Time and CNN suspend Fareed Zakaria for plagiarism

With his sterling credentials and amazing resume, shame on him.

I feel sure that editors and scholars are already taking a closer look at his previous works to make sure this was a “one time slip”, and not a “common practice” that just wasn’t noticed.

@JamVee — I too am very surprised that Zakaria chose the lazy man’s solution.

Zakaria is such a self righteous fellow, would be interesting to see if this is a just a bit of one-off bit of thievery or perhaps an offence he has committed before. I would be it’s not the first time and it would behoove editors at TIME and CNN to take a closer look at his background. This happens all of the time in “journalism” of which there really isn’t very much of it left, but why is he only penalised with a month suspension? He should be fired outright. I don’t see Time’s circulation being buoyed by him and CNN’s ratings are in the toilet. Good riddance to him I say! Sadly and not surprisingly, he is another Obama supporter and makes it clear everytime he’s on the air.

This is terrible! This is just what those right-wing talking heads are waiting to jump on. There are truths won’t sound honest, and from this, the lies that come from the right that they will say are just as honest as those from CNN!
I say he must GO!

After all these years in journalism, Zakaria has made a terrible mistake that must be avoided by all credible writers. He should have known better. Perhaps his growing popularity has become a target of others.

Let this serve as a timely warning to those who continue to or who will plagiarize quietly or covertly. (vzc1943, mtd1943)

Not fired, just suspended with a wrist slap. He’ll be baaaaaack!

I always knew he was a fraud, what is more concerning is that this same fraud is the one that OWEbama calls for his “wisdom and advice”.

“The sanctions came after Zakaria issued a public apology for borrowing from a recent New Yorker essay about gun control for a column he wrote for Time this week.”
…..
He borrowed? What, was he going to return it after he was done?

He did credit the original source;
he just didn’t give credit to Lepore for pointing out the original source. Reuters should have given the detail.

In other words, he didn’t claim the original ideas as his own;
he merely didn’t credit the article which pointed out to him, the original material. Had he done a better reference job, something often done by a good assistant, secretaries who proof reading the references, he would have been OK.

Reuters should give a more complete picture. He didn’t give credit for another author who did the research; he did give credit for the original material. Big difference. One is stealing ideas, the other is just sloppy referencing.

The original source was UCLA Professor Adam Winkler’s book, “Gunfight: the Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America”. Mr. Zakaria gave full reference to the historical development of gun laws provided in that book, as well as a quote from a former Texas Governor about gun control, also from that book.

Ms. Lepore provided the source of the historical laws in her article, referencing Adam Winkler. Mr. Zakaria did that also, but failed to disclose that he did not read Professor Winkler’s book, but only read Ms. Lepore’s article that referenced the book.

The key here is what Mr. Zakaria is known for. He is not a historian. He is known for his viewpoints, perspectives, whether one agrees with him or not. He did not copy anybody else’s creative writing, or viewpoint, and make pretense that they were his own. He merely failed to reference the entire trail by which he obtained some historical facts about gun laws in various states in America. From those historical facts, he built his own perspective and viewpoints. That’s very different than the impression of “plagiarism” as conveyed when I first saw the title.

I believe there is a big difference between the two. As it’s been pointed out, the kind of reference work that is missing can be done by an intern, an assistant, or a secretary. What was needed was verification that Ms. Lepore quoted Professor Winkler correctly, and the reference of Ms. Lepore as the source of the reference that guided Mr. Zakaria to Professor Winkler’s research findings.

Therefore, it is not the kind of stealing of somebody else’s original idea or creativity, as the term plagiarism would bring to mind, at least at first glance at the title.

I believe, to be fair to Mr. Zakaria, these details are important to point out. Seems more like sloppiness than stealing, from one perspective, although full reference is technically missing in part.

Excellent points PPlainTTruth, I agree that sloppy word processing (a structural hazard in exchange for high convenience) is not stealing. When one accepts toiling professionally for monster media corporations, one also accepts the risks of contingency competitive markets drowning the truth in the race for ratings. When a powerful, intimidating lobby for an emotional issue like gun rights gets involved, the likelihood of outing the truth is even less likely. Maybe Zakaria, like Dan Rather, can find his best platform elsewhere than the narrow tightrope of corrupted corporate media.