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
Post a Comment