Media outlets continue to report that Sen. Joe Biden was accused in 1987 of plagiarizing then-British Labour Party leader Neil Kinnock without noting that while Biden did paraphrase from a Kinnock speech without attribution on at least two occasions in August 1987, he had reportedly credited Kinnock when previously using the same language. Full Story »
Posted by Dwight Rousu
:
0
:
0
:
1
:
0
:
2
:
0
:
0
:
0
The story does note the lack of follow-up by some media on the Biden plagiarism speech issue, but doesn't state anywhere that Biden was wrong in failing to attribute segments on other occasions. The article focuses only on the speech and not on the article, ''Tortious Acts as a Basis for Jurisdiction in Products Liability Cases,'' which appeared in the May 1965 issue of the Fordham Law Review. Biden had been accused of plagiarizing a part of that article, but was later exonerated. Point being, if Media Matters is going to accuse others of an incomplete record, its own record must be thorough and fair. In addition to these omissions, the logic of the reviewed piece seems to suggest, "If a person acknowledges that s/he attributed ... More »
As Media Matters for America has documented, the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, and the Associated Press also reported on the Kinnock allegations without noting ... More »
Well documented article that shows the even though Biden quoted without attribution on two occasions he had used similar wording before and attributed it to Kinnock and that most media outlets are not reporting that. The question should be asked why weren't (and aren't) those incidents being blamed on the rigors of the schedule or simply a slip up?
The article suggests either willful or reckless reporting against Biden in not fully reporting on the quotes form Kinnock.
Retrieving Comments
