Posted on 07/02/2006 5:26:36 AM PDT by publius1
Conservative scribe Ann Coulter cribbed liberally in her latest book, "Godless," according to a plagiarism expert.
John Barrie, the creator of a leading plagiarism-recognition system, claimed he found at least three instances of what he calls "textbook plagiarism" in the leggy blond pundit's "Godless: the Church of Liberalism" after he ran the book's text through the company's digital iThenticate program.
He also says he discovered verbatim lifts in Coulter's weekly column, which is syndicated to more than 100 newspapers, including the Fort Lauderdale (Fla.) Sun-Sentinel and Augusta (Ga.) Chronicle.
Barrie, CEO of iParadigms, told The Post that one 25-word passage from the "Godless" chapter titled "The Holiest Sacrament: Abortion" appears to have been lifted nearly word for word from Planned Parenthood literature published at least 18 months before Coulter's 281-page book was released.
A separate, 24-word string from the chapter "The Creation Myth" appeared about a year earlier in the San Francisco Chronicle with just one word change-"stacked" was changed to "piled."
Another 33-word passage that appears five pages into "Godless" allegedly comes from a 1999 article in the Portland (Maine) Press Herald.
Coulter did not respond to requests for comment.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
If you think about it, that applies to Abraham Lincoln too. Of course, Annie is usually a lot better politically.
I sure hope Philip has cross checked every sentence he has ever written against all of the copyrighted material in the world. My guess is this sucker is screwed if someone just takes the time to pursue it.
Were this a lefty's book, we'd be all over it, but I can't imagine she's trying to steal anyone's work. Just sounds like sloppy editing (or sloppy on someone else's part) to me.
Just ask the RIAA. Sounds like we might have to report someone to the Feds. I think its $250,000 per incident, I believe. And the Feds pay for the prosecution.
Copying an entire work is not fair use by any means.. and the existence of the work on their hard drive is prima facie evidence of the violation.
The ironies are delicious.
Who cares? This "MSM/liberal-lawyer union complex" thinks it's OK to print stuff that will get Americans killed, but is "oh so concerned about protecting Planned Parenthood? Great. We'll keep voting in Republicans until there's not a liberal judge left in the country.
She doesn't have one original thought in that entire book. She stole her attacks on the Jersey girls from Ted Rall. William Dembski ghost wrote the section on evolution. I've seen just about all her other points made be folks here on FR (and we know she at least lurks).
Even the headline is a dead give-away. "Copycatter Coulter Pilfers Prose"...I mean c'mon. That's something you'd find in the The Globe or something.
Your comment assumes that the accusations are both valid and accurate. Neither is arguable, based upon the attendant article.
" I do not knaow about taht. "She doesn't have one original thought in that entire book" I do know that it is a great read, because she has a funny sense of humor and a great way of putting things.
And every point you made has been made by someone else {including, but not limited to the legendary seer, Ted Rall}.
mark
Normally, I would agree with you. Her latest tome, however, is little but invective and very-poorly researched invective at that. It's like she put no effort into this at all.
I'm not certain Ted Rall and I have ever agreed on anything.
Well if the charges are false then the evidence refuting them should be presented on principle if for no other reason. I'll watch for it.
What? Did she rip of Ward Churchill?? LOL
(The Palestinian terrorist regime is the crisis and Israel's fist is the answer.)
Maybe this is just a pre-emptive attack, to deter Bush from nominating Ann if another vacancy occurs on the Supreme Court.
Obviously we can't get to the bottom of the story since the NY Post doesn't give any specific references (and that's suspicious regarding their motives and the supposed strength of the case).
But one thing is immediately clear -- the sources she's "lifted from" represent the arguments she's ATTACKING, ie, Planned Parenthood, the SF newspaper, etc.
So she's obviously paraphrasing their arguments, and accurately by using their own words, so that she can then ATTACK the logic of their arguments.
She isn't STEALING or LIFTING their arguments and foisting them off as her own -- and THAT'S what plagiarism is about.
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.