955

I am in fact saying just the opposite, that unions are not only a good thing, but if the neos want to kill them off, then they have no right to complain about unfair practices they perceive against themselves, but then condone the same against others.

It is the neos who try to have it both ways, I simply say that even when I disagree with them, as I usually do, if I am forced to accept their view, then I also hold them to the exact same standards from which they seek to excuse themselves.

[jimmyc1955]

fred-mann - You raise a valid question but it appears that print writers have been plagerising from bloggers for some time. Dowd should have checked, her editors shoudl have checked.

But it was published, uncited, and that makes it plagarism. A student can be thrown out of college for this mistake. Every other writer at the New York times who was caught doing this was fired.

Dowd is very, very high profile. Is she above the rules of journalism? If not - she should be punished. If she is then we no longer will have journalism and we can close the NYT since the principles on which journalism are built have been abandoned.