Synthaholic
Diamond Member
- Jul 21, 2010
- 75,938
- 73,557
- 3,605
Juan Williams plagiarism problem
EXCLUSIVE: Fox News pundit blames researcher for word-for-word similarities. "Unacceptable," says editor (UPDATED)
In a case of apparent plagiarism, Fox News pundit Juan Williams lifted sometimes word for word from a Center for American Progress report, without ever attributing the information, for a column he wrote last month for the Hill newspaper.
Almost two weeks after publication, the column was quietly revised online, with many of the sections rewritten or put in quotation marks, and this time citing the CAP report. It also included an editors note that read: This column was revised on March 2, 2013, to include previously-omitted attribution to the Center for American Progress.
But that editors note mentions only the attribution problem, and not the nearly identical wording that was also fixed.
In a phone interview Thursday evening, Williams pinned the blame on a researcher who he described as a young man.
I was writing a column about the immigration debate and had my researcher look around to see what data existed to pump up this argument and he sent back what I thought were his words and summaries of the data, Williams told Salon. I had never seen the CAP report myself, so I didnt know that the young man had in fact not summarized the data but had taken some of the language from the CAP report.
Hugo Gurdon, the editor in chief of the Hill, told Salon on Thursday evening that: CAP drew the similarities between Juans column and their report to my attention and I spoke to Juan about it. He went back and looked at the two and spoke to me having had a look and acknowledged there were unacceptable similarities.
And he gave me an explanation, which I found satisfactory. And I believe there was an honest mistake and it related to the transfer of copy and the use of a researcher and it was completely inadvertent. He was very concerned to set the record straight.
All parties CAP, the Hill and Juan were satisfied that we had not dramatically changed the column after the fact to conceal what had happened.
Williams told Salon that the researcher has submitted a letter of resignation, but that he has not decided whether to accept it. I just feel betrayed, Williams said.
But he also defended the thinking behind the column: Its not the start or ending of the column its not the theory of the column. Its just the data.
There are three key passages where the CAP report and Williams original column are similar.
In the first example, heres the original language from the CAP study:
But that section of the story was dramatically rewritten and republished on March 2, with the editors note. Heres how that paragraph is cast in the version of the column that appears online at The Hill now:
CAP writes:
*snip*
More blatant Rightwing theft at the link.
EXCLUSIVE: Fox News pundit blames researcher for word-for-word similarities. "Unacceptable," says editor (UPDATED)
In a case of apparent plagiarism, Fox News pundit Juan Williams lifted sometimes word for word from a Center for American Progress report, without ever attributing the information, for a column he wrote last month for the Hill newspaper.
Almost two weeks after publication, the column was quietly revised online, with many of the sections rewritten or put in quotation marks, and this time citing the CAP report. It also included an editors note that read: This column was revised on March 2, 2013, to include previously-omitted attribution to the Center for American Progress.
But that editors note mentions only the attribution problem, and not the nearly identical wording that was also fixed.
In a phone interview Thursday evening, Williams pinned the blame on a researcher who he described as a young man.
I was writing a column about the immigration debate and had my researcher look around to see what data existed to pump up this argument and he sent back what I thought were his words and summaries of the data, Williams told Salon. I had never seen the CAP report myself, so I didnt know that the young man had in fact not summarized the data but had taken some of the language from the CAP report.
Hugo Gurdon, the editor in chief of the Hill, told Salon on Thursday evening that: CAP drew the similarities between Juans column and their report to my attention and I spoke to Juan about it. He went back and looked at the two and spoke to me having had a look and acknowledged there were unacceptable similarities.
And he gave me an explanation, which I found satisfactory. And I believe there was an honest mistake and it related to the transfer of copy and the use of a researcher and it was completely inadvertent. He was very concerned to set the record straight.
All parties CAP, the Hill and Juan were satisfied that we had not dramatically changed the column after the fact to conceal what had happened.
Williams told Salon that the researcher has submitted a letter of resignation, but that he has not decided whether to accept it. I just feel betrayed, Williams said.
But he also defended the thinking behind the column: Its not the start or ending of the column its not the theory of the column. Its just the data.
There are three key passages where the CAP report and Williams original column are similar.
In the first example, heres the original language from the CAP study:
According to the National Foundation for American Policy, immigrants will add a net of $611 billion to the Social Security system over the next 75 years. Immigrants are a key driver of keeping the Social Security Trust Fund solvent, and Stuart Anderson of the National Foundation for American Policy finds that cutting off immigration to the country would increase the size of the Social Security deficit by 31 percent over 50 years.
Heres what Williams wrote in the original published version of his February 18 column, as found through a Google cache search:
According to the independent National Foundation for American Policy (NFAP), immigrants will contribute $611 billion to the Social Security system over the next 75 years. Indeed, immigrants are a key force in keeping the Social Security trust fund solvent for older Americans who are at or near retirement. NFAP also found that halting all immigration into the United Size [sic] would explode the size of the Social Security deficit by at least 31 percent over 50 years.
To the first sentence, Williams added the word independent. In the second sentence, he added indeed and turned key driver into key force. He split CAPs second sentence into two, but the language is strikingly similar cutting off becomes halting while increase becomes explode.
But that section of the story was dramatically rewritten and republished on March 2, with the editors note. Heres how that paragraph is cast in the version of the column that appears online at The Hill now:
The CAP report makes the point. It cites a study on the impact of immigration reform by the independent National Foundation for American Policy (NFAP). That study finds immigrants will contribute $611 billion to the Social Security system in the next 75 years. Indeed, the arrival of newcomers is key to funding Social Security for older Americans who are at or near retirement. NFAP found that halting all immigration into the United States would explode the size of the Social Security deficit. They estimate an increase of at least 31 percent in that deficit in the next 50 years without continued immigration.
In this second example, weve italicized the borrowed wording:
CAP writes:
These big gains occur because legalized workers earn higher wages than undocumented workers, and they use those wages to buy things such as houses, cars, phones, and clothing.
Hinojosa-Ojeda found that the tax benefits alone from legalization would be between $4.5 billion and $5.4 billion in the first three years.
Heres how the cached version of Williams column reads:
These big gains occur because legalized workers earn higher wages than undocumented workers, and they use those wages to buy things and stimulate the economy through commerce. Professor Hinojosa-Ojeda also calculated that the tax benefits alone from legalization would be between $4.5 billion and $5.4 billion in the first three years.
The revised version not only attributes that to the CAP reports, but the paragraph is rewritten to put the borrowed language in quotation marks. Again, the editors note mentions only the attribution problem and not the word-for-word echo that now appears in quotes.
*snip*
More blatant Rightwing theft at the link.
