Posted on 07/06/2006 8:40:20 AM PDT by Nachum
I'm fairly certain if I were to submit a manuscript titled, "Ann Coulter Is Destroying America" I'd have a six figure book deal tomorrow; such is the public fascination, or alternatively horror, with the what-will-she-say-next shtick that Coulter's been playing in the media to promote her new book, 'Godless'.
David Carr, in The New York Times, looks at the current controversy in light of his previous article on Coulter, noting the transfixing dichotomy between the package and the message.
Coulter's act, as we've previously noted, is the same kind of over-the-top, calculated, "look at me" stuff we've seen here previously from Al Franken. I've been in close quarters with both on several occasions and witnessed their blow-ups. While Franken tends toward fist pounding and finger pointing, Coulter tends to stick with verbal carpet bombing; both designed to leave the audience questioning whether their eyes and ears are playing tricks on them - they didn't really say (or do) that, did they?
As professional provocateurs, both are cagey enough to measure the level of shock, outrage, or hysteria, in direct proportion to the quantity (and quality) of cameras and microphones nearby. What good is meltdown without media coverage?
In the world on television punditry sanity and factuality aren't prerequisites for longevity, case in point Maureen Dowd. Still it is possible to be cast off the talk circuit reservation, though the number of transgressions that would qualify one for banishment seems to be ever shrinking.
That's where a report from liberal blogger The Rude Pundit comes in. They note that in the first chapter to Coulter's new book "Godless," there are two suspicious selections:
Coulter: The massive Dickey-Lincoln Dam, a $227 million hydroelectric project proposed on upper St. John River in Maine, was halted by the discovery of the Furbish lousewort, a plant previously believed to be extinct.
Portland Press Herald: The massive Dickey-Lincoln Dam, a $227 million hydroelectric project proposed on upper St. John River, is halted by the discovery of the Furbish lousewort, a plant believed to be extinct.
Coulter: A few years after oil drilling began in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, a saboteur set off an explosion blowing a hole in the pipeline and releasing an estimated 550,000 gallons of oil.
The History Channel: The only major oil spill on land occurred when an unknown saboteur blew a hole in the pipe near Fairbanks, and 550,000 gallons of oil spilled onto the ground.
Assuming what The Rude Pundit says about lack of sourcing is correct, the fist selection, on the face of it, sure looks like plagiarism. The second selection is somewhat less convincing, though the use of the word saboteur seems too be a bit too forced in this particular instance to be mere coincidence.
So is Coulter a plagiarist? At this point no, but there's a whole book to look through, which I suspect the legions of those who despise Coulter are organizing for right this very moment. Were they to put together a formidable collection of cribbed quotes Coulter's career would be over, since when it comes to publishing plagiarism is the scarlet letter.
With a prize like that you can bet the left side of the blogosphere will working overtime on this...
The 1st one is interesting in that it is nearly word-for-word with the Portland Press article with the exception of the past tense "was."
My question is this: if a reporter describes something that happens, and then it happens, is it plagiarism to say that X happened?
If I say: "My dog, who has been my friend for years, is dying.", and someone writes a follow-up on me, and says, "His dog, who has been his friend for years, DIED." is that plagiarism? Or is it follow-up of an already reported situation?
Looks like Freepers have discredited Mr. Aylward in 30 posts. Congrats mbynack, you've pulled a mini-Buckhead. Good work!
This is pretty weak if this is all they've got.
Next.
Screeew the left wing sandbaggers. They should be looking at honest Al Gore.
still....
but if someone does follow the rules, will they be accused of plagarized copyrighted images?
To call that plagiarism is like calling Shepard Smith a plagiarist for saying "Have a good night" at the end of his show just because Wolf Blitzer says the same thing upon the closing of his own show.
This is ridiculous.
The first one probably is plagiarism, of the same unintentional sort that bit Steve Ambrose in the butt: A quote is accidentally treated as a note the author or a research assistant wrote themselves.
She wrote a column for them quoting from her new book that hadn't been published. The Portland newspaper quoted the Townhall article where Ann was quoting from her own book. The libs are going crazy accusing Ann of plagerizing her own book.
This is careful research (on Ann Coulter's part). If the book had even the slightest amount of deviation from the research, these very same rodent droppings would be criticizing her for deviating one millimeter from the original studies.
Nice try, "Kevin Aylward," if that is his real name.
You have to admit that mbynacks discovery that Coulter's being accused of plagiarising herself is a hoot! I hope someone does dig into these idiots articles.
Agreed. When writing academic or press stuff I've had to go through some real writing gymnastics to be in a safe zone. I guess I'm good at tit though, the semester I took rhet and Comp II I was the only person in any of my professor's classes that didn't have a gray area or worse in their first draft.
It's easy to bash a book of one hasn't read it. Ignorance knows no bounds as in the case of liberals who refuse to either read the book or admit that their ox has been gored to bleed out status.
Note that this was extracted from Townhall. The original Townhall article was written by Ann Coulter. She was quoting from the book she was writing.
For this very reason, it will damage her as much as Steve Ambrose was damaged by his unintentional plagiarism.
For this very reason, it will damage her as much as Steve Ambrose was damaged by his unintentional plagiarism. In other words, it means zilch.
The link to the story no longer works.
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/anncoulter/2006/06/06/199800.html
I wonder if it's just because townhall recently revamped its web site. The link is only one month old (exactly).
Or.... is Coultergate impending? /sarc
"To make an issue over it would be to accuse everyone in the English-speaking world of plagiarizing the first person who used "terrorist" to describe the perps of 9/11."
Now we know why the MSM fails to use the word "terrorist" and prefers insurgent. They don't want to be accused of plagerism. Whew, for a while I was questioning their patriotism.
As one who has written professionaly, I can say this. BS!
If one wishes to offer a bit of information that has been written about before, there are two choices. The first is to directly quote. It is undesireable to do this to often.
The second is to rewrite the information using slightly different language. Which can be difficult since there are only a limited number of ways to reconvey the same information. Everytime an author does this he runs the danger of being charged with plagerism.
In both cases you stay out of trouble by footnoting the source of the information. This article make no mention of footnotes. Did she or didn't she. If she did, then this moonbat looked up her sources and tried to see how close she got. But as long as she sourced it, it doesn't matter.
In any case, plagerism is usually revolves more around "creative" writing rather than the relaying of factual information. And usually is not a charge leveled over a singel sentence, but over whole paragraphs and more.
This is a canard and does not even rise the level of the definition of "is".
This is smear piece by a jealous writer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.