Hey, Geoffrey, Let Me Show You Real Plagiarism; UPDATE: Palin's Attorney Demands Removal of Story; Letter Included

Scroll down for important updates!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


Geoffrey Dunn breathlessly reports at the Huffington Post that Palin committed “pure unadulterated plagiarism”...well, actually, that’s what he said yesterday. Today he scrubbed that statement.

He's up in arms about the speech that Gov. Palin gave in Anchorage last week at the Michael Reagan event. Dunn writes:

While Palin twice mentioned Gingrich in the speech (she never once acknowledged Shirley), virtually every single reference she made to Reagan was looks to be lifted directly from the Gingrich-Shirley article.

The article has been scrubbed. It used to include this sentence at the end of the above paragraph:

It’s a pure case of unadulterated plagiarism.

Apparently someone pointed out to Geoffrey that by citing Gingrich at least five times in her speech, Gov. Palin was attributing the words/ideas to him. She had no intention of pretending that it was hers. She was paraphrasing his words, but essentially using what he wrote. That’s why she cited his article five times.

But Dunn is correct on one point. She forgot to mention that Gingrich co-wrote the article with Craig Shirley. Someone call the Modern Language Association and tell them that Palin failed to properly cite both authors. She deferred to the more famous of the two (who also happens to come first alphabetically).

Palin also failed to provide the date, the publisher, and the page number of the section she quoted. Meg Stapleton, if you are reading this, you need to buy the governor a copy of the MLA Style Guide right away.

I am surprised that the left is suddenly so upset about plagiarism. So many of their fellow travelers have had “issues” with “lifting” other people's work without citing their sources the way that Gov. Palin did at least five times. (*ahem* Doris Kearns Goodwin, Joe McGinniss, Molly Ivins, Charles Ogletree... just to name a few.)

If Dunn is interested in the problem of plagiarism, we can direct his gaze to one very famous “pure case of unadulterated plagiarism”:



Notice that Joe didn’t “cite” anyone. He actually stole the details of Neil Kinnock’s life and passed them off as his own. How creepy is that?

Stealing someone’s words without attribution is bad enough, but to steal Neil Kinnock’s words? Neil Kinnock?! What kind of a moron wants to imitate Neil Kinnock?

(Apparently Josh Painter and I are on the same wave length.)

UPDATE by RAM: David Hulen at the ADN’s Alaska Politics Blog weighs in:

Was it plagiarism? Improper "lifting"? Palin mentions the Gingrich article at the start of her remarks, as Dunn notes, and quotes pretty much directly from it. It gets cloudier later. Subsequently, as Dunn points out, Palin appears to continue to pull from the Gingrich/Shirley article without subsequent attribution, mixing her own comments with those from the article.

She cited Gingrich at least five times, and she mixed his wording with her own comments. In other words, she gave a twenty minute intro speech in which she cited and referenced an article written by others. Why is this controversial? They want to deflect from what she actually said, so they put forward this non-issue.

UPDATE by RAM II: It should also be noted that Gov. Palin often “freelances” off her prepared remarks. She cited Gingrich at least five times. She could very well have referenced him even more in her prepared notes.

In her Evansville speech, she cited Laura Ingraham’s “Power to the People,” and was clear in her attribution there. Palin does not have a problem sourcing other people’s ideas. The very notion that she would steal someone else’s words intentionally is ludicrous. The worst thing they can accuse her of is having “derivative” ideas. Apparently she agrees with Newt.

UPDATE by RAM III: You may also recall that Obama got into some trouble during the primaries for lifting Deval Patrick’s words in a speech. Unlike Gov. Palin, who cited her source at least five times, Obama never credited Patrick. He lifted Patrick’s words without citation:

During a news conference here, Mr. Obama said he and Mr. Patrick “trade ideas all the time.” Asked if he should have given credit to Mr. Patrick, he said, “I’m sure I should have,” but he said he doubted that voters were concerned by the dust-up.

Palin gave credit to Gingrich at least five times. Obama lifted without giving credit. Is this another example of a double standard?



UPDATE IV by RAM: Here is the speech in question from last Wednesday:



UPDATE V by RAM:

The ADN has video of this speech, which was recorded by Dennis Zaki, up on their website. As I noted a few days ago, Zaki recorded the speech without permission and then sold it to CNN for a pile of money.

This is from the event location's website:

May I bring my camera or video camera to the show?

Cameras, video cameras and other recording devices are not allowed inside the performance spaces of the Center. Any photographic, video or recording devices discovered inside the theatres may be confiscated. Exceptions to this policy will be posted at CenterTix.net.

I want an audio recording of the performance. Can I bring my own recording device?

Audio recording is strictly prohibited in the Center. Any recording devices brought into the theatre may be confiscated. Please remember that copyright laws are federal laws and carry strict penalties when broken. Many artists provide their own merchandise including performance recordings for sale in the lobby of the venue.

We would have probably let the whole thing slide if it weren’t for the fact that Zaki uploaded the speech unto YouTube with the title “Sarah Palin Plagiarizes Newt Gingrich in Anchorage Speech June 3, 2009.”

Zaki’s Trig Truther friend Gryphen, who was with him at the event, said this on his blog in response to my post about Zaki selling his bootlegged recording:

...the c4pers can get as pissy as they want, but Dennis had permission from Sarah Palin herself to film that event.

And Sarah knows full well that Dennis sells his tape to whatever news agency will pay the most for it. He is after all a freelance videographer.

Anyone believe that he had permission "from Sarah Palin herself"? I don’t.

UPDATE VI by RAM: The Associated Press has a report on this faux controversy and includes a statement from Gov. Palin’s attorney, Thomas Van Flein:

“It is abundantly clear in context, and even in subcontext, that the overview of President Reagan’s legacy was attributed to Newt Gingrich,” Palin’s lawyer, Thomas Van Flein, said.

“Far from ‘lifting’ or plagiary, this is proper attribution in a political speech,” Van Flein said. “The audience was made aware that Mr. Gingrich wrote about President Reagan’s legacy, and Gov. Palin attributed her paraphrasing to Mr. Gingrich expressly and did so at the beginning and at the end of the paraphrasing.”

Here is the complete letter that Gov. Palin’s attorney, Thomas Van Flein, sent to David Hulen of the ADN in response to Hulen’s post about this alleged “plagiarism”:

I am writing on behalf of Sarah Palin relative to the Anchorage Daily News’ (“ADN”) continued publication and re-publication of the story by Mr. Dunn that appears to be defamatory, malicious and just goes too far. We ask that the story, and the ADN link to this story, immediately cease.

Mr. Dunn has made the serious, and false, accusation that the Governor plagiarized text from Newt Gingrich. (Re-wording this in your story or Mr. Dunn’s story to the softer “lifted” is not a substantive difference, but it does reflect the fact that Mr. Dunn may now recognize that he was wrong in calling it “plagiarism”).

To evaluate this, we start with a definition of what “plagiarism” is and just as importantly, what it is not. Plagiarism is not reciting text originally authored by another. Rather, it is presenting somebody else’s expression of ideas without attribution or acknowledgement. See http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plagiarized (“steal and pass off the ideas or words of another as one’s own: using (another’s production without crediting the source”).

I have a copy of the transcript of the speech given by Governor Palin. It is abundantly clear in context, and even in sub-context, that the overview of President Reagan’s legacy was attributed to Newt Gingrich. Before the text of paraphrased analysis was ever mentioned, the Governor clearly noted the source for her comments: “Recently, Newt Gingrich had written a good article about Reagan.” Thereafter, the Governor expressly referred to “Newt Gingrich” or the pronoun “he” or “he said” (all referring to Newt Gingrich). Thus, the commentary, paraphrase and analysis were acknowledged, attributed and sourced at the outset of the commentary—and at the end of the commentary. For example, the speech stated: “He said, regarding your dad Michael, he said we need to learn from his example that courage and persistence are keys to historic achievement.” Then, after the paraphrased comments, she again noted her source: “What Newt had written in this article....”

Far from “lifting” or plagiary, this is proper attribution in a political speech. The audience was made aware that Mr. Gingrich wrote about President Reagan’s legacy, and Governor Palin attributed her paraphrasing to Mr. Gingrich expressly and did so at the beginning and at the end of the paraphrasing. Labeling this type of commentary plagiarism is defamatory. It is also simply false. We ask that this article be withdrawn from your website and newspaper because of its errors.

Though there is considerable constitutional leeway for comment about public officials, statements made with malice are actionable. Actual malice is akin to deceit and misrepresentation. It is an intentional misrepresentation to assert, as fact, that Governor Palin failed to attribute her paraphrased commentary to Mr. Gingrich. It is also a statement made with reckless disregard for the truth. Either way, it is defamatory.

I am attaching a copy of the introduction. The paraphrased commentary was clearly attributed to Newt Gingrich, and no fair journalist should make the serious assertion that the Governor did not credit Mr. Gingrich with the comments he made about President Reagan. Please withdraw this article/commentary from your publication.

I’m no legal expert, but it sounds like Geoffrey might be in big trouble now. Sounds like the governor is threatening to sue. Don’t mess with a barracuda, boys.

The letter goes on to provide the complete (and accurate) transcript of the speech. Here it is:

INTRODUCTION OF MICHAEL REAGAN

JUNE 3, 2009

I am very, very excited to be here tonight. We have an awesome guest, a guest who is affecting our culture in such a positive way. We need him to keep on being bold and we’re counting on Michael Reagan to help educate America.

I want to welcome tonight our good Lt. Governor Sean Parnell, who I can’t see, but I know he’s here. Sean Parnell. My brother Chuck Heath is here and my husband, Alaska’s First Dude, Todd Palin, is here.

I have the honor to speak with you for a bit before I get to introduce you to Michael Reagan. And what I’m going to do in introducing Michael is to continue to encourage him, to continue to be bold and to call it like he sees it, and to screw the political correctness that some would expect him to have to adhere.

We want him to be bold, we need him to be bold. Mr. Reagan, we need your voice to be loud and strong. We appreciate him. He doesn’t shy away from the tough issues and that is so good. He never lets anyone tell him to “sit down and shut up.” And I would hope, Alaska, that our voice, too, will be heard across this nation. I look forward to hearing from Michael Reagan tonight. Because America must learn from him, from his remarkable father, and that remarkable presidency.

First, I think what we are going to learn tonight via Michael is that Ronald Reagan’s ideas were the right ideas. And all we have to do is look back at his record—his economic record and his national security record—to know that his ideas were right. It was called ‘common sense conservativism.’ It was right then, it’s right now. Recently, Newt Gingrich, has written a good article about Reagan:

He said, regarding your dad Michael, he said: we need to learn from his example that courage and persistence are keys to historic achievement. And with Reagan’s example, DC politicians calling the shots for our country, they had better rely on the good sense of the American people, and bag the reliance on the entrenched bureaucrats; and the elite self-proclaimed intellectuals; and the smug lobbyists who dominate Washington; and the liberal media that is imposing its will on Washington; and embracing that status quo that business as usual it’s not good for our country.

But we have to remember first that Ronald Reagan never won any arguments in Washington. He won the arguments by resonating with the American people. Those of us so proud to be Americans and willing to acknowledge that, no we’re not a perfect nation, but never, never do we have to apologize for being proud of our country.

Ronald Reagan spoke to us then, and with us. Here in our hearts is where he reached us and that’s where he won the arguments. This is the good part: and then we the American people, through him, we imposed our will on Washington, and that is the way it is supposed to be. Our government is supposed to be working for us. We are not to be working for our government. It’s our will that is to be imposed on them. He captured our hearts so he could effect positive change by what he did. He focused on our kids—on our children—on their futures, on the future of America. When he fought socialism and any sort of tyranny that he knew would ruin us, we stood strong on his knowing that the framework through which he believed was positive change—and that framework for our kids was freedom. Today, the things that some in Washington would do to take away our freedom is absolutely astounding and we would do so well to look back at those Reagan years as he championed the cause for freedom and how he then he lived it out as President.

Cheerfully, persistently, and unapologetically, Reagan knew that real change—real change required shaking things up. Maybe taking on the entrenched interests who were thwarting the will of the people with their ignoring of our concerns about future perils caused by selfish, shortsighted advocacy for growing government. And digging more debt; and taking away individual and states’ rights; and hampering opportunities to responsibly develop our resources; and coddling those who seek to harm America and her allies.

This is what Newt had written in this article. He also wrote: Remember how refreshing it was with his outrageous directness that Americans loved, and craved, and deserved when Reagan dealt with—with then the troublesome Soviet Union. Remember this? His vision for the Cold War: We win, they lose. And with détente. Speaking of détente, he used two words: “Evil Empire.” He called it like he saw it. And now, why today, I have to ask, why today do we feel we have to kind of pussyfoot around our troublesome foes, say for example the terrorists, who still seek to kill Americans and destroy our allies. They haven’t changed their tune. Terrorists are still dead-set against us, and set on destroying Israel; against our freedoms, and against our security. I’ve got a kid over there fighting for our country and our country’s freedom right now. It is war over there, so it will not be war over here, and it had better still be our mission that “We win, they lose.”

Now, on the economy, remember Reagan used to remind us that America was built on freedom and free enterprise. Reward for a strong work ethic. Some in Washington have approached our economic woes in ways that absolutely defy Economics 101, and they fly in the face of the principles providing opportunity for industrious Americans to succeed—or to fail—on their own accord. Those principles that we teach our children, and that we employ in our own businesses and our own households to balance our budgets and live within our means and financially secure our futures. It makes you wonder what the heck some in Washington are really trying to accomplish here.

Since when can you get out of a huge national debt by creating trillions of dollars of new debt? It really is so backwards and skewed as to sound like absolute nonsense when some of this new economic policy is explained. How do you put more Americans to work if you disincentivize business with threats of taking them over—or bailing them out—for decisions that they’ve made? And increasing taxes? That’s the only way that the new administration is going to pay for the outrageous government growth that has been laid upon us—new taxes are the only way to pay for all this. All that shoos away jobs into foreign countries and it makes us more reliant on countries that lent us the money that we have to borrow to try to sustain this new government largesse that our kids...and their kids...and their kids, are going to have to pay for. We are a selfish bunch to allow this to happen to America’s future. Someone is going to have to ‘pay the piper.’ And we’re seeing our national trade balance get really so out of whack that we need to employ Reaganism or we’re going to be headed away from being the wealthiest, most industrious, healthiest and most generous nation on the earth to having the highest negative trade balance of any nation; then its erosion of free market opportunities to build and to create and to innovate. And the shift is really not only economically preposterous, but really, if you think about it, it’s immoral.

Does anybody remember ‘life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness?’ Because socialism—any kind of hint towards socialism—takes away freedoms, and opportunity and hope. And then we do forget that life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness is an inherent right that God has provided us. I want to hit on one thing specific that I’m suggesting here and that’s with the stimulus package. Alaskans have heard me talk a lot about this. You got to ask yourself “what is this all about?” The process, even of creating the stimulus package, with Congress expected to vote on it without even knowing what was in it. The conservatives and Republicans in Congress, they looked at this debtridden, gargantuan government growth plan and they voted against it. They didn’t like it. They warned states that there were fat, fat strings attached to these dollars.

And there were strings. There are strings. Because that’s inherent in federal spending. That’s the nature of the beast. Of course there are strings attached. So there were lots of warnings that were given to all the states that “hey unless your state is ready to chuck the 10th Amendment and you’re going to hand over willingly more power/control to big centralized government and to DC politicians who are going to tell you what to do in your state,” the warning was: legislatures be careful with the temptation with the stimulus package dollars. They didn’t like it then. But then a bunch of the local elected officials objected--we agreed with them--then we started seeing the press releases kind of bragging about the bacon that these hundreds of millions and billions of dollars—almost a trillion dollars total were going to bring into our states. Buckets of money—of borrowed money—that would pour into the state. So, the states started being more “Hey you’d better take the money. If you don’t take it, other states are going to spend it for you.” Then, what that did, it empowered those who hold state’s purse strings to resolve to take the money anyway. Even if the public and some governors had grave concerns over growing government—it’s going to grow government. Legislatures did this via resolution to take the money and then federal agency interpretations for rules of engagement—how to accept and then spend that money—those rules kept changing. And a lot of confusion ensued.

And let’s be honest, states were made to really look incompetent—almost unethical—if they were staying consistent and were still saying “no” to accepting some of those federal funds that don’t necessarily stimulate the economy and create private sector jobs—as it’s being fed to us. These are short-term, expectation building, new bureaucratic growth spurts. Legislatures ended up resolving to take the money which was contributing to more dizzying national debt. The mixed messages created the confusion, and now frustration and disenchantment—with—and from our own government. And look what happened when, here in Alaska, in my administration, I vetoed the stimulus package—some of the dollars— with obvious big government strings attached, and shoot, I just about got run out of town by some.

Friends, we need to be aware of the creation of a fearful population, and fearful lawmakers being led to believe, that Big Government is the answer to bail out the private sector because then government gets to get in there and control it, and—mark my words—this is going to happen next I fear—bail out next debt ridden states. Then government gets to get in there and control the people. And watch what happens there. Michael maybe you want to talk about your home state, California. We’ll see what happens there. You know, for the love of God you have to ask yourself, where did we get off track?

Michael Reagan is going to talk about getting on the right track. He knows we know here in Alaska, that America is the greatest nation on earth because our foundation is freedom. It’s in God we trust, it’s not in Big Government that we trust.

So I encourage Michael to keep on speaking up. And for me; you know me … before my Franco Sarto red high heels even get off the stage and touch the floor, my critics are going to be loaded for bear—they’re going to start unloading—because I dared speak up. But you, you here tonight, I know that you understand. Some though, they’re empowered by national figures, and some of the press who want to put—not just me—but anybody who dares speak up right back down in their place, if one dares speak their mind nowadays. Here in Alaska it’s kind of like this ‘new normal,’ a little bit accepted it seems like. But so be it. I think things here that have so drastically changed these past months, some want to forbid others from speaking up. It’s been through lawsuits, through ethics violation charges, and media distortions. By the way, today, we won that 14th ethics charge.

Alaskans can appreciate this one. We won the one where I show up at the Iron Dog, which is freezing cold, and I’m wearing my warm Arctic Cat coat, and a charge is levied against me for wearing the logo on the coat. But we won so that’s cool. There are those who want to tell me, they want to tell you to “sit down and shut up.” We will not do so! I just can’t because I love my state, I love my country. And I need you, we need Michael Reagan to keep on fighting for our freedom for our country. And what we’re being fed today, it seems, is a steady diet of selective, misrepresented news. So we need the Reagans of the world today to remind us of truth.

Let me ask you, why is it, considering how fast the world is spinning, and world changing events that go on all over the globe that affect our lives, world changing events, thousands of them every day, why do you suppose that the same big three, supposedly competing networks, that have virtually the same news content every night, with virtually the same exact viewpoint being spewed night after night after night? We’ve got to ask those questions. So I join you in speaking up and asking the questions, taking action.

Here at home, in my beloved Alaska, I just say, politically speaking, if I die, I die. I’ll know that I have spoken up, and I will speak up. To thank people like Mr. Reagan, as we honor his dad. To encourage you too, Alaskans, to do the same, and don’t just hang in there and go along to get along, but stand up and speak up and be bold and demand that Washington be prudent with our public monies and prioritize for America’s security. And forget the political correctness that makes one guard our conversations and couch our words so cautiously that they lose meaning, and then we lose effectiveness, and then we lose hope because we start thinking that politicians are only worried about their poll numbers and attracting campaign contributions for their next bid so they can hold on to some title for some position. No, let’s remind them, those who we elect, that we expect them to be bold, and so they are to be representing the will of the people to defend our Constitution and to win our wars.

And obviously me not being, heck not many of us here tonight, are in that political, financial, academic, elite center of power. We’re not there. And it’s kind of refreshing to be outside of that, to tell you the truth. I am just a mom. I am a proud, Alaskan hockey mom. And I love my country, and I am concerned about my kids’ future, and your kids’ future. Since I was raised where it is rugged, and you kind of have to be tough, with dogged determination in order to survive sometimes. Well, not many of us in Alaska are inclined to just sit down and shut up, and I thank Michael Reagan for honoring Alaska by being here tonight, continuing to lead a cause for a better America.

Let’s hear it for Michael Reagan.

UPDATE by VO: The New York Times had this to say about Obama's plagiarism of Deval Patrick:

When professional writers borrow words without attribution, they're frequently censured, sometimes fiercely. It's natural, however, that when politicians do something similar -- and particularly when the words are spoken -- they are forgiven.

As Thomas Mallon, author of ''Stolen Words,'' a book about plagiarism, points out, ''Political language is unusually fluid.'' Politicians routinely borrow from one another, especially during campaigns, when they make use of any themes or mantras that seem to work. What Democratic candidate hasn't vowed to ''fight for working families''?

Historically, most politicians who fail to credit sources emerge unscathed.

Will the NYT similarly defend Governor Palin?