Payback time for Couric

"CBS Evening News" anchor Katie Couric rips New York Times television critic Alessandra Stanley for her error-riddled tribute to Walter Cronkite. As the Huffington Post observes, Couric must have enjoyed herself, as Stanley has been one of her tormenters. (Thanks to WBUR's Steve Brown.)

Stanley's butchery led me to make an error in my Guardian piece this week, as I relied her piece in asserting that Cronkite did not overcome NBC's "Huntley-Brinkley Report" in the ratings until Chet Huntley retired, in 1970. We're supposed to run a correction, but it hasn't been posted yet.

Slideshow for Dowd plagiarism discussion

Maureen Dowd and Plagiarism

View more documents from Dan Kennedy.

Later this afternoon I'll be leading a discussion of the Maureen Dowd plagiarism story in Steve Burgard's graduate ethics class at Northeastern. Here's the slideshow I'll be using.

Our terrorism manufacturing policy

In my latest for the Guardian, I write about the New York Times and the myth of Guantánamo recidivism.

Department of redundancy department

New York Times columnist Bob Herbert pokes fun at Newt Gingrich this morning for calling Judge Sonya Sotomayor a "Latina woman racist," writing that Gingrich is "apparently unaware of his incoherence in the 'Latina-woman' redundancy in this defamatory characterization."

Herbert is technically correct. But as we all know, Sotomayor's most controversial public pronouncement came during a 2001 speech in which she said:

I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.

Watch Herbert tie himself into knots as he attempts to allude to that statement without quoting it directly.

For the record, I don't think Sotomayor is incoherent, redundant or a racist.

Full disclosure

The New York Times today runs an op-ed piece by James Glassman, who argues that the Obama administration's plan for saving General Motors is unfair to the company's bondholders. But shouldn't the Times have noted that Glassman was the principal author of "Dow 36,000"?

The book, published in 1999 just before dot-com stock-market crash, is one of the most unintentionally hilarious artifacts of the '90s boom. Hell, no, I haven't read it, and thank you for asking. The title is more than enough.

Times spokeswoman disagrees on Dowd

Curious that New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd would be out of the paper on Sunday and Wednesday of this week after having her knuckles rapped by public editor Clark Hoyt, I sent an e-mail to Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis asking whether Dowd was on vacation or had been suspended. Mathis' reply, in full:

Maureen is on vacation. Since she didn't do anything wrong, there would be no reason for a suspension.

That, of course, would be contrary to Hoyt's view, who delivered a mild rebuke to Dowd last Sunday after she lifted a paragraph from Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo without attribution. In addressing Dowd's claim that she had taken the e-mailed passage from a friend without realizing it had originally come from Marshall, Hoyt wrote:

I do not think Dowd plagiarized, but I also do not think what she did was right.

Andrew Rosenthal, the editorial page editor, said journalists collaborate and take feeds from each other all the time. That is true with news articles, but readers have a right to expect that even if an opinion columnist like Dowd tosses around ideas with a friend, her column will be her own words. If the words are not hers, she must give credit.

No, Hoyt's views are not those of Times management. Even so, I'm surprised Mathis would say something so definitive in defense of Dowd just days after Hoyt offered a different view. But there you go.

Last thoughts (probably) on Maureen Dowd

New York Times public editor Clark Hoyt today largely absolves columnist Maureen Dowd, writing, "I do not think Dowd plagiarized, but I also do not think what she did was right."

Over the past week, I've thought a lot about plagiarism in the context of teaching journalism students. So it's relevant to point out that, at Northeastern, we define plagiarism as "intentionally representing the words, ideas, or data of another as one's own ... without providing proper citation." Based on what we now know, I sort of agree and sort of disagree that Dowd did not plagiarize. And I definitely agree that what she did wasn't right.

When the news broke that Dowd had copied more than 40 words from Josh Marshall's Talking Points Memo without quotation marks and without attribution, my first thought was that bloggers would pore over everything Dowd had written to see if they could find other examples. Well, it's been a week, and the Marshall incident still stands alone. I don't think it's plausible that Dowd would suddenly start plagiarizing at the age of 57. So not only is this a first-time offense, but it speaks, I think, to a lack of malice aforethought on her part.

Earlier in the week, I and other commentators wrote that we had a hard time believing Dowd could be telling the truth when she said she had somehow managed to insert Marshall's words, almost verbatim, based on a casual conversation she'd had with a friend. She has now clarified that, telling Hoyt she'd exchanged e-mails with a friend — still unnamed — and then copied and pasted his or her thoughts from the e-mail into her column.

That is a pretty lame way to write a column, and as Hoyt says, readers have a right to expect that a columnist, as opposed to a news reporter, will use her own words except when quoting others. Dowd's editor, Andrew Rosenthal, disagrees.

Now, this may surprise readers who've never worked in a newsroom, but Rosenthal's take is pretty much in sync with the way journalists work. As an editor, I have written whole paragraphs into opinion pieces by people with well-known bylines. As a writer, I've had editors do the same with me. But it's one thing to acknowledge that journalism is a collaborative process; it's another to have friends help you write your column, and then turn it in to your editors without telling them.

If intentional theft is at the heart of plagiarism, then Dowd didn't plagiarize Marshall. But she did plagiarize her friend, even if she did it with that friend's acquiescence. And though she may never have lifted someone's published words before last week, it could well be that she frequently cobbles together e-mails from friends in the course of writing — assembling? — her column.

At Media Matters, Eric Boehlert calls on the Times to produce the e-mail. At Scripting News, Dave Winer offers a similar view. My own take at this point is that Dowd not only owes us a fuller explanation, but she also owes her readers an apology. A brief suspension wouldn't be out of order, either. It's not a matter of wrecking her career; it's a matter of basic accountability.

By far the most logical explanation would be that Dowd copied and pasted the Marshall passage herself with the intention of crediting him, and then forgot to do so. We could all understand that. Because she has given us something so much less straightforward, and because we still don't know everything, I wonder if something else is going on.

At the Nytpicker, Amy Alkon asks something I've been wondering myself. Is it possible that an assistant did most of the work, including grabbing the Marshall quote without attribution, and that Dowd is now covering for both the assistant and herself? Normally I don't like engaging in such speculation. But given the lack of transparency on the part of Dowd and her editors, I see no reason why we can't offer some educated guesses.

Unfortunately, Dowd had the day off today. She should be writing her next column for Wednesday's paper. I'll extend to her the same invitation she received from Slate's Jack Shafer last week: She should use her column to tell us what happened, how it happened and what she's learned from the experience.

The standards to which she is held ought to be at least as high as those expected of any college sophomore.

Photo of Maureen Dowd (cc) by Matthew and Peter Slutsky and republished here under a Creative Commons license. Some rights reserved.

Collins and Brooks on Obama

Not only do I like this exchange between New York Times columnists Gail Collins and David Brooks, but I like it more than many of their columns. It's not blogging. It is a conversation — or "The Conversation," as the Times labels it.

It's not that they're finally saying what they really mean — in fact, they've both made essentially the same points in their columns, especially Brooks. It's that their exchange is loose and human in ways that their published work isn't.

I hope "The Conversation" affects their column-writing.

Maureen Dowd odds and ends

As the Maureen Dowd plagiarism story continues to wind down, a few stray pieces:

• Despite Jack Shafer's splendid suggestion that Dowd offer a full accounting of what happened in today's column, she instead weighs in with an insipid imaginary conversation between Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. Gah.
• Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall, whose words were appropriated without credit by Dowd in her Sunday column, says he "never thought it was intentional," and "that's pretty much the end of it."
  
• The New York Post has picked up my Guardian column on the matter. Sure, I'm getting a kick out of it. But I'm also less than thrilled to be drafted by Rupert Murdoch into his ongoing pissing match with the Sulzbergers.

Dowd was just talking with a friend

I don't think New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd committed a hanging offense. But I continue to be troubled by her explanation of how she came to lift a paragraph from Josh Marshall's megablog, Talking Points Memo.

OK, so Dowd was "talking" in a "spontaneous" manner with a friend, as she put it to the Huffington Post. Fine. I had decided to assume for the purpose of moving on that by "talking" she meant "e-mailing." It would be completely believable if she had copied and pasted from a friend's e-mail who had volunteered to help her write her column. Lame, but believable.

And yet here is what she told a blog called the Nytpicker, via e-mail:

no, we were going back and forth discussing the topic of the column and he made this point and i thought it was a good one and wanted to weave it in;
i just didn't realize it was josh marshall's point, and we've now given him credit
my friend didn't want to be quoted; but of course i would have been happy to give credit to another writer, as i often do

I don't see how you can possibly construe this as an e-mail exchange, especially when, as you will see, the Nytpicker had contacted her a second time trying to clarify exactly how Dowd had managed to reproduce Marshall's rather lengthy graf almost word for word. Hey, she was just talking with a friend. Right.

(Via an e-mail to Media Nation citing National Review's Media Blog, which in turn got it from DailyKos.)

Dowd's modified limited hangout

Jack Shafer points out in Slate that New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd deserves credit for not going into hiding, not whining and not claiming that what she did wasn't plagiarism. I'll give her that.

In an e-mail to Media Nation, Shafer also fingered an attribution I'd messed up in my Guardian column, which has now been corrected. I'd misattributed a Dowd e-mail to the wrong source. Thank you, Jack.

Maureen Dowd's real sin

It's not plagiarism, assuming Sunday's column was an isolated incident. Rather, it's phoning in a lazy, solipsistic column that is sometimes entertaining but rarely digs deeper than the conventional wisdom of the day.

Or so I argue in the Guardian.

The blogosphere versus Maureen Dowd

Simon Owens has the latest on the Maureen Dowd plagiarism story, with quotes from Dowd and a no-comment from Josh Marshall.

The New York Times has already updated Dowd's column to credit Marshall, but there's no acknowledgment that there was a problem in the first place.

OK, this is premature, but here is Dowd friend Howell Raines' 1998 takedown of the Boston Globe, which he chastises for failing to fire star columnist Mike Barnicle after he'd been caught plagiarizing one-liners from a book by George Carlin.

I would imagine Times editors are going to have to do something even if Dowd's explanation pans out. I'd also guess that the next 24 hours will be key. Right now, we can assume that dozens (hundreds?) of bloggers are scouring every column she's ever written.

If she can survive that, then she'll get through this. If not, then all bets are off.

Maureen Dowd accused of plagiarism

And it looks like a mighty compelling case. Watch for her to say that she mixed up her notes. (Via Jay Rosen.)

Update: Dowd responds. And I was wrong. She's claiming a friend fed her the line.

Is Geffen a source close to Geffen?

Yesterday the New York Post ran a pretty emphatic item reporting that entertainment mogul David Geffen is not interested in buying the New York Times or a share thereof. The Post's Peter Lauria called the Geffen bubble a "myth," citing "three sources with direct knowledge of the situation."

Today the Times itself comes back with a story claiming that Geffen is "seriously interested" in buying the Times, either in whole or in part. Reporters Richard Pérez-Peña and Michael Cieply one-up the Post, attributing their reporting to "people who are very familiar with his [Geffen's] thinking."

Far from being a throwaway, it's likely that the word "very" was the subject of extensive negotiations between the Times and, uh, one of its sources. Very interesting, I'd say.

Is Geffen serious about buying the NY Times?

Probably not, writes LA Observed business columnist Mark Lacter, who watched the entertainment mogul spin the media before deciding he didn't really want to buy Los Angeles Times after all.

"No one manipulates the press like David Geffen," says Lacter.

More on Geffen and the Times

Newsweek's Johnnie L. Roberts reports that David Geffen would turn the New York Times into a non-profit institution if he should succeed in buying the paper. But someone — Roberts, Geffen, the unnamed Geffen "confidante" who's quoted or perhaps all three — doesn't really understand the model.

The example that's cited is the St. Petersburg Times, which is owned by the non-profit Poynter Institute. But the Times itself is a for-profit organization. If that's what Geffen's really got in mind, then that might be the ideal ownership situation — unlike a true non-profit, the St. Pete Times is free to endorse political candidates, for instance.

But though the hybrid model eliminates the pressure of quarterly reports and shareholder discontent, a paper such as the St. Pete Times (the New Hampshire Union Leader has a similar ownership arrangement) still needs to break even. In the current economic climate, that's a challenge.

FT: Geffen eyes New York Times

The Financial Times reports that entertainment mogul David Geffen has set his sights on buying the New York Times. So — would Geffen keep the Boston Globe or spin it off? (Via David Carr.)

Quality control (or not)

If you click here, you'll see that New York Times columnist Ross Douthat is in the paper today.* But he doesn't show up if you choose the "Today's Paper" feature. Nor will you find him if you read the paper using Times Reader — which, after all, is a paid product.

Even before the new version of Times Reader came out, I noticed that David Pogue's Thursday technology column, "State of the Art," was generally missing.

If the Times is serious about charging people for certain types of enhanced online access, it's going to have to do better.

*Correction: Well, this is really stupid of me. Several readers have written in to point out at Douthat simply wasn't in the print edition today. D'oh! Looks like Media Nation is experiencing some quality-control problems.

Times Reader 2.0 is a big step up

I'm trying out the new Times Reader software. It's based on the Adobe Air platform, so there are no longer separate Windows and Mac versions. I was ambivalent about the previous version, but Times Reader 2.0 is faster and more attractive.

The new version abandons the Times print-edition font — too fussy for the computer screen — with what appears to be Cambria, an excellent choice. Photos are better integrated. Videos are part of the mix. Scrolling is smoother. You can even do the crossword puzzle on your computer — something you were supposed to be able to do on the previous version, though I couldn't get it to work on my Mac.

The questions remain: Where does this fit in the hierarchy of news products the Times offers, and does it point the way for other papers? Times Reader costs $3.45 a week. It's definitely a faster, smoother read than the regular, free Web edition, and, once you've downloaded the paper, you don't need a WiFi connection to read it.

But free is free. In addition, the Times Web edition is a livelier place, with more ads (perhaps that will change as Times Reader gains in acceptance), blogs and other extra content. In addition, if you're a blogger and you want to post something you see in Times Reader, you have to leave, access the Web edition and find the story again in order to grab the URL.

On the other hand, Times Reader really does offer a superior online reading experience. You're more likely actually to read the paper rather than just skip around. And it's a lot cheaper (we get the Sunday print edition delivered, so there's no extra charge for us) — not to mention more environmentally friendly — than the print edition.

Might there come a day when the Times and other papers can dump their print editions and instead offer various paid electronic versions via Times Reader, the Kindle and the like? I don't know. But I do know that Times Reader 2.0 is a huge improvement over its predecessor.