Tweet
After reading the farsical "explanation" from Dowd, the first logical conclusion is that Maureen Dowd plagiarized. But more telling, I think, is her refusal to take responsibility for copying a paragraph from Josh Marshall and then calling it her own. Instead, she conjures up a completely lame falsehood to cover the plagiarism. It strikes me that Dowd’s behavior after committing plagiarism provides the real lesson: too many of those charged with keeping our politicians honest, open and transparent have none of these qualities in their own work. And when caught, whether it be for being complete tools of unnamed government officials, plagiarism, or any number of other unethical behaviors, they do the exact same things our government officials do–they lie, cover-up, and otherwise evade responsibility in any way possible.
Plagiarism, as defined in the 1995 Random House Compact Unabridged Dictionary, is the "use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one’s own original work."[1] Within academia, plagiarism by students, professors, or researchers is considered academic dishonesty or academic fraud and offenders are subject to academic censure, up to and including expulsion. In journalism, plagiarism is considered a breach of journalistic ethics, and reporters caught plagiarizing typically face disciplinary measures ranging from suspension to termination. Some individuals caught plagiarizing in academic or journalistic contexts claim that they plagiarized unintentionally, by failing to include quotations or give the appropriate citation. While plagiarism in scholarship and journalism has a centuries-old history, the development of the Internet, where articles appear as electronic text, has made the physical act of copying the work of others much easier, simply by copying and pasting text from one web page to another.
Plagiarism is not copyright infringement. While both terms may apply to a particular act, they are different transgressions. Copyright infringement is a violation of the rights of a copyright holder, when material protected by copyright is used without consent. On the other hand, plagiarism is concerned with the unearned increment to the plagiarizing author’s reputation that is achieved through false claims of authorship.
The above is not my writing, but rather was copied from Wikipedia. One can follow the link above, Ms. Dowd, and read the original text.
There, isn’t that easy?
2 Comments
Too bad the plagiarism has deflected all attention from Dowd’s column, which was actually pretty good.
I’m guessing that when Dowd writes that she “talked” to a friend about the column, the “talk” was email, and that when the friend (more likely, an assistant or researcher) “expressed” Josh’s point, he or she pasted it into the email, with or without attribution. Either way, the lack of attribution is Dowd’s responsibility.
What this episode really demonstrates, I suspect, is the rarely acknowledged contribution of researchers and editorial assistants to the work of columnists and journalists. I believe Dowd when she says she didn’t deliberately plagiarize and that she didn’t personally read Josh’s initial post.
But when the entity that calls itself “Maureen Dowd” expands to include not just the columnist but her assistants, it remains the responsibility of Dowd the columnist, not the entity, to ensure the originality of the entity’s prose.
While Mr. Observer’s point about ethical behavior is well-taken, I must admit to believing Ms. Dowd’s “farsical explanation.” Her claim is supported by the plagiarized sentence itself, which is hardly brilliant. It’s just Mr. Marshall reiterating what Col. Wilkerson said in the much-more-significant Washington Note piece. Plagiarizing once removed is not worth all this commentary. Risking a reputation for lifting this sentence is so unbelievable that it renders Ms. Dowd’s explanation plausible after all.
On the other hand, I’m sorry to read that Mr. Marshall does not have two dogs. Now that’s a shame.