- $1 billion Empire State Building IPO: why it won't be like Facebook IPO
- In surprise move, GOP leaders admit defeat in payroll tax battle
- More than 30,000 Germans turn out against anti-piracy treaty ACTA
- Does Obama blueprint reduce budget deficit fast enough? (+video)
- Pentagon budget: Does it pit active-duty forces against retirees? (+video)
- Murdoch media crisis deepens with five new arrests
- How Pinterest combines the best parts of Facebook, Tumblr, and Etsy
- US, China face 'trust deficit' as China's heir apparent visits
A "plagiarized" account of Maureen Dowd's plagiarism
New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd is in hot water for lifting a paragraph from a blog written by Talking Points Memo founder Josh Marshall without attributing the source.
NEWSCOM/FILE
To better illustrate a point or a thought when writing a column, article, or blog it goes without saying that it's commonplace and perfectly acceptable to quote someone or some source.
Skip to next paragraphRecent posts
-
02.13.12
Three weeks until Super Tuesday, but some states are already voting -
02.13.12
Could Mitt Romney lose to Rick Santorum in Michigan? (+video) -
02.13.12
Did Mitt Romney steal Maine caucuses from Ron Paul? -
02.11.12
Sarah Palin wows CPAC. But has the race for the White House moved beyond her? -
02.11.12
Political fallout from birth control fight: A glimmer of good news for Obama?
Almost 100 percent of the time, for example, someone else's words will be a big improvement over anything that we can muster up on this blog.
So that's how we'll tell the story of New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd's attribution malfunction (but just to be wacky, we'll attribute the sources).
Caution
It is an axiom of the new digital media age that high-profile political columnists should generally avoid copying other people's words without attribution. Nobody wants to have the p-word hung around their necks.
It is a further axiom of the age that if a columnist is to borrow a paragraph unattributed, then at least they should ensure it doesn't belong to Josh Marshall. The man behind Talking Points Memo is one of the sharpest, most deadly bloggers around. [The Guardian]
Oops
Maureen Dowd, whose barbed-worded columns for The New York Times never have lacked for original thoughts about the Bush administration, has admitted to some borrowed words. She reports that it was inadvertent. [The Swamp]
In the original column, Dowd wrote: "More and more the timeline is raising the question of why, if the torture was to prevent terrorist attacks, it seemed to happen mainly during the period when the Bush crowd was looking for what was essentially political information to justify the invasion of Iraq."
Marshall last week wrote virtually the same sentence. But where Dowd's column used the phrase "the Bush crowd was," Marshall used "we were." [Associated Press]
Accidental
Dowd claims this was an accident, and that she got the idea for the material in question while chatting with a friend.
Yes, it's odd that her "friend" recalled Marshall's article verbatim, but that's Dowd's story and she's sticking to it. No one ever accused the gal of lacking moxie. [Huffington Post]
Odd
But that raised other issues about whether it's common practice for Dowd to use entire passages from friends in her column without attribution. And when I sent a follow-up email about this to Dowd, she didn't respond. ...
So I put the question of whether this is common practice for columnists before Times editorial page editor Andy Rosenthal, who passed me along to PR. But now I've now received a statement supporting Dowd from spokesperson Diane McNulty:
"Maureen had us correct the column online as soon as the error was brought to her attention, adding in the sourcing to Marshall's blog. We ran a correction in today's paper, referring readers to the correct version online.








These comments are not screened before publication. Constructive debate about the above story is welcome, but personal attacks are not. Please do not post comments that are commercial in nature or that violate any copyright[s]. Comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence will be removed. If you find a comment offensive, you may flag it.