The title links to Phil Nugent, who seems to be back in the blogging arena, talking about Dowd v. Marshall.
A point I didn't pick up on, but that Phil did, is the way Dowd is calling him "Josh", as if they are old pals. Nugent argues, wisely, that this is a subtle dig at all bloggers-they don't deserve the "Mr. Marshall" treatment that the Times gives to, well, everybody.
We've all had multiple windows open, and typed something here that is supposed to be over there. That happens.
But you're not supposed to be cutting and pasting blocks of text into a Times editorial unless you're pretty rock solid sure it's yours. No matter where it's from.
I just read the other day about the Times making editorial decisions not to run certain news stories before the election, because they might have damaged Obama's election chances.
ReplyDeleteThat's their right, of course, but it shows that the NYT is not about news, but opinion.
If you're talking about the Obama/ACORN story, that's not true.
ReplyDeleteThe Times' ombudsman says:
"I have spent several weeks looking into this issue — interviewing and e-mailing those involved, reading transcripts, looking at campaign finance records and conferring with legal experts. In a nutshell, I think the charge is nonsense."
(http://bit.ly/axz2A)
If you read the same piece on Free Republic that I did, those folks should learn to read.
We have programs that we run in the schools now that catch plagiarism with search engines. I am sure that newspapers must use such things too. It seems like it would be a good idea for journalist to do so as well before going to print, as a "just in case tool" to avoid trouble. She's lucky she isn't still in college... she would have been expelled. That was thieft.
ReplyDelete