• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Right-Wing Pundit Found Plagiarizing?

Status
Not open for further replies.
monica-crowley.jpg


In August of 1999, Monica Crowley wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal commemorating the 25th anniversary of Nixon's resignation. Four days after the article ran, the paper published the following:

"There are striking similarities in phraseology between "The Day Richard Nixon Said Goodbye," an editorial feature Monday by Monica Crowley, and a 1988 article by Paul Johnson in Commentary magazine ... Had we known of the parallels, we would not have published the article."

The similarities are indeed striking:
From Johnson's "In Praise of Richard Nixon," Commentary, October 1988:
"There was none of the personal corruption which had marked the rule of Lyndon Johnson, let alone the gross immoralities and security risks of John F. Kennedy's White House."

From Crowley's "The Day Nixon Said Goodbye," Wall Street Journal, August 9, 1999:
"There was none of the personal corruption that had marked the rule of Lyndon Johnson or the base immoralities and outrageous security risks of the Kennedy and Clinton White Houses."

Johnson:
"Nixon ... consistently underestimated the unscrupulousness of his media enemies and their willingness to sacrifice the national interest in the pursuit of their institutional vendetta."

Crowley:
"Nixon, though always suspicious of his political enemies, consistently underestimated their ruthlessness and willingness to sacrifice the national interest in the pursuit of their institutional vendetta."

Johnson:
"So great was the inequity of Nixon's downfall that future historians may well conclude he would have been justified in allowing events to take their course and in subjecting the nation to the prolonged paralysis of a public impeachment, which at least would have given him the opportunity to defend himself by due process of law. But once again his patriotism took precedence over his self-interest ..."

Crowley:
"Given the inequity of Nixon's downfall, historians may yet determine that he would have been justified in allowing events to take their course and subjecting the country to a prolonged process of impeachment, which would have given him the chance to defend himself by due process of law. His allegiance to the country, however, overrode his political self-interest."

Johnson:
Characterizes the 1960 election as "one of the most corrupt elections of modern times."

Crowley:
Characterizes the 1960 election as "one of the most corrupt elections of modern times."

[This assertion, unlike the others, has some merit, and it's possible the two arrived at the phrase independent of one another; but given the other examples cited here, that likelihood is not great.]

Johnson:
"By a curious paradox Richard Nixon was one of the very few people who emerged from the Watergate affair with credit."

Crowley:
"Ironically, Nixon was one of the few people who emerged from Watergate with credit ..."

[Johnson is British, Crowley American; why would she, on her own, use a Britishism like "with credit"?]


MSGOP is preparing a show with her :rolleyes

http://slate.msn.com/id/1003470
http://dailykos.com/story/2004/12/20/224445/24
 

Dan

No longer boycotting the Wolfenstein franchise
I don't even understand how plagiarism occurs in situations like these. The subjects aren't the same, so it's not like they found something interesting in their research and just used it. These people need to steal sentence structure and diction? For fuck's sake, if you can't do that on your own, find a different career.
 
Dan said:
I don't even understand how plagiarism occurs in situations like these. The subjects aren't the same, so it's not like they found something interesting in their research and just used it. These people need to steal sentence structure and diction? For fuck's sake, if you can't do that on your own, find a different career.
I would think that there would be someone doing the research for her. :shrug:

Maybe there were no Republican talking points available then so she had to copy off this dude instead.
 

calder

Member
Those similarities are pretty striking alright. :lol

I just always wonder why ppl even bother. How often can someone plagarize in a nationally published paper and get away with it? Sure the original was several years earlier, but you have to think that she'd know that *eventually* someone is going to read her article and realize it's pretty damn familiar.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom