What Would Carlos Say?

Calderone gets another statement from the Times:

Maureen had us correct the column online as soon as the error was brought to her attention, adding in the sourcing to Marshall’s blog. We ran a correction in today’s paper, referring readers to the correct version online. There is no need to do anything further since there is no allegation, hint or anything else from Marshall that this was anything but an error. It was corrected. Journalists often use feeds from other staff journalists, free-lancers, stringers, a whole range of people. And from friends. Anyone with even the most passing acquaintance with Maureen’s work knows that she is happy and eager to give people credit.

Why would further action be dependent on an “allegation, hint or anything else from Marshall”? It is plagiarism, whether Marshall is bothered by it or not is irrelevant. Plagiarism does not become a victimless crime if the writer whose words were stolen does not publicly prosecute his case as a result of an ideological affinity with the perpetrator or any other reason. The victims are the readers, however many remain, who can now wonder just how much of Dowd’s drivel is her own and how much is cribbed from her friends, who apparently pass along entire paragraphs that may be sprinkled into a column without attribution and at Dowd’s discretion. If the Times sees no need for further action, perhaps someone should ask Carlos Slim whether he thinks the Times is making good use of his investment by retaining Maureen Dowd when they could probably get Josh Marshall for half the price, if that. Marshall is looking to move on.

Related Content