Although the letter from Michael Usey, pastor of College Park Church to Greensboro mayor Bill Knight was exposed as plagiarism yesterday afternoon, Ed Cone reports that it was published in this morning's (Greensboro, NC) News & Record (no link).
The News & Record has been careless before in publishing plagiarized submissions, but when the plagiarism comes to light in advance, it is incomprehensible how the News & Record can proceed with its publication.
[Update: Ed says the Sunday edition goes to press on Thursday.]
They can always publish a disclaimer, even if it is a couple of days late.
ReplyDeleteIt does go to print Thursday.
ReplyDeleteI usually follow the Greensboro blogs pretty carefully but because of the rush Friday and then the holiday weekend even I wasn't aware of it until it would have been too late to do anything to prevent it.
I've sent an e-mail to a few of the editors now -- but I think under the circumstances "publishes known plagiarism" suggests that someone in a position to prevent it knew it was plagiarism or at least unattributed and I don't think that's the case here.
Thanks for the comment, Joe. You might think it is a distinction without a difference, but I did not write, "Knowingly publishes plagiarism." My intention was to convey "publishes what was known, even if not by the N&R, to be plagiarism."
ReplyDeleteI'll grant you, I loaded that title a bit -- to convey two things: That a piece that did not pass the smell test to this lowly blogger passed undetected through a reporter and a editor at the N&R; and two, to emphasis that if professional newsorgs are to maintain value, one of the most important ways is as adjudicators of accuracy and truthfulness and here, the N&R stumbled -- so asleep in this case, that they not only failed to catch it themselves but remained oblivious (or at least, unresponsive) as it came to light on local blogs.
To me, the title suggests the plagiarism was known to the N&R at the time of publication.
ReplyDeleteYou say, "I loaded that title a bit."
Another way of phrasing that might be, "I published a sensationalistic and inaccurate title."
Whatever concerns one may have about the the title, they are being addresses promptly on this blog. Sensationalistic? A little bit. Inaccurate? I do not think so, but certainly clearly explained herein.
ReplyDeleteYour blog, your standards.
ReplyDeleteTo this reader, in this case, those standards appear to be higher for others than for yourself.
How so, Ed? Can you give me an example? Are you equating the phrasing of my headline with the publishing of plagiarized material?
ReplyDelete