First thing your taught in your first year of college, in your first writing class, is the first rule of literary integrity:
Do Not Plagiarize; your writing should always be your own.
This escaped former Fox News Contributor Monica Crowley when she appears to have plagiarized other writers work when she wrote her book “ What the (Bleep) Just Happened? A Happy Warriors guide to the Great American Comeback” for publisher Harper Collins.
This was uncovered by CNN once President Trump appointed Crowley to National Security Council. After CNN’s big reveal, Politico.com found Crowley also plagiarized many passages in her 2000 Ph.D. dissertation for Columbia University. In spite of President Trump’s support, Crowley pulled herself out of the running for the position.
Last week, Crowley appeared on Fox News “Hannity” show where the outspoken conservative gave the ex Fox News associate her chance to speak her mind. Crowley let loose, calling the attack on her a ‘Political Hit Job’ and the two basically never mentioned the word plagiarism, much less admit there was something there. In fact Crowley claims on air that the report was Debunked…and the main theme of the show is a one sided piece that fails to look at, or give and explanation for the actions, as if they never happened.
Crowley’s claim that the story was debunked is not a complete lie, however its little more than stretched. It comes from a couple very ‘so-so’ sources; a National Review article based on a single Facebook Post, and a story from FrontPageMag.com based on same story.
The Facebook post by Lynn Chu shows the many definitions of the word Plagiarism and their meanings, in an attempt to invoke the technical version of ‘You say To-may-to, I say To-mah-to’ . She’s right, there are many forms of plagiarism, and one persons view is different from the next. But the work was not arrived at from separate means, it was used AS the source information, and the words were pulled from someone else’s work, verbatim practically.
Chu says she found only 4 errors out of the 61 items presented by CNN, and thus makes the claim that a 350 to 450 page report/book is going to have a few errors. She calls CNNs material “Unwarranted Accusations”, where the match looks computer generated “from shared proper names and generic phrases or news and anecdotes repeated by aggregators and editorialists”. She calls this “fair use” which it is, the way she is describing it.
Lynn Chu’s post claims CNN list was “…misleadingly long, possibly a calculated attempt to condemn her with manufactured, but false, bulk.” One thing Chu, FrontpageMag.com, and National Review leave out from their articles: Actual examples that CNN presented.
One only needs to look at the work to see it is NOT computer generated/shared proper names, or generic phrases. In fact, its copied word for word so bad, you wonder why she didn’t change one or two words that could have been so easy to do.
Then there is another entity that believes there’s something to the claim, Crowley’s publisher Harper Collins, which said they will stop selling the book until “at which time the author has the opportunity to source and revise the material”.
The Front Page story uses examples to shoot down CNN, but if you look again at the excerpts, you’ll see Front Page goes all the way down to the bottom of the list to find the least copied material to use as examples.
Scroll up buddy, you’ll find it up there!
So here is an even less technical way of describing this story:
If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck, guess what?