***THIS POST WAS BUMPED TO THE TOP AFTER I WAS CONTACTED BY DORIS KEARNS GOODWIN'S ATTORNEY PR FLACK (NO, I'M NOT KIDDING). SEE UPDATES BELOW. I'M NOTHING IF NOT FAIR.***
Guest Post NOT By Doris Kerns Gudwin, or anyone who spells their name in a similar fashion
My reaction to the charges that now-former WaPo "Red America" blogger Ben Domenech has "poached" the work of other writers without proper credit or attribution is mixed.
It's one thing to paraphrase basic facts from a wire story. But to lift the original thoughts and distinctly crafted phrases of a writer without crediting him/her--and doing so repeatedly--is unacceptable in journalism.
As Michelle Malkin said today:
It is one thing to paraphrase basic facts from a wire story. But to filch the original thoughts and distinctly crafted phrases of a writer without crediting him/her--and doing so repeatedly--is unacceptable in our business.
Well written, Michelle. I understand the impulse on the Right to support Domenech. But you can't ignore the plain evidence. And I don't believe the charges can be dismissed as "lies" or jealousy attributed to Ben's age.
Malkin, again:
I certainly understand the impulse on the Right to rally around Domenech. But I can't ignore the plain evidence. And the charges can't be dismissed as "lies" or jealousy attributed to Ben's age.
Couldn't have said it better myself. Domenech offers rebuttals to the charges at RedState, but some seem unconvincing. He says his editor kept inserting material from other reviews into his movie reviews. Why would he do that?
Ace notes:
He [Domenech] offers rebuttals to the charges at RedState, but some seem unconvincing. His editor kept inserting material from other reviews into his movie reviews? Why would he do that?
UPDATE: Updated to reflect the fact that this post was NOT written by Doris Kerns Gudwin, or Doris Kearns Goodwin, whose attorney PR flack/Gopher sent me the following e-mail this morning (once again, I'm not kidding):
John,
I represent Doris Kearns Goodwin and we are shocked and dismayed to find the following (see below) [pasted in copy of my post, prior to the first update] false, damaging and defamatory entry on your site. We request that you remove it immediately.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Beth Laski
Beth Laski & Associates
I can understand why Ms. Kearns Goodwin might be upset, since anyone reading this post prior to my correction might have gotten the impression that she had, in writing the post, tried to pass off the work of other authors as her own. After all, that would be plagiarism, wouldn't it?
UPDATE II: Here's a little background on Doris Kearns Goodwin, for the benefit of anyone who doesn't watch MSNBC:
Bo Crader, Weekly Standard:
Two weeks ago in this magazine, Fred Barnes reported on the striking similarities between Stephen E. Ambrose's "The Wild Blue" and Thomas Childers's "Wings of Morning." Subsequently, The Weekly Standard received a letter pointing out that Goodwin's "The Fitzgeralds and the Kennedys" borrowed with insufficient attribution from three earlier works by other authors.
An examination of the works in question confirmed the correspondent's allegation
.
The Harvard Crimson:
Goodwin’s plagiarism of sentences, nearly verbatim, from source materials is inexcusable. As an Overseer, Goodwin is a leader of an academic community, the foundation of which is integrity in independent scholarship. As a leader, she should recognize that her action is unbecoming an Overseer and resign her post immediately, sending the clear message to the campus that she understands the gravity of the offense she has committed.
Timothy Noah, Slate:
Lest anyone conclude that Harvard's definition of plagiarism was more rigorous than anyone else's, I pointed out that Goodwin's actions constituted plagiarism under the definitions endorsed by the Modern Language Association, the American Historical Association, and every other university surveyed during the controversy by Rick Shenkman of the History News Network.
And here's a piece by Noah for History News Network:
In my earlier columns, I portrayed Ms. Goodwin as somewhat craven for correcting her faulty text only when bad publicity required it. What I should have written was that Ms. Goodwin was really, really craven for saying she was going to correct her faulty text and then, once the braying media pack scampered away, not doing it!
Search engines are great, aren't they?
UPDATE III: Reader Yojimbo did a little research of his own and discovered that Beth Laski (AKA Beth Lackey) isn't an attorney, she's a PR hack flack for Doris Kearns Goodwench. Here's her web page:
BethLaski.com
Quality stuff, man. All that's missing is one of these:
In all fairness, it's entirely possible Beth Lackey wanted to use a really slick "Under construction" graphic, but wasn't sure who created it, and I'm sure she would never want to sully her good name by getting involved in any way with something as slimy as stealing others' work.
Hey, speaking of plagiarism...What? We weren't speaking of plagiarism? Oh.
Hey, is that some plagiarism over there?
So, anyway, speaking of plagiarism, it appears Beth Lackey is/was also a writer. No, really. And an article she wrote for Cinescape back in 1995 is referenced extensively on the web.
Where is it referenced, you ask? On scores of web sites for companies that offer to write term papers, essays, book reports, dissertations, etc., for a fee.
I should make it clear that many of these sites specify that their essays are "For personal use only". You know, in case you want to get your mom a term paper for her birthday but can't find time to write it yourself.
Oh, and one of the features touted by these sites is no plagiarism. No, I'm not kidding! Look:
I misplaced the links to these sites. If you want to find them, just go to your favorite search engine and look up "beth laski" and "plagiarism".
