My Own Very Personal Thoughts On The Ben Domenech Controversy (Someone Other Than Doris Kerns Gudwin)***UPDATED

***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".

Comments

[Steve O]

You had me laughing out loud!

Perhaps he'll realize that success consists of going from failure to failure without loss of enthusiasm. I'm not even sure what I mean by that.

In today's online world, this sort of this is likely to go away. It's too easy to catch.

[Cheap Bimbo]

Very cleverly written, Johnny. X

[tommy]

most excellent.

[dave]

Great post! Goodwin knows that the charges of using someone's work only count against you if are on the "wrong" side of the agument.

[tee bee]

John, is that you in a blond wig?

[spd rdr]

Knuckleheads. I am surrounded by knuckleheads.

[Jeff H]

This all sounds almost identical to a theme I wrote for school at Christmas time in 3rd grade.

[Jeff H]

Sorry; I checked back. My theme was about a Red Ryder BB gun. No plagiarism here.

[Michael Patton]

Is the spelling of the author's name a typo or are you deliberately attempting to mislead readers as to the author's identity? Either way, please fix it.

[John from WuzzaDem]

You're talking about Baked Potato With Sour Cream And Chives, right? I checked, and the spelling is correct, but thanks for keeping me on my toes.

BTW, I think you misspelled 'Patton' - there should be an 'e' at the end.

[AnonymousDrivel]

You're kidding about the G(u|oo|ü)dwin mouthpiece, right?

Holy cow, John! How could you possibly have the nerve to satirize an historical event? Beth Laski needs to go back to law school if she thinks her threat has legs. Or maybe her partners should consider another firm.

I enjoyed your response to "We request that you remove it immediately", though I might have suggested you append your entry with "When pigs fly!".

Disclaimer: Pigs don't really fly and to suggest that they do (unless catapulted) is a joke. Any threats by pigs that I've offended them will be met with the sound of AD chewing on bacon while "oinking" vociferously.

[Preston Taylor Holmes]

Heh. When lawyers attack. Lookout!

[AnonymousDrivel]

Re: Mrs. R. (Mar 27, 2006 8:44:48 PM)
AD, on first read, I thought you said "maybe her parents should consider another firm."

Even better. And ground here... for a whole week. No TeleTubbies either. That'll learn 'er.

[AnonymousDrivel]

Oops! "And ground her..."

Sheesh. My spellcheck laziness nose know bowndz.

Or the Wuzzadem post parser engine wantonly misplaces "e"s. Pattone above can certainly vouch for that.

[Jon from Waazadam]

Beth Laski -- bite me!

[Klabdak]

Are you sure this was from an actual attorney? You know how libs like to puff up their feathers and make themselves out to be more than they are.

It would not be suprised to find out that:

A) Beth Laski does not exist
B) Someone is impersonating Beth Laski just to scare you since libs have nothing to offer except fear itself.

Either way, John, I think you've been had.

[AnonymousDrivel]

RE: Klabdak

From G(u|oo|ü)dwin's website:

All other inquiries:
Beth Laski & Associates
12930 Ventura Blvd., Suite 513
Studio City, CA 91604
Phone: 818-986-1105
Fax: 818-986-1106
Beth@BethLaski.com

Hypothetically, this entity exists. To what extent the threat was impersonated would require more data. Perhaps the email's headers would be useful to confirm that said email derived from said litigator. Assuming threat is real and assuming partners, er, parents permit the use of complex objects like computer keyboards for associated staff, er, offspring, we may be able to confirm a false charge of defamation.

[John from WuzzaDem]

Klabdak,

I checked the header, IP address, etc., before I did anything. IP is right geography, the e-mail was sent by "beth@doriskearnsgoodwin.com".

I couldn't believe that Ms. Goodwin/Kearns Goodwin/whatever would actually have an attorney contact the proprietor of a goofy satire site so that no one would think that she was plagiarizing the works of others. Apparently, I was wrong.

[AnonymousDrivel]

JfWD,

Well, when you're trying to bury what some (not me, of course, but some) would call "plagiarism", due diligence is an absolute.

Now, due to the wonders of search engines, bots, caching, and archives, and the posturing of litigants, real or imagined, with too much time on their hands, this episode creates a bigger "hit" for the databases recording "Doris Kerns Gudwin". I just hope no one uses "plagiarism" and "Gudwin" together too many times. That (plagiarism) would (Gudwin) be (plagiarism) unfortunate (Gudwin) and Mr. Gudwin might be exposed, rightly or wrongly, for being a plagiarist. I mean, some (not me, of course) might actually do some research on the matter and come to their own conclusion. They may or may not be able to grasp the concept. We (well, not I, of course) live in confusing times.

[Stillers]

You are all some cruel people, not that there is anything wrong with that. The only reason I've heard of Doris Kearns Goodwin is from that smarmy Ken Burns mini-series "Baseball".

[Yojimbo]

Beth Laski is no attorney, she is a Hollywood P.R. flack.

Doris Kearns Goodwin is a public figure. Your piece was obviously parody. You are entirely within your 1st Amendment rights to use her name and image in the way that you did.

Don't back down to this kind of phony heavy-handed B.S.!!!!

[Gordon]

I remember reading that Gary Larson was distraught whem some lawyer "representing" the anthropoligist Jane Goodall sent him a threatening letter.

It was later learned that not only didn't Dr. Goodall not know about the letter, she found the cartoon very funny.

Lawyers, can't live with 'em, can't shoot 'em. Oh well, you've secured the Blogosphere's first "lawyerlanche".

Not bad.

[Amador]

Shouldn't you change Doris Kerns Gudwin to Doris Snerk Gudwin for all future posts ?

[John from WuzzaDem]

Excellent suggestion, Amador, and I think Beth should from this point on be known as Beth Lackey.

[AnonymousDrivel]

RE: Update III
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.

You say that like it's unusual.

Anyhoo, I tried that search expression ["beth laski" and "plagiarism"] and noticed that most of the retrieved web sites were quite similar. It's almost like they had been, oh, what's the word... plagiarized. Well, duplicated anyway save for some new wallpaper and an odd throw pillow or two. I hope the original content creator permitted such reproduction or owns all of the domains.

Who knew one needed so many storefronts to peddle professional papers for profit? Hey, that sounds like another: www.profitablepeddledpapers.com

Off to the registrar I go.

[Klabdak]

"Beth Laski is no attorney, she is a Hollywood P.R. flack."

What did Klabdak say? Liberals are so easy to read.

[John from WuzzaDem]

From now on I listen to Klabdak. Like the commercial says, Klabdak; a name you can trust.

[Kiki B.]

"partners"

Beth and Doris are gay lovers?

[Jeff H]

AD: "Disclaimer: Pigs don't really fly and to suggest that they do (unless catapulted) is a joke. Any threats by pigs that I've offended them will be met with the sound of AD chewing on bacon while "oinking" vociferously."

Au contraire, mon frere. Pigs do, indeed, fly--unless they happen to be on the terrorist watch list.

[tee bee]

John, is that you in a brown wig?