Schlussel charges LA Times with plagiarism
Emily B. writes:
The acerbic Debbie has done us a service; she was heavily involved in this as it was her article Obama’s Nation of Islam connections that she says was plagiarized by the L.A. Times writer. (As an aside, isn’t that what she accused you of? I remember a spat with you that was so off the wall that I haven’t read her since then.)
She writes:
A refresher: In January, I wrote an exclusive column about Barack Obama’s Nation of Islam staffers and “evolving” positions on Israel and the Jews. In March, I was contacted in writing by Los Angeles Times reporter Peter Wallsten, who told me he read my article and wanted to report on it for the L.A. Times. I agreed, provided that he credit me and/or mention my name and site in the article, to which he agreed. We spoke on the phone at some length.
In April, Wallsten wrote the story. Portions of it were lifted from my article. But I was never credited, contrary to Wallsten’s promise. Even the Politico said Wallsten plagiarized me.
LA replies:
Who knows? One would have to read her article and the LA Times article to find out the truth, and it’s not a concern of mine. The fact that she engaged in a literally insane attack on me doesn’t mean that her charge in this case is false.
My crime was linking an article at WND which she said had ripped off a story at “Little Green Footballs.” According to her, my quoting this article (about which I had had no prior knowledge) meant that I approved of the intellectual theft that she said WND had done to LGF in this article. Then, when I looked into it further, I found no plagiarism on WND’s part at all. The only thing WND might have owed LGF (and this is doubtful) was a hat tip for pointing them to an article at CAIR’s site. The CAIR article was the actual source of the information in both LGF’s article and WND’s article. WND’s article was not based on LFG’s work (and in fact there was no LGF work, as the LGF article simply consisted of a copy of the text of the CAIR item). Failure to provide a hat tip (e.g., “Thanks to LGF for alerting us to this CAIR article”) is not plagiarism. Schlussel thinks it is. Not only that, but she repeatedly and vehemently attacked me for my immoral approval of intellectual theft and called me a dishonest person, because (1) I initially quoted the WND article before I knew anything about her charge against WND, and (2) after I examined the underlying facts on my own, I told her that I found that the worst WND had done was fail to provide a hat tip.
So Schlussel, to put it mildly, has an unusual relationship to reality when it comes to matters of intellectual property. Which very likely means that she has an unusual relationship to reality in other areas as well. Which, again, does not mean that her charge against the L.A. Times, about which I know nothing, is false.
However, I do notice this.
She writes:
Even the Politico said Wallsten plagiarized me.
Ok, I clicked on that link and it brought me to her site, where she writes:
In response to my post, today, on L.A. Times “reporter,” er … regurgitator Peter Wallsten’s rip-off of my work in today’s L.A. Times, the Politico agrees with my take—that he stole. On Ben Smith’s Politico blog, Reporter Avi Zenilman writes:
Debbie Schlussel sort of burns Peter Wallsten, and demands credit for (very roughly) similar passages.
Word gets out when you steal. Stop shoplifting from this site. And give credit where it’s due.
[end of quote]
What’s wrong with this? She says that Politico said that Wallsten plagiarized her. In fact, based on her direct quote of Politico, that’s not what Politico said. Politico was only reporting what SHE said: “Debbie Schlussel sort of burns Peter Wallsten, and demands credit for (very roughly) similar passages.”
Thus Politico is not agreeing with her charge. Politico is reporting that she made the charge. And in fact Politic is suggesting doubts—”(very roughly) similar”—about her charge.
So, if she gets her facts so wrong on a simple matter of citing what a mainstream liberal website has said about her plagiarism charge, there’s a fair chance she’s also wrong about the plagiarism itself.
Not having read her article and the corresponding L.A. Times which she says plagiarized her, I have no opinion about the plagiarism charge. But her bald misrepresentation of what Politico said about the charge speaks for itself.
- end of initial entry -
Hannon writes:
I just wanted to say thanks for referencing Laura W.’s outstanding contribution that came up via the Schlussel “old business” from August 2007. It is indeed worth reading and re-reading; in fact I think I read it the first time it was out but had forgotten it. She is a superb and soulful writer who I always make a point to read. I think of her (as represented by her writing on VFR) as someone whose message is consistently powerful and enjoyable enough to make the personage of the writer, let alone the gender, fall from the attention of the reader completely.
There is of course a small galaxy of exceptional contributors at VFR, for which we are all thankful, and Laura W. must be one of the brightest of these.
October 30
QR (which seems to stand for Qualing Rationalist) writes:
A few years ago I used to read Schlussel’s column, for about a month. When I first came across her site I was taken aback by the slutty picture of herself she put up, leaning forward so we can get a good view of her bosom, with way too much makeup. Not that I’m opposed to women looking sexy, but it didn’t really seem appropriate for someone who wants her political opinions to be taken seriously.
Still, I read her column for a few weeks, until she made a post I considered stupid, and I dropped her and haven’t read her since. Now, reading her surreal accusations of you, I see that I was righter than I knew.
Incidentally, I just visited her site for the first time in years to see if the slutty picture was still there—it is—and the top post just now is attacking some small-time Democrat female politician who likes to be photographed in revealing clothing. Schlussel helpfully posts several pictures of the Dem’s cleavage. Well, I guess it’ll keep up the traffic to her site.
LA replies:
I had the same reaction as you, the first time I saw that photo of her years ago. Inappropriate for someone who wants to be taken seriously as a writer.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at October 29, 2008 07:46 PM | Send