Bloggers, the next generation of journalism!

you know, the man has plenty to hammer him on. Don't pull a Rather and go off half-cocked, when a little fact checking could give you a much better story.

Dear right wing blogs,
This is called a retraction. Try it some time.

hockeyfarker: Bloggers, the next generation of journalism ham radio enthusiasts!

I wish there was just ONE person fit to do that job, just one.

Those responsible for sacking the people who have just been sacked have been sacked.

Hey, at least they admitted his mistake. If this was Malkin or Coulter or O'Reilly hell would freeze over before a correction appeared.

They made a mistake. Unlike most major newspapers and television stations, they're retracting the statement and apologizing for it. You know, that crazy thing sometimes called responsibility. Props to ThinkProgress, even if it was a boneheaded mistake.

Would rather do the repeater.

/Would rather do the repeater.

The Onanist: Those responsible for sacking the people who have just been sacked have been sacked.

And now, some llamas?

SilentStrider: you know, the man has plenty to hammer him on.

What? Give ONE example of John McCain being corrupt! (new window)

Ok, give TWO examples!

POAC: Dear right wing blogs,
This is called a retraction. Try it some time.

SphericalTime: Hey, at least they admitted his mistake. If this was Malkin or Coulter or O'Reilly hell would freeze over before a correction appeared.


Malkin (new window)

Sloppy work aside, the comments after the blog show just what quality of person reads that crap.

ThinkProgress published something that was a lie? Unprogressthinkable.

It still doesn't mention how he recycled everything in that speech from a speech he made just before the Battle of Waterloo...

muck4doo: ThinkProgress published something that was a lie? Unprogressthinkable.

Like everyone says to those who who accuse the Bush administration, lying is only lying if coupled with intent.

This is sloppy journalism.

At least they didn't try to claim his plagiarism would be proved in 24 business hours.

Gregory F. Stuart: In the academic world, borrowing from one of your own previous works is still considered plagiarism, and the penalty for plagiarism ranges from failing the project in question, failing the course entirely, or even being expelled.


lol

The headline I submitted ended with, "Suckers form up to the right to explain how it was still plagiarism anyway"

Thanks, sucker!

IXI Jim IXI: It still doesn't mention how he recycled everything in that speech from a speech he made just before the Battle of Waterloo...

I think it was originally used in the tyrano man-cromagnum man wars.

Hang On Voltaire: SphericalTime: Hey, at least they admitted his mistake. If this was Malkin or Coulter or O'Reilly hell would freeze over before a correction appeared.


Malkin (new window)

LOL. We sorta kinda apologize for this after being proven wrong but hey, we'll accept these other unconfirmed reports as fact.

Great mea culpa there Lou.

liam76: I think it was originally used in the tyrano man-cromagnum man wars.

...where McCain was the leader of the T-rex Mounted Infantry...

Gregory F. Stuart: In the academic world, borrowing from one of your own previous works is still considered plagiarism, and the penalty for plagiarism ranges from failing the project in question, failing the course entirely, or even being expelled.

How about using someone elses work and not citing or crediting them, as long as they are your buddy and would give you permission?

Ziemer was also honored with a spot in First Lady Laura Bush's box

I wish I was honored with a spot in Laura Bush's box.

I think it's interesting that McCain's thoughts about war haven't changed in 13 years. Really? nothing influenced your thinking during that time?

Gregory F. Stuart: You would have known that, too, had you the capacity to attend a university.


lol
Well, I'm a little old to go *back* to my old university at this point...

As for whether or not it's plagiarism, it's too bad that you didn't attend a better university or you'd know that what McCain did would be called "self-plagiarism" and not "plagiarism". Just calling it plagiarism does, in fact, imply that the person commiting the plagiarism is passing off someone else's work as their own.

That's, of course, assuming that what he actually did fits the criteria, and I'm not interested enough to compare the two texts in question. Also, since it's a speech, and a public one at that, it would probably not even qualify as self-plagiarism if all he did was borrow some phrases...

Yes, that does reduce it to a semantical argument, but since you basically breezed into the thread with one that seems to be an appropriate stance to take with you.

But to take it a bit further, the examples that Think Progress gave were three one line quotes, which weren't even identical in the example that turned out to be false. Now, while I haven't looked at the original McCain text, if it's a similar amount of similarity - simply having a couple of similar words in a speech on the same subject years later - isn't enough to count as self-plagiarism. Additionally it would be difficult, nay impossible, for any reasonable person to honestly claim that McCain would be wrong to do so.

"Think Progress" needs to think a little harder.

Hang On Voltaire: Malkin (new window)

Great, so you'll now admit that Malkin is a total hack and unworthy of writing, having made a mistake.

LocalCynic: Great, so you'll now admit that Malkin is a total hack and unworthy of writing, having made a mistake.


Why would he need to say any such thing?

IXI Jim IXI: liam76: I think it was originally used in the tyrano man-cromagnum man wars.

...where McCain was the leader of the T-rex Mounted Infantry...

His experience is his greatest asset.

So much fail in this thread. It warms my black heart.

mtman900: muck4doo: ThinkProgress published something that was a lie? Unprogressthinkable.

Like everyone says to those who who accuse the Bush administration, lying is only lying if coupled with intent.

This is sloppy journalism.

Agreed.
As was Dan Rather's crusading report.

But complaints about continual sloppy journalism when the target is a Rightie can be valid talking
points - at some point the sloppiness becomes more than the sum of it's parts.

//If a cashier rings up totals too high a LOT more than he/she does too low, you gotta wonder.
//Same principle here.

//Heh, reminds me of that one plagiarism accusation against Ann Coulter (there have been
//multiple such, apparently there's people spending all their free time looking for it)
//which conclusively PROVED that Ann copied entire paragraphs in one of her books
//from..... the pre-release version of that same book. Which the purported original author
//of the words, a fellow writer, had cribbed (with permission) for an article from her own
//(pre-release) copy of that book.

//There's a REASON common journalistic standards and ethics say you should attempt to get
//comments from the target of a hit-piece and others involved BEFORE you publish.
//Retraction is always less effectively broacast than the original.

I guess there's always someone somewhere with a big nose who knows, who'll trip you up and laugh when you fall.

mongbiohazard: But to take it a bit further, the examples that Think Progress gave were three one line quotes, which weren't even identical in the example that turned out to be false. Now, while I haven't looked at the original McCain text, if it's a similar amount of similarity - simply having a couple of similar words in a speech on the same subject years later - isn't enough to count as self-plagiarism.

It's irrelevant in any case. Whilst in academia repeating oneself in a published paper it can be self-plagiarism, it is not self-plagiarism to do so in a speech defending one's findings. More particularly, in politics repeating oneself in a speech is known as a "stump speech." There's not a politician alive who doesn't repeat key themes in repeated phrases which have worked on audiences in the past. Not one. Not the most honest, not the most dishonest. Because it's not improper to do so in speechmaking.