Skip to main content

Monica Crowley's Plagiarism

Image result for monica crowley bio

The new administration is already notorious for one high-profile example of this: our new first lady used without attribution a passage from a speech once given by her precursor as FLOTUS.

Now, though, another example has popped up. Plagiarism may yet become a theme of the coverage of the dreary years to come. It is not the gravest of sins, but it may be a valuable symptom of what people do and don't consider important.

The POTUS-elect has named Monica Crowley, of Fox News, as director of strategic communications for the National Security Council. This appointment reminded people that Crowley is the author of a book, one with a cutesy title at that: What the (Bleep) Just Happened (2012).

CNN's KFile looked carefully at that book and found 50 examples of word-for-word copying, many of them quite extensive passages.

Here's one example. From the book, a passage criticizing Nancy Pelosi:

She also said that she was only briefed once—in September 2002—on the advanced interrogation methods.

At the time, Pelosi was the House Minority Whip and top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. She said that CIA briefers told her that "the use of enhanced interrogation techniques were legal" and added that waterboarding "was not being employed."

And from a Fox News article two years before:

Last year, Pelosi said she was only briefed once on the advanced interrogation methods,  in September 2002.
      
At the time, Pelosi was the House Minority Whip and top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. She said in May 2009 that CIA briefers told her that "the use of enhanced interrogation techniques were legal," and added that waterboarding "was not being employed."

Of course, Pelosi's comment could no longer be dated to "last year" when Crowley got around to the copy and paste job.   So she had to change that bit. After that she inverted two clauses and substituted dashes for a comma.  (If it were up to me, I'd go with the original structure and punctuation -- Crowley's originality here seems to have weakened the sentence.) In the following graf, and in the following two grafs I haven't bothered to include here, she didn't bother with face saving changes at all.

Personally intriguing to me is a bit of plagiarism at the expense of Investopedia, a publication to which I make occasional contributions myself.

Crowley took for a lengthy explanation of the "Keynesianism multiplier" an Investopedia comment by Andrew Beattie.

This is how she wrote it:

A critical part of Keynesian theory is the "multiplier effect," first introduced by British economist and Keynes protégé Richard Kahn in the 1930s. It essentially argued  that when the government injected spending into the economy, it created cycles of spending that increased employment and
prosperity regardless of the form of the spending. 
Here’s how the multiplier is supposed to work:
a $100 million government infrastructure project might cost $50 million in labor. The workers then take that $50 million and, minus the average saving rate, spend it on various goods and services. Those businesses then use that
money to hire more people to make more products,
leading to another round of spending. This idea was
central to the New Deal and the growth of the Left’s redistributionist state.


Here is the Investopedia explanation:

The Keynesian multiplier was introduced by Richard Kahn in the 1930s. It showed that any government spending brought about cycles of spending that increased employment and prosperity regardless of the form of the spending.  For example, a $100 million government project, whether to build a dam or dig and refill a giant hole, might pay $50 million in pure labor costs.  The workers then take that $50 million and, minus the average saving rate, spend it at various businesses. These businesses now have more money to hire more people to make more products, leading to another round of spending. This idea was at the core of the New Deal and the growth of the welfare state.

This doesn't leave a lot of room for doubt that she had the latter in front of her when she 'wrote' the former. The changes she introduces here are presumably due to her polemical purposes. Crowley calls Kahn Keynes' "protégé" because Keynes is a better known name, long demonized on the right, so the connection between the two men, implicit already in Investopedia, has to be driven home. She changes the term "welfare state" (not demoniacal enough?) to "the Left's redistributionist state." Otherwise ... she didn't even bother changing the numbers in the example.  

Crowley's book had no footnotes or bibliography, which makes this worse. With the scholarly apparatus, even if the word-to-word match up seems uncomfortably close, she could at least have pointed to a page on which she gave Fox News or Investopedia some credit. Here ... nada.  

UPDATE: Crowley is not taking the job after all. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Cancer Breakthrough

Hopeful news in recent days about an old and dear desideratum: a cure for cancer. Or at least for a cancer, and a nasty one at that.

The news comes about because investors in GlaxoSmithKline are greedy for profits, and has already inspired a bit of deregulation to boot. 

The FDA has paved the road for a speedy review of a new BCMA drug for multiple myeloma, essentially cancer of the bone marrow. This means that the US govt has removed some of the hurdles that would otherwise (by decision of the same govt) face a company trying to proceed with these trials expeditiously. 

This has been done because the Phase I clinical trial results have been very promising. The report I've seen indicates that details of these results will be shared with the world on Dec. 11 at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. 

The European Medicines Agency has also given priority treatment to the drug in question. 

GSK's website identifies the drug at issue as "GSK2857916," althou…

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 majestic wate…

Hume's Cutlery

David Hume is renowned for two pieces of cutlery, the guillotine and the fork.

Hume's guillotine is the sharp cut he makes between "is" statements and "ought" statements, to make the point that the former never ground the latter.

His "fork" is the division between what later came to be called "analytic" and "synthetic" statements, with the ominous observation that any books containing statements that cannot be assigned to one or the other prong should be burnt.

Actually, I should acknowledge that there is some dispute as to how well or poorly the dichotomy Hume outlines really maps onto the analytic/synthetic dichotomy. Some writers maintain that Hume meant something quite different and has been hijacked. Personally, I've never seen the alleged difference however hard they've worked to point it out to me.

The guillotine makes for a more dramatic graphic than a mere fork, hence the bit of clip art above.

I'm curious whe…