Maureen Dowd to John Yoo: What's a columnist for?

Your question about Dowd is the one we've all got. Thanks for reading and commenting. 

KimBlogHer Contributing Editor ( http://blogher.org/blog/kim-pearson )|Professor Kim ( http://professorkim.blogspot.com/ )|

You're entitled to your opinion, Norma, and I find your reading interesting.  

I honestly looked for other perspectves. The only defense of the Inquirer I found was the tepid quote from the Columbia Journalism Review. 

The Inquirer does have other conservative columnists. I don't think it's all that noteworthy either.

We agree on on thing; Jackson's defense of Yoo s pitiful.  

Cordially, 

Kim

BlogHer Contributing Editor ( http://blogher.org/blog/kim-pearson )|Professor Kim ( http://professorkim.blogspot.com/ )|

When I heard Dowd's friend on the phone explanation, I thought the same thing that Calderone write.
He also said he sent a follow-up email asking whether she regularly quotes her friends without attribution.
If a friend tells me something unique, I credit the friend, not necessarily by name b/c some people don't want to be named, but I will say "a friend told me" etc. It helps keep me intellectually honest to show respect for the intellectual property of others.

So, even if it were a friend's comment in her mind, why would she quote that friend word-for-word but present those words as her own?

On Yoo, yeah. I've lived in cities with some very conservative newspapers and if you had an opposing opinion you had to lobby to get an Op Ed published, but that would be a one-time thing. No one invited you to join the board and put you on a paying contract.

I'm not surprised the publisher is behind this. Sticky fingers.

Kim, this post is thorough. You put in a lot of time, which is precious.

Nordette ( http://blogher.org/blog/nordette ): BlogHer CE and also the National African-American Books Examiner ( http://www.bookotopia.com ) and the NOLA Lit Examiner ( http://nola101.com ). Blogs @ WSATA ( http://bigsole.blogspot.com ) & UMBOP ( http://urbanpsalms.blogspot.com ).

Kim, I hate to say it, but I stand by my comment. (I hate to say it because your work is usually fair and balanced and I intend no pun by that, only a compliment.)

Re-read your first paragraph, your set-up. That already gives the reader a strong clue as to what you think.

You discuss the issues about Yoo within the context of Jackson's column. Because you frame the column in this way, you volunteer no other sources beyond the ones who are "disgusted" at the hire.That's technically OK, but it does no one any service because it presents only one side of a very serious issue, one that is dividing and will divide the country. It presents one point of view and that's not OK, however you frame it. It's especially not OK from someone like you who usually can be counted on to at least present two sides. 

A far better column might have been to suggest that Jackson's paper thin defense of Yoo is pitiful. It is. Jackson seems to suggest that he went ahead with the hire for
contractual reasons and that he's ready to pull the plug at the first
opportunity. What could have been seen as a courageous act is reduced and degraded to the image of a
"yes" man reluctantly swimming against the current. Framing it this way would have allowed you to present both sides.

Also, I don't think hiring a conservative columnist is particularly noteworthy. The NYT relatively recently hired Bill Krystol for the same thing (although whether they're paying him is another question.) Many newspapers do this.

And, it wasn't all that many years ago (or maybe I'm blocking and it was) that benched reporters were sent to the editorial department to finish out their careers.

I think the point here (for me, anyway) is the ethics involved for any journalist who uses another person's work and does not cite it. It's wrong. And it's plagiarism as far as I'm concerned, no matter what the subject.

You can beat around the bush all that you want, but if you use any other person's work (whether on a blog or not) especially word for word, my reaction is: DUH.

And you can quote me on that, with proper reference, please.

LOL!

The end result? Whether we agree or not with the politics of the people involved, they are all getting our attention. Oh yeah, and the economic advantage of those advertising dollars from their web sites.

 First of all, I reported everything I found related to the Inquirer's decision to hire Yoo. I was not debating the legality of what Yoo wrote. I was questioning the Inquirer's decision to hire someone as a columnist whom they describe ( http://www.philly.com/inquirer/columnists/20090517... ) a "former Bush administration official who penned memos legitimizing torture." 

I said the Inquirer's reasoning was thin because their own editorial page editor said that "torture can never be justified." If they believe that, why would they consider someone whom they accuse of justifying torture a credible source of opinion and analysis? As I said in my post, there were other ways that they could have reported Yoo's views.

There are also other ways that the Inquirer can and does reflect conservative views on its editorial pages. 

It was Jackson who pointed out that Yoo has not been indicted or convicted of anything, and it was Jackson who said that the Inquirer's stance might change if Yoo's legal status changed. It was Sullivan who used the "war criminal" language. 

I did not cite Toensing and other defenders of Yoo's writings because they were not speaking to the issue of whether the Inquirer should have hired him as a columnist.  If Yoo had been hired by an editorial board that believed, as Toensing argues, that the criticism directed at Yoo and Bybee was political, that would have made sense to me.

I also questioned why it is that newspapers with conservative editorial boards don't feel similar pressures to add balance.

I don't care about making George Bush or John Yoo look bad or good. I care about whether a great newspaper is operating with integrity. 

I will say that one thing that I should have done is to link to Yoo's column for the Inquirer in which he explains his reasoning in the OLC memos. I am still looking for that. I take that hit for incomplete reporting, and I will post it when I find it.

As for Maureen Dowd, I learned about the controversy as I was putting the Yoo post together. And yes, I want to give them a chance to say how this happened before I comment. I also want to see whether the New York Times investigates other Dowd columns to see whether this has happened before, as they have done in other instances where plagiarism was discovered. I noted the Times' code of ethics, ( http://www.nytco.com/press/ethics.html )which has this to say about plagiarism: ( http://www.nytco.com/press/ethics.html )

Staff members or outside contributors who plagiarize betray our fundamental pact with our public. So does anyone who knowingly or recklessly provides false information or doctored images for publication. We will not tolerate such behavior. 

I want to know what "no tolerance" means in this instance. 

Norma, I appreciate your reading of my work, and I welcome the criticism. It makes me think. I do wish you would stick to hitting me for what I actually say.

 Peace,

KimBlogHer Contributing Editor ( http://blogher.org/blog/kim-pearson )|Professor Kim ( http://professorkim.blogspot.com/ )|

Oh, dear. Kim, I really think this is pernicious stuff.

You frame the entire discussion within the context of the Inquirer hiring an all but convicted war criminal. You cite only those sources which advance this notion and offer no other point of view...which for balance you should have.

You say the Inquirer's reasoning is "thin." You suggest it will change when Yoo is convicted. Nowhere is there any effort to present an alternative point of view such as that presented by Victoria Toensing who asks: 

"What did the Justice Department attorneys at George W. Bush's Office of
Legal Counsel (OLC) -- John Yoo and Jay Bybee -- do to garner such
scorn? They analyzed a 1994 criminal statute prohibiting torture when
the CIA asked for legal guidance on interrogation techniques for a
high-level al Qaeda detainee (Abu Zubaydah)." (Her entire article can be found at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124243020964825531...

Kim, this is "thin" stuff from you...too bad. I also note that nowhere do you suggest Dowd ought to be fired. Instead you're waiting on a reaction from the NYT. Plagerism is plagerism. At least it was in my day.  So, too, was presenting different points of view. So, too, was the courage to suggest that the firestorm against these lawyers is nothing more than politically motivated...yet another attempt to make the Bush administration look bad.

Clearly, this drama hasn't seen its last act yet. Both Dowd and the New York Times will have to say more.

KimBlogHer Contributing Editor ( http://blogher.org/blog/kim-pearson )|Professor Kim ( http://professorkim.blogspot.com/ )|

I must say, I'm not very impressed by Maureen Dowd's admission.  "I recalled a conversation with a friend who read the blog, so I somehow reproduced an entire paragraph word for word - with one small change - "