Friday, March 24, 2006

The Evils of Plagiarism

Damn, I kind of liked the idea of having Ben to kick around.  Oh well.  But what’s with this crap from WaPo’s Jim Brady:
Plagiarism is perhaps the most serious offense that a writer can commit or be accused of.

Really?  I definitely don’t support plagiarism, but “the most serious offense”?  Really?  How is it really so wrong to just repeat what somebody else wrote?  What about complete fictions?  When journalists just completely invent stuff?  That surely must be worse than copying the truth from someone else, right?  Like when a journalist strongly suggests that a corrupt lobbyist has equal ties to both political parties?  Or what about when journalists toss objectivism out the window and get into the dictation business; repeating whatever fictions their sources want to convey, without giving it a fact-checking?  Where they’ve essentially destroyed the entire concept of journalist objectivism?  Isn’t that worse than repeating somebody else’s statements?

But I don’t think that Brady sees things that way.  WMD lies aren’t important.  Torture isn’t important.  The constitution isn’t important.  Truth isn’t important.  But what is important?  Plagiarism.  That’s what these elitist dopes care about. That’s what their priorities are.  Coincidentally, it also happens to be the most provable of offenses.  Fact-checking is hard, but plagiarism is easy to spot.  And if there’s anything that these guys like, it’s easiness.  


Mumphrey said...

You've hit on the press's real problem here: the press isn't biased toward liberalism, it's biased toward laziness.
They pick a story, and run with it. Anything that doesn't fit in with the already made up story doesn't really get followed up on.
Remember the 2000 election? I'm sorry to say that I do.
The press picked up on the "Vice President Gore is a liar" story that the Republicans had made up out of whole cloth, and twisted everything to fit that storyline. "Gore says he invented the internet." Not true, but the press broadcast it far and wide. "Gore says he "dicovered" Love Canal." Not true, but the press spewed it forth anyway. "Gore says the writer of "Love Story" based the characters on him and his wife." Gore did say this, quoting the writer who was misquoted by a Tennesse newspaper, but Gore didn't know the writer was misquoted. The press didn't care and made Gore out to be a liar anyway.
Since 2000, the main storyline the press likes to follow is "George Bush is a strong and resolute leader, and a straight-talking truth-teller to boot." Thank the Lord, they're beginning to wake up from this one at long last, but it sure has taken its sweet time, and in the meanwhile, the country has suffered quite possibly irreperable harm.
The American Press: Lazier Than a Bag of Hammers™.
(Actually, I like "The American Press: Lazier Than a Hat Full of Assholes™" better, but it doesn't make as much sense.)

Doctor Biobrain said...

Hey, some of the best things don't make sense. I stand-by the "Lazier than a hatful of assholes".

Mumphrey said...

Yes, I guess you're right. I am vice president of the Drummondtown Non-Sequitorial Society, after all. I even have a rubber stamp to prove it.
So it will stand:
The American Press:
Lazier Than a Hat Full of Assholes™.