Margaret Wente- Globe & Mail- Plagiarist?
Chris Selley: Pegging down the Globe and Mail’s plagiarism problem | Full Comment | National Post
Verdict: Plagiarism, as Oxford defines it: To “plagiarize” is to “take and use (the thoughts, writings, inventions, etc. of another person as one’s own.” QED.
Stead does not address this at all, nor does she even use the P-word. She instead reports that Wente doesn’t recall reading Gardner’s column, which is just bizarre.
Serious problem #2: Statement by Robert Paarlberg to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, March 24, 2009.
Wente writes:
They have even campaigned against conventionally developed modern seeds and nitrogen fertilizers, even though these are the very same technologies Western farmers embraced to become more productive and escape poverty.
Paarlberg said:
It’s tough to pick the most discreditable aspect of Globe and Mail Public Editor Sylvia Stead’s train wreck response to serious allegations of journalistic malpractice against columnist Margaret Wente. There are so many contenders. She refers to the complainant as an “anonymous blogger,” which is irrelevant to her task; and Stead knows perfectly well who the blogger is: University of Ottawa visual arts professor Carol Wainio. Stead notes that journalists labouring for lesser organs were quick in “forwarding those concerns from the anonymous blogger,” which is also irrelevant to her task; and in fact, Wente enjoyed near total silence from her colleagues until Sunday, when Colby Cosh weighed in for Maclean’s.
They also campaigned against conventionally developed modern seeds and nitrogen fertilizers, even though these were precisely the technologies their own farmers had earlier used back home to become more productive and escape poverty.
Verdict: Plagiarism. Notably, as Wainio pointed out, this sentence appears before Paarlberg is even mentioned in the column.
Wente writes:
Nor has “organic” farming provided any protection to the rural environment, which has been seriously degraded by deforestation, soil erosion and habitat loss caused by the relentless expansion of low-yield farming.
Paarlberg said:
Nor has it provided any protection to Africa’s rural environment, where deforestation, soil erosion, and habitat loss caused by the relentless expansion of low-yield farming is a growing crisis.
Verdict: Plagiarism.
Globe and Mail, or Cut and Paste? - Colby Cosh - Macleans.ca
In January, the Globe and Mail appointed longtime editor and correspondent Sylvia Stead its first “public editor”. What say we pause right there, before we go any further? The job of “public editor” is one most closely associated with the New York Times, which has had five different people doing the job since it created a post with that title in 2003—soon after the Jayson Blair fabrication scandal. The function of the public editor at the Times, as the title suggests, is to advocate for journalism ethics, fairness, and proper practice on behalf of the paper’s readership, dealing with concerns and challenges as they arise.
To that end, the Times—quite naturally, one would think—has always recruited people for the job who haven’t been associated with the Times for their entire adult lives, but who do have some knowledge of journalism and non-fiction practice. The first Times public editor was Daniel Okrent, a legendary book and magazine editor. The new one, Margaret Sullivan, has been associated with the Warren Buffett-owned Buffalo News since 1980.
Journalistic plagiarism is ordinarily regarded as what a lawyer would call a strict-liability offence. It may not be deserving of a career death penalty in any particular case, but the evidence of plagiarism usually suffices to establish the crime. Stead’s procedure as a public editor appears to involve looking into the soul of the accused and searching therein for gremlins. Does she, one wonders, believe in the objective existence of plagiarism at all? Again, she does not use the term, and she will not believe that Wente had heard even a rumour, even a whisper, of Gardner’s prior work for the Citizen.
Well, it is not likely there will ever be a case in which Stead is presented with close-up video footage of Wente using her mouse to highlight someone else’s words and pressing Control-C and Control-V. That is why the strict-liability standard is usual. If Stead will not apply it—if she is willing to accept any denial from a fellow Globe lifer, however preposterous—then how can she ever, as an impartial judge of journalism ethics, deliver a conviction? Can it be that the whole point is to have the appearance of accountability without the actual possibility of it?
Chris Selley: Pegging down the Globe and Mail’s plagiarism problem | Full Comment | National Post
Verdict: Plagiarism, as Oxford defines it: To “plagiarize” is to “take and use (the thoughts, writings, inventions, etc. of another person as one’s own.” QED.
Stead does not address this at all, nor does she even use the P-word. She instead reports that Wente doesn’t recall reading Gardner’s column, which is just bizarre.
Serious problem #2: Statement by Robert Paarlberg to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, March 24, 2009.
Wente writes:
They have even campaigned against conventionally developed modern seeds and nitrogen fertilizers, even though these are the very same technologies Western farmers embraced to become more productive and escape poverty.
Paarlberg said:
It’s tough to pick the most discreditable aspect of Globe and Mail Public Editor Sylvia Stead’s train wreck response to serious allegations of journalistic malpractice against columnist Margaret Wente. There are so many contenders. She refers to the complainant as an “anonymous blogger,” which is irrelevant to her task; and Stead knows perfectly well who the blogger is: University of Ottawa visual arts professor Carol Wainio. Stead notes that journalists labouring for lesser organs were quick in “forwarding those concerns from the anonymous blogger,” which is also irrelevant to her task; and in fact, Wente enjoyed near total silence from her colleagues until Sunday, when Colby Cosh weighed in for Maclean’s.
They also campaigned against conventionally developed modern seeds and nitrogen fertilizers, even though these were precisely the technologies their own farmers had earlier used back home to become more productive and escape poverty.
Verdict: Plagiarism. Notably, as Wainio pointed out, this sentence appears before Paarlberg is even mentioned in the column.
Wente writes:
Nor has “organic” farming provided any protection to the rural environment, which has been seriously degraded by deforestation, soil erosion and habitat loss caused by the relentless expansion of low-yield farming.
Paarlberg said:
Nor has it provided any protection to Africa’s rural environment, where deforestation, soil erosion, and habitat loss caused by the relentless expansion of low-yield farming is a growing crisis.
Verdict: Plagiarism.
Globe and Mail, or Cut and Paste? - Colby Cosh - Macleans.ca
In January, the Globe and Mail appointed longtime editor and correspondent Sylvia Stead its first “public editor”. What say we pause right there, before we go any further? The job of “public editor” is one most closely associated with the New York Times, which has had five different people doing the job since it created a post with that title in 2003—soon after the Jayson Blair fabrication scandal. The function of the public editor at the Times, as the title suggests, is to advocate for journalism ethics, fairness, and proper practice on behalf of the paper’s readership, dealing with concerns and challenges as they arise.
To that end, the Times—quite naturally, one would think—has always recruited people for the job who haven’t been associated with the Times for their entire adult lives, but who do have some knowledge of journalism and non-fiction practice. The first Times public editor was Daniel Okrent, a legendary book and magazine editor. The new one, Margaret Sullivan, has been associated with the Warren Buffett-owned Buffalo News since 1980.
Journalistic plagiarism is ordinarily regarded as what a lawyer would call a strict-liability offence. It may not be deserving of a career death penalty in any particular case, but the evidence of plagiarism usually suffices to establish the crime. Stead’s procedure as a public editor appears to involve looking into the soul of the accused and searching therein for gremlins. Does she, one wonders, believe in the objective existence of plagiarism at all? Again, she does not use the term, and she will not believe that Wente had heard even a rumour, even a whisper, of Gardner’s prior work for the Citizen.
Well, it is not likely there will ever be a case in which Stead is presented with close-up video footage of Wente using her mouse to highlight someone else’s words and pressing Control-C and Control-V. That is why the strict-liability standard is usual. If Stead will not apply it—if she is willing to accept any denial from a fellow Globe lifer, however preposterous—then how can she ever, as an impartial judge of journalism ethics, deliver a conviction? Can it be that the whole point is to have the appearance of accountability without the actual possibility of it?
