NYT Withheld Full Harris Plagiarism Report From Expert, Who Admits It’s ‘More Serious’
“The most serious allegation concerns Wikipedia. Harris’ book contained roughly two paragraphs copied from Wikipedia without citation.”
The New York Times immediately pounced on Christopher Rufo’s report about instances of plagiarism in VP Kamala Harris’s book Smart on Crime: A Career Prosecutor’s Plan to Make Us Safer.
The publication showcased its own plagiarism expert, who shrugged off the examples given to him: “This amount of plagiarism amounts to an error and not an intent to defraud.”
The NYT didn’t give Jonathan Bailey of Plagiarism Today the complete dossier.
The expert tried to cover for the NYT because the article stated Bailey’s analysis was only his “initial reaction.”
Bailey received the full “dossier prepared by Dr. Stefan Weber,” known as the “plagiarism hunter.”
Bailey found it more severe than he initially thought, but he doesn’t think it’s the end of the world.
Bailey wrote about the dossier on his website Plagiarism Today:
With this new information, while I believe the case is more serious than I commented to the New York Times, the overarching points remain. While there are problems with this work, the pattern points to sloppy writing habits, not a malicious intent to defraud.
Is it problematic? Yes. But it’s also not the wholesale fraud that many have claimed it to be. It sits somewhere between what the two sides want it to be.
I love how Bailey, along with Weber, dismisses the self-plagiarism:
Furthermore, the report also treats these as less serious, calling them “maybe benign” examples of plagiarism. That makes sense as politicians, in general, have little, if any, expectation of originality.
That made me laugh.
Bailey found the Wikipedia accusations the most serious:
The most serious allegation concerns Wikipedia. Harris’ book contained roughly two paragraphs copied from Wikipedia without citation. To be clear, that is plagiarism. It’s compounded by the fact that Wikipedia is typically not seen as a reliable source, and, according to Weber, there was an error in the information.
The section quotes and cites a passage from the U.S. Bureau of Justice Assistance but does not indicate that Wikipedia was used.
Most of the remaining passages are in situations where text was used verbatim but not quoted. The sources were largely cited and, in some cases, were quoted, though not all verbatim text was included.
We’ve seen this problem repeatedly, especially with works from this period. Poor writing techniques and the lack of accessible plagiarism detection tools made this a common problem, especially before the 2010s. While that doesn’t make it acceptable, it makes it more about sloppy writing habits than an intent to defraud.
Bailey noted that other people have received forgiveness “for much greater plagiarism sins,” and others, like in this book, “have been dismissed outright in academia.”
Overall, it’s sloppy.
It ticks me off because, as I said before, we had strict standards when I went to school and taught. None of this would be forgiven at those levels. Man, I remember teachers making sure we knew how to avoid plagiarism.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
They got their headlines, which were spread far and wide.
The retractions will never be mentioned within the left-wing bubble.
And… her plagiarism isn’t likely to make anyone’s top ten list of what to consider in choosing which candidate to vote for.
Let’s be honest with ourselves here:
Harris did not contribute a single keystroke to this book.
A few moments of listening to her speak is sufficient to conclude that in spite of her law degree she is functionally illiterate. She couldn’t write a 500 word column for the worst law review in the country.
That said, her name is on the cover. Basic due diligence would dictate that someone on staff be charged with vetting the book thoroughly, including for plagiarism.
That she did not is damning.
She’s not very bright at all.
>>Basic due diligence would dictate that someone on staff be charged with vetting the book thoroughly, including for plagiarism.<<
LoL. Harris' Ghostwriter was told to write a book, They did and handed it over to Harris. And that was the extent of the matter. Nobody on staff was probably knowledgable enough to be able to perform "due diligence" let alone recognize plagiarism in the text.
What I'd like to know is what the heck the editors at the publishing house, Chronicle Books, were doing when they received the book to publish. Being in the publishing industry one would have thought they would have recognized the problems with the book. But apparently not.
Publisher sounds alarm after Kamala Harris plagiarism allegations
Yeah it would actually be worse if it was earlier in her life when she didn’t have access to people willing to give her all the credit and have her do nothing.
To the author of this post, based on what your experience is (which is pretty much common to all of us normal people), dont you see the idea of ghost writers hypocritical no matter who it is?
The only real exception I would suggest is an autobiography since the ideas must still come from the reported author.
The person responsible is not on Harris’ staff, but the publisher’s. He’s called an “editor.” Ultimately, it’s the editor who is responsible for what gets published.
I disagree. The lack of public speaking skill does not mean the person can not write at a high level. However, if this is the case then it’s even worse than thought. I do agree that even with her name on the book she most likely contributed little but she should know better to put her name on something without proper review. As a lawyer would she put her name on a contract she didn’t read?
Let me give the real headline:
“NYT so-called ‘expert’, when confronted with so much evidence they couldn’t lie about it to protect the Democrat anymore, now tries to play dumb”
Kamala has an Affirmative degree and should have written about how to use sex o get ahead.
We seem to be moving through the meme:
1. X didn’t happen
2. X might have happened
3. X happened but it’s a good thing
4. X happened but so what, it’s no biggie
Five. That’s old news, why are you still talking about that?
6. X? So what? Orange Man bad.
All of us skipped the step of ‘you are an ‘ist full of isms and phobes’ for noticing…
“We’ve seen this problem repeatedly, especially with works from this period. Poor writing techniques and the lack of accessible plagiarism detection tools made this a common problem, especially before the 2010s. While that doesn’t make it acceptable, it makes it more about sloppy writing habits than an intent to defraud.”
That’s like saying that when we were kids, police didn’t have access to DNA detection techniques to catch rapists, so rapists from back then can sort of be excused.
It Bears a bit of resemblance to a certain laptop. I’m almost surprised they didn’t have 51 discredited idiots come out and claim there was nothing to see here.
The plagiarism in her book has all the earmarks of a Russian ghost writer disinformation conspiracy. The ghost writer is probably a Russian spy.
From CNN: “Kamala Harris to be first vice president with wax figure at Madame Tussaud’s.”
https://www.cnn.com/style/article/kamala-harris-madame-tussauds-scli-intl/index.html
However there is an unsubstantiated rumor that the wax figure will moved to the “Chamber of Horrors,” which reopened in 2022 after being closed in 2016.
I’m not sure which iwould be more frightening with her finger on the nuclear button, a woman who deliberately plagiarized or one with “sloppy habits”.
I finished my masters ten years ago, an online program where you submitted at least one paper a class. As I recall I was in my fifth class, preparing my paper, and it had a lot of overlap with the paper from my third class. I used two paragraphs from the third in my fifth. The sources in these two paragraphs were cited. I submitted my paper and I was almost put on probation for an honors violation.
My professor explained although it was my work, cited properly, copying it was plagiarism. Yes, I plagiarized my own work. He sent the paper back, I rewrote the two paragraphs, submitted it again, and I never did that again.
And this woman gets a pass for copying and pasting Wikipedia? Not exactly a peer reviewed source.
How in f99ks name is citing your own work, while clearly citing said work, plagiarism????
ask john fogerty
I am sure that in her public life, as all through her education, Kamala had someone else write her assignments.
Usually though, you ask the SMART kid to do your English essays; not some cretin who lifts text from Wikipedia, for heaven’s sake.
Plagiarize!
Let no one else’s work evade your eyes!
Remember why the good Lord made your eyes,
so don’t shade your eyes,
but plagiarize! Plagiarize! Plagiarize!
(Only remember always to call it, please, “research.”)
— Tom Lehrer