Posted on 07/08/2006 8:19:34 AM PDT by Grendel9
The syndicator of Ann Coulter's newspaper column is looking into allegations that the right-wing pundit has lifted material from other sources.
"We are reviewing the material and expect to have a response some time next week," Kathie Kerr, a spokeswoman for Universal Press Syndicate, told The Associated Press on Friday.
The New York Post and the Web sites Raw Story and the Rude Pundit have raised numerous questions about Coulter's columns, which appear in more than 100 newspapers, and her best-selling "Godless," already notorious for the author's calling four 9/11 widows, who supported Democrat John Kerry for president in 2004, "harpies" thriving on their husbands' demise.
Kerr said that the press syndicate had not discussed the allegations with Coulter, who was not immediately available for comment Friday. The publisher of "Godless," the Crown Publishing Group, issued a statement saying it had reviewed the "the allegations of plagiarism" in her book and "found them to be as trivial and meritless as they are irresponsible."
"As an experienced author and attorney, Ms. Coulter knows when attribution is appropriate, as underscored by the 19 pages and hundreds of endnotes contained in 'Godless,"' Crown's senior vice president and publisher, Steve Ross, said in the statement.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
There is a lot more to this story under the surface.
I looked at the NY Post article, and at the Talking Points Memo site that has all the comparisons. I wouldn't call it plagiarism, but I don't think she'd win a libel suit, either. Some looks like what a journalism teacher called "lifting" quotes - using quotes from someone else's article as if you got those quotes yourself. It's considered sleazy in journalism circles.
Barrie, of iParadigms (that developed the plagiarism software), said the ones he pointed out were not footnoted.
Kos labels Coulter lazy and unimaginative...
lazy, maybe; unimaginative? hardly!
You don't cite an uncopyrighted joke when you don't even know if your source is the original source. Come on. It's not plagiarism to repeat a joke. Nice try. If these are the new rules, we should take a second look at liberal material. Oh...for that matter, how about the way newspapers repeat the Democrat talking points over and over without citing their source. Plagiarism!
Wow, considered *sleazy* in journalism?
In the CURRENT MSM?
Is that possible?
Nah...she didn't hire someone to take her exam....
Coulter is a successful, bright gal.
She'll respond IF and WHEN her lawyers
advise.
I noticed that, too. Coulter was
hardly writing a Thesis or term paper!
She commented on H&C on Thursday and said it was a joke and she will be vindicated.
I seem to remember a thread on this subject a week or so ago here on the forum. If I recall, the material in question was from a Portland paper? And if I recall correctly, it was written by a guest writer, Ann Coulter? Sorta difficult to plagerize yourself, eh?
I hate to say it, but there may be something to this. I have read her books, and noticed that there are a number of instances in which she used the word "the." I know for a fact "the" has appeared in other publications that were produced long before any of her books ever reached the bookstores. Is it merely coincidence that "the" suddenly shows up in her writings not once, but numerous times?
Whether or not the original source material was copyrighted is irrelevant to charges of plagiarism. "Plagiarism" is the act of passing off another's words or original ideas as though they were your own - to do so is plagiarism, by definition, regardless of the copyright status of the other person's words or ideas.
She loves it. I think her objective from the beginning was to ferret these liberals into the open to debate her. Hillary backed down quickly didn't she?
I still have yet to hear or read ANY liberal fight her on her assertions about liberals. That's the REAL story here....
So the lefties are going after Ann - so what?
It only means that she is effective in exposing their idiocy and hypocrisy. Being attacked by this crowd is a badge of honor... and we should expect no less...
If you read the entire article (rather than just the excerpt here) they do show some of the source material that is repeated almost verbatim in her book.
To me though if you're only talking about two or three little paragraphs out of an entire book then that isn't plagerism, it's just oversight and would be corrected in subsequent editions. I mean this article states that she had 19 pages of endnotes. So what if she inadvertantly missed a couple? I imagine it happens quite frequently in books of this nature and if every such book were put under this sort of scrutiny you'd find similar mistakes.
At least she wasn't caught "sneaking" Viagra through customs, LOL.
Any prominent conservative is under scrutiny and assault today. Like Rush says, they can't challenge us in the arena of ideas, so they trump up these nonsensical trivial matters to blow a smoke screen. All too often, all some read are headlines and form an opinion.
The lefty's are counting on that again.
Ann's reply:
"Ka-ching
Ka-ching
Ka-ching
Ka-ching
Ka-ching
Ka-ching
Ka-ching
Ka-ching
Ka-ching
Ka-ching
Ka-ching
Ka-ching
Ka-ching
"You want that one autographed? Ka-ching"
Gimme a break, if this is the worst they can dig up on her they got nuttin'; it's a bust.
In "punditry", most rhetorical "turns of a phrase" are as common as E A B or A C D chord progressions (among numerous others) in blues-rock music. They have been and will continue to be used all the time, and to investigate whether somebody "stole" them is an exercise for simpletons. The Estate of Robert Johnson should be worth trillions by now.
It is such a shame... She has the potential to look REALLY good, instead she looks like Skeletor.
Get that woman a sammich!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.