Reporter plagiarized by recruiting site writer?

http://www.pittblather.com/2008/03/20/inexcusably-crossing-the-line/#more-5042

 

Re: Blogger plagiarized by recruiting site writer?

The comments underneath are fun.

And the BLOGGER! wasn't involved. He just blew the whistle. A guy from the Beaver County Times was plagiarized by a Scout.com writer.

 

Headline appropriately changed. Needless to say I skimmed the article. Last thing I wanna' do is read that many words after work that have little or no direct impact on me.

 

Didn't the scout writer think that some of his readers might read the newspaper too?

 

Man, you aren't kidding. I especially liked this one:

But the one about Jesus dying for our sins was funny, too.

 

Dumb, dumb, dumb.

Write something that sucks. Blow the assignment completely. But don't steal someone else's work. Nothing will turn your name to shit faster than plagiarism.

 

Any reporter who condones the plagiarism, if any of those commenting on the post actually wrote any comments, should just quit now.

What about outing a plagiarizer? Is it fair game or should someone just zip an e-mail off to an editor keep it quiet. I personally don't care if the guy was outed. You have no "supposed" protection if you copy and paste another's work.

 

There's a writer who frequents several of the local college's games who was once caught for plagiarism. Everyone else loves the guy. He may be a nice guy, but he broke Rule No. 1. I will never have anything to say to him.

This blogger did the right thing, especially given that he's an impartial observer to this situation. If he wrote for the papers, that's one thing. But as a superfan, I believe the public exposure is acceptable.

 

The writer accused of plagiarism (Dale Grdnic) has done freelance work for the newspaper he stole the column from. How dumb.

 

isn't there a threat of defamation for calling the guy a plagiarist?

though the evidence is strong, it is not empirical and I think the Scouts writer might be able to come back at the guy with some legal threats

not saying that's right, mind you, but hey, it's the law

 

On the subject of "empiricsm," I thought Slate's Jack Shaffer made some good points a while back. I don't usually like Shaffer's smarmy preach-fests, but this is strong:

(Emphasis added.)

http://www.slate.com/id/2186029/

 

I agree, but I didn't like how he described confronting the guy. Did he actually talk to the guy? Did he have some actual excuses? I would like to see those listed just in an effort to get the other guy's side.

Plagiarism is bad. But presenting one-sided stories with no voice from the person you are criticizing is bad as well.