Posted on 07/10/2006 2:12:24 PM PDT by abb
Universal Says It Doesn't Think Coulter Plagiarized in Her Columns Deborah Feingold Ann Coulter
By E&P Staff
Published: July 10, 2006 5:05 PM ET
NEW YORK Universal Press Syndicate said today that it doesn't think controversial columnist Ann Coulter is guilty of plagiarism.
In a statement sent to E&P, Universal President and Editor Lee Salem said: "Last week a software program company official ran Ann Coulter's columns through a 'match-text' program, frequently used by teachers to detect original work. The New York Post cited two columns in which some text matched other published materials and also mentioned three snippets in her book, 'Godless, The Church of Liberalism.'
"In addition to looking at the columns mentioned in the New York Post story, we also reviewed a sampling of other columns that have been mentioned in the media. Like her book publisher, Crown, Universal Press Syndicate finds no merits to the allegations of plagiarism brought by the software company executive. There are only so many ways you can rewrite a fact and minimal matching text is not plagiarism.
"Universal Press Syndicate is confident in the ability of Ms. Coulter, an attorney and frequent media target, to know when to make attribution and when not to. We also have confidence in our 35-year history of detecting fraudulent and unethical work, having represented conservatives and liberal commentators alike."
For several weeks before the Post article, charges of plagiarism against Coulter emerged from several blogs. She has also been criticized for recent harsh comments concerning, among others, certain 9/11 widows and Rep. John Murtha.
Coulter appears in more than 100 newspapers via Universal.
Aren't you jumping the gun a bit:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13803982/
"Very well. We'll publish our retraction on page 782, at the bottom."
No. Mess NBC's information is from last Friday. E & P has a letter from Universal dated today...
seems that software needs to be seriously discredited.
I wonder how many others were falsly accused by the faulty software.
The damage is done and permanent, the left will ALWAYS use the accusation as proof all her future work is somehow untrue.
"Alleged Plagerist" Coulter. Some computer program said so, and therefore it must be true!
Appology to appear in July 32nd issue of the orignal accuser's newspaper.
Pinging the Dinosaur Media DeathWatch List with Good News. Another blow to the Drive-By Media. This is news. And since WE THE EDITORS of Free Republic get to say what is and isn't news...
Well, there it is...
Enjoy
What she ought to do is announce that as a result of being found guilty of plagiarism, she's going to resign as a commentator...but that she has another job lined up. On the strength of being a plagiarist, Joe Biden has asked her to be his running mate.
Surely she is guilty of some other ism that starts with "P"...Populism? Pugalism ? Pluralism?
Ha ha. Bad news for the Kos Kids and other Coulter-hating clowns...:)
I notice you got your dig in...fake!
Dont worry, the report that exonerates her will be on the website for 5 minutes from 3:05am to 3:10am, and will be posted prominently on 3 lines on page G-35 of USAToday/NYTimes.
(sarc.)
bump
Typical liberals. If they can't fight the opposition with facts, they just lie. It's like throwing spaghetti and just wishing it to stick.
THAT IS A LINK TO Keith Olbermann!!! He wouldnt push a false story to slam a Conservative, Noooo not Keith.
> The damage is done and permanent, the left will ALWAYS use the accusation as proof all her future work is somehow untrue.
Well, let's hope they stick to these trivial plagiarism charges, and ignore the vast pile of nonsense she cranked out in her harebrained attempt to trounce Darwinian evolution.
Mess NBC late with the story. As usual. After Free Republic publishes. "If it Ain't Posted on Free Republic, it Ain't News"
Syndicator dismisses claims against Coulter
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13806624/
seems that software needs to be seriously discredited. I wonder how many others were falsly accused by the faulty software.
I dont think the software is at fault. It highlights similarities between one bit of writing and another. It leaves the interpretation of those results to the person reading them.
One quick look would reveal that the instances of similarities it found were basically statements of fact that had no basis for any sort of intellectual copyright (A dam was closed because they found a fish. Or something like that.)
You would only conclude that that constituted plagiarism if you had an ax to grind against the 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.