Fareed Zakaria and Paul Farhi

Fareed Zakaria has now come under assault for plagiarism. So far as I can tell, Zakaria was merely clumsy in one case, and is innocent in the other case, generally cited.

On August 13, The Washington Post ran a column by Paul Farhi (the fellow pictured above) entitled "More questions raised about Fareed Zakaria's Work." "More" is the operative word there because the one case established prior to that, the instance of apparent clumsiness I've mentioned, appears not to have been enough.

Farhi charged that Zakaria, in his book The Post-American World (2008), quoted Andy Grove about the economic power of the US. Grove said, "America is in danger of folowing Europe down the tubes...." and other stuff along those lines.

Farhi seemed to be saying that Zakaria gave the impression that he had interviewed Grove himself to get that quote, whereas in fact the comment had been published three years earleir in a book by Clyde V. Prestowitz. Zakarua had just lifted it.

Shocking? ... not so much perhaps. Zakaria does attribute it to Grove, and Grove doesn't dispute that he said it. Is this plagiarism? Is it anything disreputable at all? It would seem to depend upon the kind of work involved. In a sacholarly work, of course, you cite any authority who helped you in any respect. In a work for a popular audience, acknowledgement of Prestowitz might be considered optional.

But wait. If you go to that page now, as webbed, you will see the following correction at the top:

In fact, Zakaria did credit the other work, by Clyde V. Prestowitz. Endnotes crediting Prestowitz were contained in hardcover and paperback editions of Zakaria’s book. The Post should have examined copies of the books and should not have published the article. We regret the error and apologize to Fareed Zakaria.

Here.

So, the only one pulling a fast one here, it would seem, is Paul Farhi.

Comments

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge. We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere. At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave. First, Plato is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability. I only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers

Jamesian Philosophy Refreshed

Search This Blog