Print This Post
Mar
1
Update2x: This BNET article from 2002 offers detail and insight about Tim Goeglin’s ambitions.
Update3x: From Stefan Beck:
I’ve heard a few objections to a supposed “double standard”: Haven’t other possible plagiarists, like Barack Obama and Columbia University’s Madonna Constantine, skirted scrutiny for their own thefts? There’s only one standard, which either is upheld or isn’t: If you love something, attribute it. There’s no shame in confessing a little inferiority. I’ll do it right now. Emerson again:
We are as much informed of a writer’s genius by what he selects as by what he originates. We read the quotation with his eyes, and find a new and fervent sense; as a passage from one of the poets, well recited, borrows new interest from the rendering. As the journalists say, “the italics are ours.”
And I’ll sleep well tonight knowing that those italics are mine.
Original post:
I wrote about this incident, which began with this post by blogger Nancy Nalls yesterday, less than 24 hours ago.
Now, the New York Times is reporting that President George Bush’s Director of the Office of the Public Liaison, Tim Goeglein, has resigned as a result of several incidents of plagiarizing being uncovered. Who is Goeglein?
Mr. Goeglein, 44, is little known outside Washington. He is a familiar figure to conservatives and evangelical Christians, who knew him as a spokesman for Gary L. Bauer, the conservative who ran for president in 2000.
When Mr. Bauer dropped out of the race, Mr. Goeglein signed on with Mr. Bush, eventually becoming a top aide to Karl Rove, the chief political strategist. He was the eyes and ears of the White House in the world of religious conservatives and an emissary to that world for Mr. Rove and the president.
Mr. Goeglein was often credited with turning out the evangelical vote that helped re-elect Mr. Bush in 2004.
…
A review by The News-Sentinel found that of the 38 columns Mr. Goeglein published since 2000, 19 included plagiarized material, according to Mr. Hubartt. He said the paper would no longer publish work by Mr. Goeglein, whom he described as “well respected here by a lot of people.”
“There was no reason for it that I can see,” Mr. Hubartt said, noting that Mr. Goeglein had submitted columns voluntarily and had no deadlines to meet. “He was not under any pressure.”
We owe a big thanks to Nancy.
Why?
Why is plagiarizing such a big deal? Why isn’t political speech exempt from giving attribution? Would what Goeglein did, time and again, be okay if the people from whom he stole told him it was okay?
I wrote about why it matters in political speech possibly more than it does anywhere else here. Dave of Into My Own has some interesting reflections on the topic here and here. Redhorse has also written about it (and we traded thoughts on someone else’s blog post and I can’t find it!) and many others in the Ohio blogs have too.
Well, let me put it this way: If what we present as being ours isn’t in fact ours, then we are perpetuating an image that isn’t ours either, we are presenting an image of someone we actually are not, which, if you are someone who is presenting oneself with what isn’t yours, you really are no more than someone who, at a minimum, is choosing not to produce their own image.
Begging the question, why?
The answers range from and include everything between, “I was being lazy” to “what someone else said sounds better than anything I could say because I don’t really believe what I need to say.” Really. There are hundreds of explanations in between, benign and not so benign. Without at least asking the question, you’ll never even get close to knowing which it is.
But, then again – does it even matter why?
*I was accused this week of being a fake and shilling for liberal views while “allowing” CNN to label me “in the middle” when I appeared on this Blog Buzz segment (the transcript is here, about two-thirds down). For the record, I informed CNN that I tend to lean left but that I’ve been called everything from a neo-con to a radical progressive. They spoke to other people about my work – in particular, the founder of The Moderate Voice – one of the most widely read and oldest moderate blogs in the ’sphere. The decision was entirely CNN’s. As some of the people who knew that this opportunity was unfolding know, I spent a great deal of time making sure that CNN was aware of the range of my work.
Other than the post to which I’ve linked, I’m fairly certain that I’ve never been called a fake before. The only kind of fake I fear I am is one who will be “discovered” for not really knowing anything, unable to really do anything and doesn’t deserve anything she has (imposter syndrome kind of fake, not plagiarizing or stealth insertion of bias and person who will say anything to get their foot in the television door kind of fake). However, the post’s author feels that CNN has a liberal bias and that they used me to perpetuate that liberal bias.
I will give the last word to the Ohio Republican who sent me a comment after I asked him whether he thought I was a liberal plant expected to further the liberal agenda. He has been elected to office multiple times and served in his party’s formal structure.
You are a moderate, and talk like one. Your points were well taken (Does Nader honestly believe that Obama is not liberal enough?) Ralph got some votes before, but not now, he has jumped the shark…
It is not apparent that you are shilling for anyone, you ask genuine questions and point out real problems. I would have to say that you are very fair and genuinely are in the slightly left of center category on some, and slightly right of center on other issues. It comes across, and most importantly, the sincerity is key. Those other clowns were pretty insincere and condescending. You exude professionalism, not something found with large volumes of bloggers.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 10:08 am March 1st, 2008 in Government, Law, Media, Mental health, Politics, Social Issues, WH2008, Writing
Comments
17 Responses to “UPDATE3x: White House public liaison director, Tim Goeglein, resigns after blogger reveals plagiarism”
Leave a Reply
2010 WE Magazine 101 Women Bloggers to Watch
Category Specific RSS
Pepper Pike Cleveland+ Politics Women Ohio Elections Law Jewish
by Tips and TricksNews Now
Holy moley I can’t believe I’m gonna write the following sentence. I agree totally with the Republican’s comments.
I know I tend to get over passionate at times over one issue or another. I often turn to your blog Jill to pull myself back toward a calm center.
Joe – thank you, very much. I hate the insecure part of me, but putting out there who I am – that is, just being myself, is so important to me that it really does hurt when I learn that someone thinks I’m faking it. I get the concern of media bias – and sure, people can be used unwillingly or unbeknownst to them. But I really don’t think that’s what was going on – certainly not in my mind and I don’t think CNN did anything like that either.
Jill – I am very new to the blogsphere and have been reading up on many political blogs in Ohio. I find your blog to be one of the most professionally done and well thought out that I have read. From what I have seen so far, you are fair and have a very moderate view of the issues. Keep up the good work! I could only hope that one day my blog will be half as successful as yours has been.
Since this post spends much of the middle flogging the long-dead and bloodied corpse of the Obama Plagiarism, let me respond. First year of law school you should have learned that there is a difference between finding a wrongful act and finding the remedy for that wrongful act. Wrong is wrong. But the remedy should be proportional to the degree of the wrong.
Obama’s wrong was, in one speech, using someone else’s words with permission but without attribution. Personally, I think admitting the wrong would be enough remedy the wrong. And, oh look, he did.
Geoglein’s wrong is more severe on several fronts. He did it more. He did it without permission — meaning he’s not merely guilty of misrepresenting himself, he’s guilty of theft.
And he did it in a context outside poltical speech making which, yes, matters. In the context of political speech making people assume the words are someone else’s (i.e. a speech writer) but not that they have been given in another speech unless attributed.
Using Patrick’s words without attribution was a mistake. Obama admitted as much. The rest of the world has moved on. I suggest we join them.
“Flogging” it? Eww. I’ll disagree on that. It’s not flogging – it’s going to be an example of the continuum – just as you’ve used it in your comment. I don’t disagree with where you place it on the continuum, Pho, but I do disagree with it being trivialized. Political speech should be the most authentic, not the least.
Pho, also – I want to add to that comment of mine re: your comment.
You are using a certain framework for analyzing speech/writing. But I don’t know that it’s the most commonly used one, or the most appropriate. I feel like I’m looking at it from a much more basic premise – you don’t use someone else’s word in a way that people can think they are yours without attribution.
I understand your point about speechwriters, in many professions not just politics. But I fail to see how that really gets anyone out of attribution. It’s like the use of the middle name issue. We know that people like Bill Cunningham aren’t using Obama’s middle name as a sign of respect or showing prestige and class level. He has malicious ideas behind it.
Likewise here – I see the way you are okaying political speech the same way. I know you see that I don’t see it that way.
What the heck, politician use speechwriters, should they offer up recognition for them? Our society is full of fakes, politician offer up words that are often not their own.
It has a lot to do with intentions and the character and capability of the person. Its good that people are paying attention, what Obama did bothered me, what Goeglein did was ridiculous. They both paid homage to those they respect…but also for their own gain, which is questionable particularly that they have no regard to them being watched and being held accountable- is that ego or what?
Looking good sounding and sounding good, what is the real capability as I said before Obama has risk, selling change, sounds good, if change goes wrong then what? Change takes time and planning, heck it could take four years to draw up the plan! Sudden change can have serious ramifications. The reality of change is boring to the populous, the numbers and the details, the hurry up, more more bigger better faster society, which has no patience and even less comprehension, beyond what sounds good.
Buy the way Jill you did not come across fake, you came across very sensible and pragmatic on CNN. I see you as a voice of reason, and not on the edge of your seat waiting for chance to tilt the issue to the left or right. Adjusting to the format of the segment did not compromise your integrity. I bet if you were pushed to compromise your integrity you would not go along with it, and what happened with Wide Open is a good example.
I believe you have to have knowledge to judge, or the individual at hand as to demonstrate success through real experience then you can trust, word are just words.
J. Rowsey – thanks for the kind words. Maybe someone else will chime and see, “Just keep reading her! you’ll see!”
Oengus = thanks – on the use of others’ words etc., you make good points. I do understand Pho and others’ arguments, I just prefer to hold to a higher standard, even if it’s not the standard in use. I think it should be – I accept it where it is, but if the topic is opened up for discussion – if I’m the one opening it up, well, that’s how I feel about the topic – political speech shouldn’t be relegated to imitation for the sake of persuasion. We’re talking about our votes.
Thanks for the vote of confidence on not being fake. I think you described the situation well. I appreciate it (esp. because you saw what I did on Wide Open – I still haven’t figured out who you are but I am just sure I know you lol).
Jill, I’m not saying that using an unattributed quote in a political speech is OK. I’m saying it’s less of a wrong than lifting passages for an op-ed. And therefore the remedy should be less onerous.
More to the point, Obama didn’t say the speech was OK. He said forthrightly that he should have attributed it. Then he rightly mocked the Hillary flaks for overclaiming it. He made a mistake. He didn’t reveal himself to be a big phony which is what Team Hillary claimed. And when you cite the incident, then go on with your exegesis about how plagiarizers misrepresent themselves (and BTW, I’m far more concerned with plagiarism as theft, but that’s just me) it seems like you are indeed once again flogging.
Obama made a mistake and admitted it. Overclaiming that mistake is no less wrong than trivializing it.
“Once again flogging?” Do tell – where was the first time?
Editing in: Your comments seem to go on far more than mine, esp. with the flowery exegesis reference. Scott, if you have something you want to say, just say it. I can handle it. If I wanted to nail Obama, I would have done that. Clearly this post isn’t intended to be some stealth attack and I don’t go in for the tit-for-tat following of the campaigns – I’ve barely done that at all. Why do you seem to be so concerned about my position on this issue? I like attribution, from the beginning. So what? I think political speech should be held to a higher standard. So what? You don’t agree. Okay. What are you so upset about?
Editing in last thing: this post wasn’t about Obama – you’ve made it about him. Why? Again, what has you so rattled about this topic?
Jill, when you step back, I hope you realize that no one else was as troubled by the alleged plagiarism as you. As such, you commented about it at several blogs, outside of the posts you wrote here, all giving the sense that the subject was being flogged. And whether you intended to or not, you nailed Obama, again and again.
You’ve stressed that political speech should be held to a higher standard without articulating what that means (unless I missed it) or what that does to speech writers, who are, whether we like it or not, a long-standing part of political speech-making.
Obama acknowledged his mistake and has not repeated it. What more does he need to do?
Makes you wonder, words are just word, and sometimes my words are not my own. Wow makes you wonder if any originality exists, the plagiarized material could ave been written by someone else, many of these famous quotes may have been the creation of some speechwriter.
It is obvious that the thread is about a Washington speechwriter that was caught plagiarizing, if a blogger did not point it out it would have gone unnoticed.
The Obama issue is related to a speech in which he addresses accusation about his pretty words, a good communicator being accused of being just that, its ironic that his speech was not is own, it may have not even been his idea, it may have been an idea of a speechwriter.
Hillary takes notes, she gives them to her staff that researches them, and then the speechwriter address them. At times, they may rely on how others have addressed similar issues in the past, and obviously sometimes, the speech contains the word used to address those issues.
People are only as brilliant as the people they surround themselves with, when you hear the speech or even the proposals do you really think they came from that person entirely.
Red – there aren’t a ton of things I get really hot under the collar about. Plagiarism is one of them. There’s nothing to step back from. I used his recent episode as a point on a spectrum.
You, Pho and, I will assume, others think that saying sorry makes something okay. Sure – we forgive people – but does that erase the episode from memory? That’s absurd. Come on. The Medill dean apologized, the fiction writer who fabricated a Holocaust story apologized and the White House aide apologize. So I should forget that the instances happened? No.
You are right – I did comment at other blogs about Obama’s circumstances but why that’s flogging, I don’t understand. These are blogs – look what you write about Hillary Clinton, or the Summit county party fellas. Are people coming over to you and saying you are flogging because you write about it more than once?
I really don’t get this sensitivity being shown because plagiarism is something that gets under my skin. It’s not a new bag for me. You read this blog enough to know that I write about it as it relates to the media and journalism frequently, as well as in the realm of politics or academics or government or fiction-writing – which happen to be the four most recent examples.
As for the origin and author of political speech, you know – you are spinning that – you know I know what you are getting at and I’ve said that that’s not the crux of this issue and everyone knows that.
The issue is attribution and not passing as your own what others say, speech writers not withstanding. That they are part of the system is undisputed – that what they write are their hopes and plans for the future would only be coincidence and I would hope for them convergence – if you’ve ever had to write about something you don’t believe in, you know how hard that is.
My issue isn’t about that and you know it.
Oengus – thanks for the comment. All good points.
About originality: our words are copywritten as soon as we put them down. Sure – there are formal processes for registering a copyright and so on – Pho is probably way more knowledgeable about that than I am. But it’s part of why plagiarism is relevant. Remember when people mirroring our blogs popped up and how disturbing that was? Or the use of Scott Bakalar’s or Jeff Coryell’s photos?
The issue was attribution – not the fact that such use goes on. Like political speechwriting, we know that it does.
One of the mysteries of writing what people want to read or hear has to do with how original it is – describing something in a way no one else has ever described it before. Think about books you’ve read that do that.
This is an incredibly difficult thing to do in many areas.
If we okay plagiarism, we are devaluing the hard work wordsmiths put into what they do.
That’s how I see it – here at WLST (the way Red says here at the stable), I’ve never been one to be sure I’m touting what anyone else touts – so if I’m alone on this, so be it. That’s not changing my mind.
I appreciate the back and forth.
I know this topic gets you riled.
From my perspective, I don’t think you’ve made the case that politics speech-making rises above academic scholarship or even that of a column writer, in part b/c the politician is frequently sharing his/her vision through another person’s work. Heck, that’s the scenario with Patrick. As such, the multiple posts and frequent comments appear as flogging, fair or not.
Our disagreement is what it is, and with that, I’ll let this dog sleep.
Thanks, Red – I appreciate that. Your arguments are good and support what you are saying – it’s not a specious thing. I just find the way I view it as more persuasive, this time, and at this time. That could change – never say never. But what’s the point of saying that you’re running a different kind of campaign and so on, only to then say, well…except for political speech, which will continue to not rise to the level of other kinds of verbal expression?
I don’t know – you know I’m not afraid to be alone on something – so if that’s where I am on this, so be it.