Mark Whicker, what were you thinking?

Well, if you're going to put it that way ...

But that sentence's impact comes from the scarlet-letter branding that "plagiarist" already carries in our field. If you wrote, "... would be better served by a writer who put his byline on someone else's story ..." I think those readers would, in fact, be better served. Than by being subjected to that breezy sports column on a kidnapped-raped-impregnated-and-traumatized girl.

The potency of plagiarism, as this profession has come to know it as an unpardonable sin, is what makes your argument of the potency of plagiarism. Fallacious.

I brook no plagiarism at any newspaper I would want to work (I don't brake for plagiarists, either). I'm only ridiculing the holier-than-thou, death-penalty response that so many in newsrooms have toward it, while whistling and looking the other way on assorted gaffes, conflicts of interest, money drains, lazy behavior and such in those very same newsrooms. It is out of proportion, eating our own over plagiarizing while circling the wagons for a lot of people who otherwise cheat or harm the business.

 

Let it go big guy. It's over and done with and Whicker knows he screwed up. Time to move on.

 

because he knows and talks to everybody.

 

By the tone of his apology.

 

Even without considering the ethical implications, plagiarism is unpardonable for purely practical reasons. Once a writer has presented someone else's work as his own, it calls everything else he writes into question. If he's dishonest enough to plagiarize, would he also try to get away with making up a quote in a pinch? Embellishing a scene? Unless you're going to try to independently verify every description, every quote, every anonymous source -- which is impractical -- eventually you are going to be presented with a situation in which you will have to trust his word on something. What happens the next time someone claims he misquoted them and all he has are his notes? Are you going to feel totally comfortable standing by his story? And what if the person who says he was misquoted finds out that your paper knew the guy was a plagiarist and you continued to employ him? Keeping a plagiarist on staff opens the paper up to the risk of huge embarrassment or worse.

Also, are you going to do a Google search every time he files a story, or are you just going to hope you don't get a call from some reader saying he saw the same passage in the LA Times last month? There may be offenses that should be taken just as seriously as plagiarism, but the zero tolerance attitude toward it is certainly justified.

 

Given that Whicker is obviously just another guy who's gonna "get away with it," let's be honest. The only major offense in journalism these days is having too big a paycheck. Then your in trouble. Otherwise, do pretty much whatever you want.

I wouldn't even be shocked if someone in the business employs Jayson Blair again someday.

 

Really? Somebody is hiring?

 

Blair is making way too much money to come back to journalism.

 

.[/i]


[/quote]
I don't know what you are trying to say Moddy. Let's just say I think the guy realizes he made a mistake and leave it at that. I hope that is OK with you
At any rate, I feel that it's time to move on.

 

I think the consensus is that he doesn't seem to realize that he made a mistake, Drip.

 

Every indication has been that it had to be pointed out to Whicker that he did something wrong. I got a vibe of "I'm sorry you didn't get it." from his "apologies"

That bothers me as much as the column itself.