Hey NYT, instead of a correction and an apology
Instead of a correction and apology, how about the NYT do a little of that public service that everyone says is so important to our democracy and spend some resources investigating the underlying claim. Personally, I'm a lot less offended that Maureen Dowd failed to rearrange the dependent clause with the independent clause, or find some other slightly new way to express the same basic point that Josh made, than in the fact that politicians may have ordered human beings to be tortured in order to score political points.
What we need is not less plagerism of Josh's original point. What we need is more. In fact, I'd love to see every journalist in the country plagerize Josh, especially in any interview of any Bush adminsitration official, from now until the day we definitively find out whether people were tortured to retroactively justify the Iraq war. Do your jobs people.
Right on Satya! Excellent point and post! Rec'd!
May 18, 2009 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
hahahahaha. I think like this sometimes. Of course, then I know its time to take a pill and go to bed.
May 18, 2009 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks y'all. Kind of satisfying to see your avatar up on the front page with the new format, isn't it?
There's a lot of noise out there distracting people from the fairly simple and straightforward issues at stake over torture. Establishing whether torture was, in fact, used in order to protect the country versus protect the political careers of Bush politicians is really an essential piece of this history. It's vital to get it right. Compared to that, MoDo can write whatever she wants.
May 18, 2009 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is it really plagerism when people start to think the same thoughts? Perhaps Dowd may have lifted the phrase in question, then again perhaps not. Just as long as the intent is the same and more people become enlightened does it really matter who said what first? I think the message is far more important. I get the feeling this brouhaha is dampening the avalanche it could trigger if left to its own devices. It needs to get moving to build up more momentum to make it unstoppable until it runs its course.
May 18, 2009 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
You be the judge:
May 18, 2009 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, that's not what plagiarism is. Plagiarism is when a passage is copied verbatim, or nearly verbatim, in a manner which makes it obvious what the source of the thought was.
And that's what happened here.
Dowd has won no friends by passing the blame on to an anonymous friend.
May 19, 2009 1:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well Done!
Please plagiarize more of us on this issue!
May 18, 2009 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
the traditional media respects blog thinking - they just don't respect blogs as a medium. IRONIC.
May 18, 2009 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cuz then it would be proven that they don't need to be receiving the big bucks! And that the public can find ways to come up with their own analyses of the news. Without depending on info-tainment.
May 18, 2009 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Thera, "without depending on infotainment." I'd add without the chilling effect of powerful people who'll deny access if you don't run their line. And without the gatekeepers; the editors who decide what gets written and spoken in the established media. And, not least, the circumscriptions and unspoken limitations on what subject matter and perspectives are appropriate.
Dowd is a powerful opinion columnist and has more freedom than most journalists. For every positive mention of a blog or website by a traditional reporter there are a thousand negative ones. They can only dream of the freedom to broadcast the truth as far as it can be ascertained. They can only dream of following a trail without thinking twice about whether or not they should go there.
But, right now, there are hundreds of journalists who despise Mo Dowd. Why? Because, for the near future anyway, they cannot crib ideas from the web (I imagine it happens quite often). Damn, they will actually have to go out and gather information, analyze it, double check the sources, think about what it means, gather more info based on that, do all of this a few times and then write three or four drafts (thank God for proofreaders and researchers) and complete a "cogent and substantive column."
PS I plagiarized that last part (from a "friend").
May 18, 2009 8:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great positive spin, and a great point that many neglected to realize; any attention for good ideas is a bonus, any publicity even better. NYT is wrong, but overlooking the sin of plagiarism is but a small price to pay for inspiring the change in precise words necessary in this world.
I hope they steal mine next! I hope I never get the credit.
May 18, 2009 11:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope that Mr. Marshall is not that upset but I agree with the comment!
I think having craigslist in the news with this lawsuit in Illinois and TPM will have a positive effect for internet media in general. The more publicity for TPM the better!
May 19, 2009 5:34 AM | Reply | Permalink