Quote :

" Rep. Sherrod Brown wrote to Sen. Mike DeWine last Friday, voicing concern about Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito's labor record. Brown's language was crisp -- and was plagiarized. Roughly 90 percent of what Brown, an Avon Democrat, wrote in his letter was lifted from an Internet posting by a blogger, as Brown's office acknowledged Monday when The Plain Dealer presented the similarities. Brown had not credited the blogger, Nathan Newman of NathanNewman.org, or any other source. For instance, Newman, an attorney and labor and community activist, posted this on his blog Nov. 1: "What is striking about Alito is that he is so hostile even to the basic rights of workers to have a day in court, much less interpreting the law in their favor." Brown's letter merely changed the last clause so the sentence read, "What is striking about Alito is that he is so hostile even to the basic rights of workers to have a day in court, not to mention interpreting the law against them." Brown's letter cited details of 13 rulings by Alito, who in early 2006 will face confirmation hearings in the Senate Judiciary Committee. The problem is, Brown's descriptions in 12 of the cases were almost verbatim what Newman wrote on his blog. Students can be flunked for copying others' words without attribution, and journalists can be fired. While the line dividing politicians and online political commentary sometimes seems fuzzy, University of Chicago political scientist Daniel Drezner, himself a blogger and co-editor of a forthcoming book on poli tics and blog ging, says Brown went "outside the bounds." He com pared it with Sen. Joe Biden, the Delaware Democrat who dropped out of the 1988 presidential race after it was learned he plagiarized part of a stump speech. "It strikes me as pretty much the same thing," Drezner said. "It's plagiarism." Brown's office acknowledged that it should not have used Newman's words without giving him credit. Spokeswoman Joanna Kuebler said she found Newman's work when researching labor issues. Brown's legislative staff confirmed its accuracy, and Brown then signed the staff-prepared letter, Kuebler said. "We should have cited it, and we didn't," Kuebler said. "The Republicans were rushing to confirm Alito, and we wanted to collect as much accurate information as quickly as possible." Brown has filed papers to run against DeWine in 2006, though he'll have to get through a primary first. His letter to DeWine, which he released to reporters Friday, was as much a political taunt as it was heartfelt correspondence to a Judiciary Committee member. "We couldn't decide who to respond to -- the person who sent us the letter or the person who wrote the letter," joked Mike Dawson, DeWine's communications director. "So we decided not to respond to either." "

tsk tsk


you should be kick out of congress for plagarizing mister

tsk tsk

11/8/2005 10:55:28 AM

OMFG dennis hastert wrote a letter for a lobbyist

totally different from this situation

11/8/2005 11:08:48 AM

Quote :

"you should be kick out of congress for plagarizing mister "

agreed

11/8/2005 11:09:31 AM

yeah that's pretty fucked up.

but btw, here's newman's response

http://www.nathannewman.org/log/

Quote :

"So a Sherrod Brown staffer used some lines from one of my blog posts. Who frigging cares? This is a ridiculous story from the Cleveland Plain Dealer: Rep. Sherrod Brown wrote to Sen. Mike DeWine last Friday, voicing concern about Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito's labor record. Brown's language was crisp -- and was plagiarized. Roughly 90 percent of what Brown, an Avon Democrat, wrote in his letter was lifted from an Internet posting by a blogger, as Brown's office acknowledged Monday when The Plain Dealer presented the similarities. Brown had not credited the blogger, Nathan Newman of NathanNewman.org, or any other source. This is the post Brown used to list the cases where Alito has attacked workers rights. Did the Plain Dealer do an indepth analysis of Alito's labor record in response? No, they created a bullshit meta-story that was of such supposed breaking news value that they couldn't wait for me to get back from my mini-honeymoon to get my reaction. If the crime is plagarism, then you think they'd want to talk to the victim before running it. But what about the real victims, the workers denied minimum wage, family leave, or a day in court to challenge racial and gender discrimination because of Alito's decisions? The paper of course also pursued Mike DeWine for his reaction to that. "

Quote :

"It's also worth noting that he blog post was also posted at DailyKos, which has this disclaimer on every page: "Site content may be used for any purpose without explicit permission unless otherwise specified." See at the bottom of this page: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/11/1/91136/3637 So the reporter saying that Brown's letter "was plagiarized" is flatly inaccurate. The reality is that politicians used public domain sources in a whole host of ways and using my blog post was no different. "

obviously it's dishonest to act like something is your own, but at the same time, it isn't plagiarism.

[Edited on November 8, 2005 at 11:31 AM. Reason : .]

11/8/2005 11:27:20 AM

Every pundit that repeats RNC talking points should be fired.

11/8/2005 11:52:15 AM

also from the author:

Quote :

"Who the hell cares if a Brown staffer copied a factual listing of legal cases into a letter? This was hardly a literary blog post using deathless prose for the ages. It was the facts that made this post interesting, not it's literary value."

11/8/2005 12:10:39 PM

I would assume the plagiarized blogger didn't mind being copied and would have eagerly given permission if asked, so I don't see the problem here.

11/8/2005 12:17:03 PM

Quote :

"We should have cited it, and we didn't"

^thats the problem.

11/8/2005 12:18:26 PM

pryderi - "WELL YOU GUYS DO IT TOO!!!!!!11".

that's right folks, he was THAT KID in school.

11/8/2005 12:22:02 PM

Quote :

" © 2005, Kos Media, LLC. Site content may be used for any purpose without explicit permission unless otherwise specified."

that would include quotation without citation. Also, it's a letter, usually in a letter you don't need to provide a bibliography.

Do they look bad for doing this? probably. It makes them look lazy. Is there anything legally questionable about what they did? No.

11/8/2005 12:27:31 PM

anytime you knowingly use other peoples ideas without referencing them, then you are attempting to pass them off as your own.

is it against the law? not always.

is it ethical? no.

11/8/2005 12:29:49 PM

Quote :

"pryderi - "WELL YOU GUYS DO IT TOO!!!!!!11". that's right folks, he was THAT KID in school."

You seem to think it works for Republicans, I thought I'd give it a try. Oh well, you're right. Defending someone by pointing the finger at someone else is crass.

11/8/2005 12:35:38 PM

Quote :

"is it ethical? no."

in a letter, sure it is. I've written plenty of letters where I listed some fact or other without citing it.

Also, the writter explicitly gave them permission to use what he had written in whatever manner they wanted. Have you ever heard of a ghost writer? I don't see anyone posting on here that the ghost writer was plagarized, and that's because they give permission for their work to be used that way. If I post something on the internet and I say that it can be used by anybody for whatever purpose they want, it's not unethical for them to use it. Like the author said, his post was interesting because of the facts, not because of the way it was written. They were lazy for not rewritting it, but they weren't unethical for using it.

11/8/2005 12:43:45 PM

Quote :

"So a Sherrod Brown staffer used some lines from one of my blog posts. Who frigging cares? "

pwnt.

This is not plagiarism. Copying off of someone else's paper theoretically devalues the degree of that particular institution. There're victims.

Here the original author would have clearly encouraged any Congressman to use his words, as it finally turned out.

11/8/2005 1:02:31 PM