Times Answers WSJ's Complaint About Apparent Plagiarism

The New York Times issued a correction yesterday acknowledging apparent plagiarism by reporter Zachery Kouwe of an article written by Wall Street Journal reporter Amir Efrati.

The Times also mentions that there are other possible incidents of plagiarism by Kouwe.

The issue came to light after Robert Thomson, editor of The Wall Street Journal, wrote Times executive editor Bill Keller that "a significant proportion of an article by Wall Street Journal reporter was used verbatim, or near verbatim, in a story by the Times' Zachery Kouwe, both online and in print." His letter was published in The Times on Friday.

Once sentence that was apparently lifted (Example 6 below) carries the same typo in the word "accounts."

Here is the correction, and below is Thomson's letter:

In a number of business articles in The Times over the past year, and in posts on the DealBook blog on NYTimes.com, a Times reporter appears to have improperly appropriated wording and passages published by other news organizations.

The reporter, Zachery Kouwe, reused language from The Wall Street Journal, Reuters and other sources without attribution or acknowledgment.

The Times was alerted to the problem by editors at The Wall Street Journal. They pointed out extensive similarities between a Journal article, first published on The Journal’s Web site around 12:30 p.m. on Feb. 5, and a DealBook post published two hours later, as well as a related article published in The Times on Feb. 6.

Those articles described an agreement on an asset freeze for members of Bernard L. Madoff’s family, in a lawsuit filed by a court-appointed trustee. In the Times article and the DealBook post, several passages are repeated almost exactly from the Journal article.

A subsequent search by The Times found other cases of extensive overlap between passages in Mr. Kouwe’s articles and other news organizations’. (The search did not turn up any indications that the articles were inaccurate.)

Copying language directly from other news organizations without providing attribution — even if the facts are independently verified — is a serious violation of Times policy and basic journalistic standards. It should not have occurred. The matter remains under investigation by The Times, which will take appropriate action consistent with our standards to protect the integrity of our journalism.

Here is Thomson's letter:

Dear Mr. Keller,

I'm writing to alert you to a case of apparent plagiarism in the New York Times. As you'll see from the text below, a significant proportion of an article by Wall Street Journal reporter Amir Efrati was used verbatim, or near verbatim, in a story by the Times' Zachery Kouwe, both online and in print. There was no general news release about this particular story and the Journal's coverage was informed by original reporting and a meticulous review of legal files related to the case of Mr. Bernard Madoff.

Mr. Efrati's Wall Street Journal story, titled, "Madoff Sons, Brother, Niece Being Sued by Trustees for Victims" was published on Dow Jones Newswires at 12:25 p.m. on Friday, Feb. 5, and was published on WSJ.com shortly thereafter. At 2:31 p.m., Mr. Kouwe published a related, in fact, a remarkably related story. The examples below show the striking similarities.

Example 1:

Mr. Efrati wrote:

Mr. Picard said the family received about $141 million in the six months leading up to Mr. Madoff's December 2008 arrest.

Mr. Kouwe wrote:

Mr. Picard said the family received about $141 million in the six months leading up to Mr. Madoff's arrest in December 2008.

Example 2:

Mr. Efrati wrote:

The family members agreed not to transfer or sell property or assets valued at more than $1,000 or incur debts and obligations greater than $1,000 without approval of the trustee.

Mr. Kouwe wrote:

Under the agreement, the family members cannot transfer or sell property or assets valued at more than $1,000 or incur debts and obligations greater than $1,000 without approval of Mr. Picard.

Example 3:

Mr. Efrati wrote:

They are allowed to use credit cards for necessary living expenses.
The defendants also will provide the trustees with an accounting of their expenditures, the orders say.

Mr. Kouwe wrote:

They are allowed to use credit cards for necessary living expenses.
The defendants also will provide the trustee with an accounting of their expenditures.

Example 4:

Mr. Efrati wrote:

Last year Mr. Madoff's wife, Ruth, also agreed to an asset freeze as part of a separate trustee's $45 million lawsuit against her.

Mr. Kouwe wrote:

Last year, Mr. Madoff's wife, Ruth, also agreed to an asset freeze as part of a separate trustee's $45 million lawsuit against her.

Example 5:

Mr. Efrati wrote:

According to the trustee's lawsuit, son Andrew Madoff invested just under $1 million into his Madoff investment accounts yet withdrew $17 million through "brazenly fabricated transactions."

Mr. Kouwe wrote:

According to the trustee's lawsuit, Andrew Madoff placed just under $1 million into his Madoff investment accounts yet withdrew $17 million through "brazenly fabricated transactions" over the years.

Example 6:

Mr. Efrati wrote:

Peter Madoff invested $32,146 into his ccounts but redeemed more than
$16 million in similar fashion, the trustee said.

Mr. Kouwe wrote:

Peter Madoff invested $32,146 into his ccounts but redeemed more than
$16 million, the trustee claims.

The extensive use of such similar phrases, without any attribution, is extraordinary. This is not a case of involving a columnist with apparently perfect recall or a case of cryptomnesia, but one of fundamental journalistic integrity.

Clearly, we expect that The New York Times will run a correction and publically acknowledge the source of the published material-- that source being The Wall Street Journal.

Yours,

Robert Thomson

CC: Clark Hoyt, Public Editor
Larry Ingrassia, Business Editor
Philip Corbett, Deputy News Editor

Wall Street Journal's Frank Says Obama Was Right About Fox

Thomas Frank writes today in The Wall Street Journal that President Barack Obama was right about Fox, but his administration should have taken a different approach in attacking the network.

To point out that this network is different, that it is intensely politicized, that it inhabits an alternate reality defined by an imaginary conflict between noble heartland patriots and devious liberals—to be aware of these things is not the act of a scheming dictatorial personality. It is the obvious conclusion drawn by anybody with eyes and ears.

Still, one wishes that the Obama administration had taken on Fox News with a little more skill. As cultural criticism goes, this was clumsy, plodding stuff. What the situation required was sarcasm, irony, a little humor. Simply feeding Fox a slice of raw denunciation was like dumping gasoline into a fire. It did nothing but furnish the network with a real-world validation of its long-running conspiracy theories—and a nice bump in its ratings.

Democrats Consider Eliminating 401 (k) Tax Breaks

Want a glimpse into what an Obama administration and Democratic-controlled Congress will look at in the area of tax policy? House Democrats are already considering an overhaul of the nation's $3 trillion 401(k) system, including the elimination of most of the $80 billion in annual tax breaks that 401(k) investors receive.

Republicans are throwing around the "socialist" tag all over the campaign trail when referring to Sen. Barack Obama. But if the Democrats are even considering such a radical plan as to seize private pension accounts, it's hard not to look at Democrats in any other way.

James Pethokoukis of U.S. News & World Report wrote on a congressional hearing in the 401(k) matter:

House Democrats recently invited Teresa Ghilarducci, a professor at the New School of Social Research, to testify before a subcommittee on her idea to eliminate the preferential tax treatment of the popular retirement plans. In place of 401(k) plans, she would have workers transfer their dough into government-created "guaranteed retirement accounts" for every worker. The government would deposit $600 (inflation indexed) every year into the GRAs. Each worker would also have to save 5 percent of pay into the accounts, to which the government would pay a measly 3 percent return. Rep. Jim McDermott, a Democrat from Washington and chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee's Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, said that since "the savings rate isn't going up for the investment of $80 billion [in 401(k) tax breaks], we have to start to think about whether or not we want to continue to invest that $80 billion for a policy that's not generating what we now say it should."

The director of the Congressional Budget Office, Peter Orszag, also testified at the hearing and said that about $2 trillion in retirement savings has been lost over the past 15 months.

Workforce.com explains the rational in the move:

“I want to stop the federal subsidy of 401(k)s,” Ghilarducci said in an interview. “401(k)s can continue to exist, but they won’t have the benefit of the subsidy of the tax break.”

Under the current 401(k) system, investors are charged relatively high retail fees, Ghilarducci said.

“I want to spend our nation’s dollar for retirement security better. Everybody would now be covered” if the plan were adopted, Ghilarducci said.

She has been in contact with Miller and McDermott about her plan, and they are interested in pursuing it, she said.

“This [plan] certainly is intriguing,” said Mike DeCesare, press secretary for McDermott.

Blogger Ed Morrissey of Hot Air notes "that means your employer can no longer write off their contributions to your 401(k), and your capital gains would be taxable year to year. In other words, it becomes just another investment or savings account, with no tax benefit at all, and no employer contribution. Instead, Uncle Sam would give you your “matching” funds — up to a whopping $600 per year! Whoopee!"

This huge disruption of Americans' retirement plans may be only one element of an Obama Administration's tax hike on workers. The Wall Street Journal notes that "the prospect of these tax increases is now hanging over the economy like a pall, as investors and businesses wonder where and how heavily an Obama Administration and Congress would strike."

Here's what the Journal reported Rep. Barney Frank as commenting recently on tax increases:

"I think at this point there needs to be a focus on an immediate increase in spending and I think this is a time when deficit fear has to take a second seat. ... I believe later on there should be tax increases. Speaking personally, I think there are a lot of very rich people out there whom we can tax at a point down the road and recover some of the money."

The Journal then concludes:

Federal budget deficits are not something we obsess about, but eventually this new spending has to be paid for, and Barney Frank's comments only underscore that big tax increases are coming. The prospect of these tax increases is now hanging over the economy like a pall, as investors and businesses wonder where and how heavily an Obama Administration and Congress would strike. The pall is likely to continue well into 2009, as millions of Americans delay their investment decisions until they know how much their after-tax returns are likely to fall.

Keep an Eye on Credit Markets, Not So Much the Dow

Most people are focused on what the Dow is doing in the midst of the current financial crisis. But the hgeart of the problem is really in the credit markets.

According to financial-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com,
the bond market primarily includes government-issued securities and corporate debt securities, and facilitates the transfer of capital from savers to the issuers or organizations requiring capital for government projects, business expansions and ongoing operations. Most trading in the bond market occurs over-the-counter, through organized electronic trading networks, and is composed of the primary market (through which debt securities are issued and sold by borrowers to lenders) and the secondary market (through which investors buy and sell previously issued debt securities amongst themselves). Although the stock market often commands more media attention, the bond market is actually many times bigger and is vital to the ongoing operation of the public and private sector.

Justin Lahart of The Wall Street Journal had these comments this morning:

Now, the stock market often seems out of sync with the credit crisis embroiling the financial system. Thursday was a case in point. The Dow Jones Industrial Average shot higher when the stock market opened on hopes that the bailout plan getting hashed out in Congress would offer a salve to the financial system. But the short-term credit markets that lie at the center of the crisis were telling a different story. Libor, a widely followed benchmark interest rate for many dollar loans between banks that is set each morning in London, jumped by its most since 1999, rising to 3.77% from 3.48. A similar measure set in the morning in New York, NYFR, also registered a sharp gain.

Jumps in Libor and NYFR are a sign that banks are becoming increasingly wary of doing business with one another. Thursday's move could have been a sign that credit-market participants didn't think Washington was moving ahead fast enough with its bailout plan, thought it is moving in the wrong direction, or that a major player is in deep trouble, said Michael Darda, chief economist at MKM Partners.

"It's very disconcerting," he said. "There have been several occasions when the credit market and the equity market diverged over the past year and in virtually every case it was the stock market that was wrong."

Limbaugh Fires Back at Obama for Quotes in Ad

There has been a back-and-forth between the Obama campaign and Rush Limbaugh that was started when Sen. Barack Obama released an advertisement that used some of Limbaugh's quotes concerning NAFTA and immigration.

Here is the commercial, which is in Spanish:

Here is the English translation from The Associated Press:

English translation of "Dos Caras," or "Two Faces": Obama: "I'm Barack Obama and I approved this message." Announcer: "They want us to forget the insults we've put up with, the intolerance. They made us feel marginalized in a country we love so much. John McCain and his Republican friends have two faces. One tells lies just to get our vote, and the other, even worse, continues the failed policies of George Bush, putting the interests of powerful groups above working families. John McCain, more of the same Republican deceptions."

The "Two Faces" ad aired by the Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee shows photos of immigrants as a picture of Limbaugh appears at the bottom of the screen. Limbaugh is quoted in text as saying, "Mexicans stupid and unqualified" and "Shut your mouth or get out!" As the announcer speaks of Republicans with two faces, a Spanish newspaper headline appears: "They caused the failure of immigration reform." Photos of McCain with President Bush appear.

Here is Limbaugh in April 2006, where the quote on immigration was taken:

And here is Limbaugh's response today in The Wall Street Journal:

And more to the point, these sound bites are a deception, and Mr. Obama knows it. The first sound bite was extracted from a 1993 humorous monologue poking fun at the arguments against the North American Free Trade Agreement. Here's the context:

"If you are unskilled and uneducated, your job is going south. Skilled workers, educated people are going to do fine 'cause those are the kinds of jobs Nafta is going to create. If we are going to start rewarding no skills and stupid people, I'm serious, let the unskilled jobs that take absolutely no knowledge whatsoever to do -- let stupid and unskilled Mexicans do that work."

My point, which is obvious, was that the people who were criticizing Nafta were demeaning workers, particularly low-skilled workers. I was criticizing the mind-set of the protectionists who opposed the treaty. There was no racial connotation to it and no one thought there was at the time. I was demeaning the arguments of the opponents.

As for the second sound bite, I was mocking the Mexican government's double standard -- i.e., urging open borders in this country while imposing draconian immigration requirements within its own borders. Thus, I took the restrictions Mexico imposes on immigrants and appropriated them as my own suggestions for a new immigration law.

Here's the context for that sound bite: "And another thing: You don't have the right to protest. You're allowed no demonstrations, no foreign flag waving, no political organizing, no bad-mouthing our president or his policies. You're a foreigner: shut your mouth or get out! And if you come here illegally, you're going to jail."

At the time, I made abundantly clear that this was a parody on the Mexican government's hypocrisy and nobody took it otherwise.

The malignant aspect of this is that Mr. Obama and his advisers know exactly what they are doing. They had to listen to both monologues or read the transcripts. They then had to pick the particular excerpts they used in order to create a commercial of distortions. Their hoped-for result is to inflame racial tensions. In doing this, Mr. Obama and his advisers have demonstrated a pernicious contempt for American society.