NationStates Jolt Archive

Don't know how many people follow the blogs closely around here--some do, I know, because I'm often beaten to a story that pops up here that I saw on Atrios or Kos or one of the many others. But for those of you who don't here's an object lesson on why plagiarism will come back to bite you in the ass if you ever make a name for yourself.

Ben Domenich is a 24 year old kid (and I can call him a kid because I'm half again as old as he is) who helped found a blog named Redstate.org, a blog which had the stated goal at first of being the kind of place where liberals and conservatives could come together and have reasonable conversations. And it worked for about a week--then it turned into about what you would expect from the political internet. (I will say that this is the only place I've ever seen where political diversity is truly welcomed, and where people of all stripes can scream at each other without one group getting taken out by a biased moderating group.)

As long as he was a blogger on Redstate, no one really looked into his past, which was a good thing for him. Problem is, he was hired by the Washington Post to basically be an openly conservative blogger on their website. They have no liberal counterpart (though liberal media types will no doubt say that liberals control the whole paper, so they're even--whatever).

But take a high profile job like that, and you better have a clean past, and Domenich doesn't (http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_03_19_atrios_archive.html#114317221990978364), as has been documented by numerous bloggers all day today. He's plagiarized from the National Review, Salon, Steve Rhodes of IMDB, P. J. O'Roarke, and, get this, the Washington Post, his employers for, I'd guess, the next 24 hours at best.

Now here's the real question. Who did Domenich think he was going to fool? You get a gig like that and you've got to assume that in today's blogworld--a blogworld in which Domenich is, to be kind, a dick at times--someone's gonna come after you. Hell, if I got a gig like that, I have no doubt that there would be people crawling all over the archives here finding stuff to nail me (which is why I'd never take a gig like that).

The lesson here is, if you're going to rip someone off and steal their writing as your own, you better stay low profile, because someone will hand you your ass on a platter.

Damn. Nazz is old.

Damn. Nazz is old.
37, kid. Not so old as some, but I've got my years on me.

Damn. Nazz is old.
No,
"I'm half again as old".

No,
"I'm half again as old".
Well, my daughter thinks I'm old, and she's the same age as many of the posters around here, so I guess.....

*wanders off into other room muttering about whippersnappers and looking for his spectacles and his Ensure*

...
Was there a history of people being hired from this blog for other jobs though? I don't check everything I write on here in case I'm one day employed by someone who would care, and he might have just felt the same way.

37, kid. Not so old as some, but I've got my years on me.
*slaps a high-five to my fellow 37 year-old*

Was there a history of people being hired from this blog for other jobs though? I don't check everything I write on here in case I'm one day employed by someone who would care, and he might have just felt the same way.
I don't believe so, but the example I set up for myself isn't an exact analog to the Domenich situation. In his case, he was writing for his college paper and in one of the cases of plagiarism, the National Review Online, which is a fairly significant publication.

Domenech has written some pretty inflammatory stuff--calling Coretta Scott King a commie, for instance--but that's not what's going to get him fired. It's his wholesale lifting of other peoples' work that's going to get him canned. Newspapers and other purveyors of the written word sometimes go to extremes in what they'll call plagiarism--I just recently taught an essay by Malcolm Gladwell from last November's New Yorker which deals with the issue--but this isn't extreme. This is clear as day that he was copying and pasting someone else's work and putting his byline on it, and then used that publication to secure future employment. That's fraud, plain and simple.

I don't believe so, but the example I set up for myself isn't an exact analog to the Domenich situation. In his case, he was writing for his college paper and in one of the cases of plagiarism, the National Review Online, which is a fairly significant publication.

Domenech has written some pretty inflammatory stuff--calling Coretta Scott King a commie, for instance--but that's not what's going to get him fired. It's his wholesale lifting of other peoples' work that's going to get him canned. Newspapers and other purveyors of the written word sometimes go to extremes in what they'll call plagiarism--I just recently taught an essay by Malcolm Gladwell from last November's New Yorker which deals with the issue--but this isn't extreme. This is clear as day that he was copying and pasting someone else's work and putting his byline on it, and then used that publication to secure future employment. That's fraud, plain and simple.
It's interesting you should mention this case today - there was a piece on the radio earlier about another person facing penalties for things done online. Apparently a woman has successfully been sued for libel (here in the UK) for things she posted on an internet chat forum.

I think we all take the freedom of the internet for granted, and, in these two cases at least, it's come back to haunt them.

the only thing i could think of while i was reading that was... i really don't get blogs.

when i want news, i want it impartial - or at least as impartial as possible. i don't want to listen to some other wanker's point of view, i want to make up my own opinion. simple as that. (i rarely read columnists views in newspapers either)
i can understand personal blogs, but political blogs and the like just seem to strike me as the whining and opinionated output of wannabe journalists. bah!


however, on topic, i guess that guy was pretty stupid. plagarism is pretty stupid.

I noticed redstate.org is now redstate.com (web site gets URL redirected).

Blogs are an utter waste of time.

Blogs are an utter waste of time.
Whereas on the other hand, forums are the *cream* of the crop!
Teehee! ;)

why does the Washington Post need a Neocon blogger for "balance" when they dont even have a progressive one?

Don't know how many people follow the blogs closely around here--some do, I know, because I'm often beaten to a story that pops up here that I saw on Atrios or Kos or one of the many others. But for those of you who don't here's an object lesson on why plagiarism will come back to bite you in the ass if you ever make a name for yourself.

Ben Domenich

-snip-
Who cares, to be honest?

Who cares, to be honest?
Part of the reason I care is because I'm a writer and a teacher of composition, and I take plagiarism personally. If someone were to publish my poems under their name, I'd feel robbed, and when my students try to pass off another's work as their own, I feel insulted, as though they think I'm some sort of idiot.

In this situation, however, there's also a great deal of hubris involved. How did this kid think he'd get away with it? Did he think that his father's position in the Bush administration would protect him from charges of plagiarism? Or that his buddies on the right would stand behind him when it became clear he'd played them for fools? And I just find it interesting as a study of this person's mindset that apparently he thought no one would catch him in this.

The lesson here is, if you're going to rip someone off and steal their writing as your own, you better stay low profile, because someone will hand you your ass on a platter.




Well there goes that "four score and seven years ago" post I was working on....


Dang!

Part of the reason I care is because I'm a writer and a teacher of composition, and I take plagiarism personally. If someone were to publish my poems under their name, I'd feel robbed, and when my students try to pass off another's work as their own, I feel insulted, as though they think I'm some sort of idiot.

In this situation, however, there's also a great deal of hubris involved. How did this kid think he'd get away with it? Did he think that his father's position in the Bush administration would protect him from charges of plagiarism? Or that his buddies on the right would stand behind him when it became clear he'd played them for fools? And I just find it interesting as a study of this person's mindset that apparently he thought no one would catch him in this.

Didn't he plagarize his new employers as well? Didn't he think they'd notice that?

Didn't he plagarize his new employers as well? Didn't he think they'd notice that?
That's the point--I don't imagine he thought about it one bit, and I'd be surprised if he's actually taken personal responsibility for this situation even now. You'd have to be either a moron of the highest order or incredibly arrogant to think you could pull that off and get away with it. My guess is the latter, based on who he was stealing from. P. J. O'Roarke? Come on.

There's also this--he tried to come up with a number of excuses for how it came about that it looked like he'd plagiarized--his editors had put stuff in without his knowledge, he'd gotten permissions and they'd been lost, blah blah blah. He sounds like the kind of kid who wants to change the rules of the game when he starts losing.

He sounds like the kind of kid who wants to change the rules of the game when he starts losing.
...and THAT sounds like he's prime candidacy for a prominence in the Bush Administration.

Well, in *that* case guys perhaps you'll take the time to condemn this bit of plagiarism as well? o_O

http://www.dailypundit.com/2006/03/and_speaking_of_plagiarism_col.php

Or is it somehow *different* when a liberal journalist does it? In addition to that is there anyone here willing to say Joe Biden has no right to be Senator after the plagiarism stunt *he* pulled? :p

Those who wish to read the accused's side of the story may want to go here.

http://www.redstate.com/print/2006/3/24/151255/259

As long as he was a blogger on Redstate, no one really looked into his past, which was a good thing for him. Problem is, he was hired by the Washington Post to basically be an openly conservative blogger on their website. They have no liberal counterpart (though liberal media types will no doubt say that liberals control the whole paper, so they're even--whatever).
I really don't think that a legitimate case can be made that the Washington Post is controlled by liberals. It's one of the more conservative news publications so far as I can tell. Which doesn't make one lick of difference. They have no obligation to have politically balanced opinion writers. Freedom of the press and all that.
News publications don't even have an obligation to be politically neutral, just not to slant or omit facts in the interest of their stance. It's high time opinion reclaimed a higher seat in news reporting.
the only thing i could think of while i was reading that was... i really don't get blogs.

when i want news, i want it impartial - or at least as impartial as possible. i don't want to listen to some other wanker's point of view, i want to make up my own opinion. simple as that. (i rarely read columnists views in newspapers either)
i can understand personal blogs, but political blogs and the like just seem to strike me as the whining and opinionated output of wannabe journalists. bah!

I gotta say that I disagree.The mainstream media is so concerned with seeming "impartial" (which is patently impossible, by the way) that they really don't report much of relavence politically. This is true of other areas of the news as well. Everyone gets so paranoid about not having a story that someone else has that they all wind up covering the same sensationalized things. With blogs and that sort of deal you may have to double check more sources, but at least there's the possibility of hearing something actually new or interesting.

but at least there's the possibility of hearing something actually new or interesting.
Well, speculative bullshit, gossip, and lies will always appeal more than news where the true consumerite is concerned. It's not about being informed, after all - it's about being entertained. And there's not one thing anyone on this forum can ever say to shift that blinkered, lazy, pig-ignorant viewpoint - now is there.

Well, speculative bullshit, gossip, and lies will always appeal more than news where the true consumerite is concerned. It's not about being informed, after all - it's about being entertained. And there's not one thing anyone on this forum can ever say to shift that blinkered, lazy, pig-ignorant viewpoint - now is there.
Right, because mainstream news isn't sensationalized the hell out of. And didn't I just say that when using such sources you had to double check facts? But I suppose that only works if you aren't lazy and pig-ignorant, as everyone who is dissatisfied enough with the mainstream news to seek out other sources of information must be. </sarcasm>

Speculation, gossip, and lies are news in and of themselves. Checking up on them allows you to keep abreast of what positions, arguements, lies, and rumors are being spouted, which comprises at least 50% of politics anyway.