It has become something of a custom on this site to offer analysis and opinion on every great plagiarism scandal that breaks. I did it with the Obama, McCain and the recent Biden scandal. So, it is only fitting that we also take a few moments to analyze the the recent allegations (and confessions) of Maureen Dowd, the New York Times columnist accused of plagiarism.

Though a journalist caught plagiarizing a quote is no longer a huge scandal, even one as well-known as Dowd, what makes this case interesting to many is that Dowd, back in 1987, Dowd broke the story of then-Presidential candidate Joe Biden’s alleged plagiarism and vigorously attacked Biden for it.

Now, 20 years later, Biden is the Vice President and it is Dowd who faces very pointed and very public allegations of plagiarism. Though the New York Times appears to be standing by Dowd in the face of the accusations, saying that it was an error and has now been corrected, many have been celebrating the turn of events.

So question becomes whether or not Dowd plagiarized and, if so, how serious are the allegations? I decided to take a look at the passages and see for myself.

What Happened

Yesterday, a blogger on Talking Points Memo (TPM) noticed that a paragraph from Maureen Dowd’s Sunday online column bore a striking resemblance to a paragraph in a post by TPM’s editor Josh Marshall from earlier in the week.

Upon further examination, it become clear that the two paragraphs, both over 40 words, were identical save for one minor alteration. The story first appeared on TPM and quickly caught fire on liberal blogs, especially The Huffington Post.

The exact quotes are as follows, in Dowd’s column, she said the following:

More and more the timeline is raising the question of why, if the torture was to prevent terrorist attacks, it seemed to happen mainly during the period when the Bush crowd was looking for what was essentially political information to justify the invasion of Iraq.

Marshall’s column, from earlier in the week, had this paragraph:

More and more the timeline is raising the question of why, if the torture was to prevent terrorist attacks, it seemed to happen mainly during the period when we were looking for what was essentially political information to justify the invasion of Iraq.

Between the two columns, there was only one change, where Marshall said “We”, Dowd said “the Bush crowd”. It was a near-perfect plagiarism, but not necessarily a very damming one.

Dowd’s Response

Eventually, Dowd was force to respond and she admitted to the plagiarism in an email to the Huffington post saying:

josh is right. I didn’t read his blog last week, and didn’t have any idea he had made that point until you informed me just now. i was talking to a friend of mine Friday about what I was writing who suggested I make this point, expressing it in a cogent — and I assumed spontaneous — way and I wanted to weave the idea into my column. but, clearly, my friend must have read josh marshall without mentioning that to me. we’re fixing it on the web, to give josh credit, and will include a note, as well as a formal correction tomorrow.

The only story was corrected to give attribution to Marshall and a correction was also printed in the next day’s edition of The New York Times directing people to the new column on the Web.

However, the controversy is ongoing. Many are starting the process of looking through Dowd’s other work, including her book, and it seems likely that any instance of copying, no matter how slight, will be attacked.

My Thoughts

There is little doubt that Dowd copied from Marshall. Marshall’s passage is 43 words and all but one of them appear verbatim in Dowd’s passage, which is 45. However, it is not an egregious amount of copying by any definition. If this amount had been properly attributed, it would almost certainly not be viewed as unethical. and, even in plagiarized form, has a strong fair use argument in its favor.

Dowd had no reason to plagiarize this passage, she also had no reason to assume that verbatim plagiarism would not be detected. When I first heard about this incident and looked at the evidence, my first thought was that it was an honest mistake, one where the attribution had been hacked off in the editing.

However, there are two problems with that argument. First, Dowd edited the quote. Though the edit was minor in terms of the percentage, it changed the context of the quote at least some. though journalists do routinely edit quotes, there is a style standard for doing so and one never edits a quote to change its meaning. Dowd’s edits violate both of those rules.

The second problem, however, is Dowd’s response. Rather than admitting she made a mistake, she instead has claimed to have heard the quote while talking to her friend and wove it into her column. This claim, does not seem to hold up to scrutiny. If this is to be true. She remember a 43-word quote from a verbal conversation with approximately a 97% accuracy (43 words in the original quote, 42 reappearing verbatim). That is, quite frankly, almost impossible.

If Dowd had admitted that it was a mistake, said that no plagiarism was intended and worked to correct the mistake. I would not have been suspicious at all. The truth is accidents do happen and it is entirely possible that an intended quote could be accidentally melded in with original content. I know first hand that the process of drafting and editing a news article is brutal and confusing.

However, covering up what easily could have been, and may still be, an honest mistake with an almost certain lie doesn’t help. It is very likely that Dowd did just make a mistake, but now the specter of plagiarism will haunt her and the allegations will carry weight due to her response.

Bottom Line

In the end, the Dowd plagiarism scandal, much like the Obama, Biden and McCain ones from the election cycle, center more around politics than they do actual plagiarism. There is a great deal of schadenfreude on the parts of both conservatives and liberals, both of whom she has attacked over the years and there seems to be a great deal of interest in making a mountain out of this, even if it was just a mistake.

That being said, Dowd did not help herself any with her explanation and I would have encouraged her to be honest about what had happened.

Personally, if had been doing this plagiarism analysis for a client, I would have confirmed, with a very high level of probability, that copying did take place but I would have added that it was unclear if it was intentional plagiarism or an accident. The amount copied and the nature of the copying makes it very likely that the plagiarism could be attributed to accident, not malice.

However, Dowd’s own words cast doubt upon that. Before her reply, I would have at least considered defending her, much as I did with both Obama and McCain, but now I am unsure. Though I still believe that the lack of attribution was likely an accident and the editing a possible oversight, Dowd’s explanation makes very little sense and that, more than the copying itself, has given me reason to be worried.

1: Citing $130K in legal bills, Jammie Thomas lawyer withdraws

First off today, Jammie Thomas-Rasset’s attorney, Brian Toder, has filed a motion asking to withdraw from the case. He is citing over $130,000 in unpaid legal fees and the likelihood of many more as the retrial draws close. Thomas-Rasset has filed a separate motion that does not object to the withdrawal and the RIAA has filed a similar one.

This is not the first time Toder has filed such a motion. The first time was right before the first trial but, at that point, the judge did not allow the withdrawal saying that Thomas-Rasset was making payments to Toder and that communication had not broken down. However, it seems more likely that the judge will grant this request.

This may result in the retrial being delayed but the RIAA has filed an objection to any delay from the June start date. This is fairly unusual as a continuance is fairly customary in cases where an attorney has withdrawn from a case right before a trial was to begin.

2: A9 wins summary judgment motion on contributory infringement claim; entitled to DMCA 512(c) safe harbor

Next up, famous copyright litigant Perfect 10 lost again in the courtroom, this time against Amazon subsidiary A9. This case centered around a DMCA notice filed by Perfect 10 against A9 that did not result in the removal of the content because, rather than filing with A9 itself, Perfect 10 filed with its parent company, Amazon.

The judge ruled in favor of A9 in this case saying that filing the notice with Amazon did not result in A9 having actual knowledge of the infringement and, thus, losing their safe harbor protections. This could have a great deal of impact on those who file DMCA notices as it means they should be more careful about who they file their notices with, especially in cases when you have one company being owned by another.

Perhaps more disturbing for DMCA filers though is that the judge ruled that the lack of registration or an outdated registration with the U.S. Copyright Office is not grounds for losing safe harbor and that it is, in fact, inconsequential. This is something that is actually written into the law so it is a bit puzzling how the judge reached this conclusion, but nonetheless it stands at the moment.

However, in this case the latter point isn’t terribly important since the USCO filing was, despite Perfect 10′s claim, valid and accurate.

3: NYTimes columnist admits using blogger’s words

Finally today, New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd has been accused and has admitted to plagiarizing a paragraph from Talking Points Memo editor Josh Marshall. Dowd, however, claims that she did not read the blog post in question but instead, got the idea from a friend and she included it in her column.

Most people are treating Dowd’s story with a great deal of skepticism.

While this is not terribly uncommon in recent months and years, perhaps a sad testament to modern journalism, what makes Dowd’s case somewhat unique is she is famous in large part for exposing and repeatedly attacking Joe Biden’s alleged plagiarism in 1987 as part of run up to the 1988 election.

Suggestions

That’s it for the three count today, we’ll be back tomorrow with three more copyright links. If you have a link that you want to suggest a link for the column or have any proposals to make it better. Feel free to leave a comment or send me an email. I hope to hear from you.

Want the Full Story?

Tune in every Saturday morning for the live recording of the Copyright 2.0 Show or wait and get the edited version Monday morning right here on Plagiarism Today.