Wednesday, May 5, 2010

Midknight Review Plagiarizes Pew Research Center

In a recent article by conservative activist John Smithson over at the Midknight Review, titled "Capitalism versus Socialism - public opinion from PEW Research," Smithson lays out a graph and writes about the positive or negative reaction to certain terms. What Smithson doesn't write about is that he ripped the text from The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, word for word.

The way Smithson positions his article, it would appear as if he was just referencing the Pew article, but there are absolutely zero links to the Center's article, nor credit given to those who contributed the research.

This is not the first time Smithson has plagiarized material. After Smithson accused this site of copying his name and subject matter, the authors of The Midnight Review researched the Midknight Review, pouring over hundreds of Smithson's articles, revealing that he improperly cites numerous articles, and in many cases, omits the true author's name. This is just the most recent incident in which the conservative activist has claimed information as his own.

Check it out for yourself (Midknight Review's copy is on the left):


Shame on John Smithson for plagiarizing articles.  It was our hope that Smithson would properly cite articles after we pointed out his last transgressions, and Smithson claimed that he usually cites other's works, although he believed some of his copying didn't equate to plagiarism and supposedly saught the approval of one particular author he copied as proof he was right.

Anyway, since Smithson didn't give the contributors of the Center's research credit, we here at the honorable Midnight Review will do so for Smithson, and he could just thank us later:
Andrew Kohut, Director
Scott Keeter, Director of Survey Research
Carroll Doherty and Michael Dimock, Associate Directors
Michael Remez, Senior Writer
Robert Suls, Shawn Neidorf, Leah Christian, Jocelyn Kiley and Alec Tyson, Research Associates
Jacob Poushter, Research Assistant
Being the good little conservative activist Smithson is, he conveniently left out other findings in the research, focusing solely on the view of the words "socialism" and "capitalism."  Had Smithson decided to plagairize the remainder of the article, he would have also revealed that a majority of Republicans have a positive opinion regarding "progressives" and "civil rights," despite attacks by the far right against such concepts as being a form of "social justice" and another form of communism.

7 comments:

  1. "Selective Plaigiarism" must be the new reporting practice that Smithson is trying to pioneer into legitimacy.

    In one breath he claims that he has formatting issues or posts so fast that he sometimes misses things....but then you see him actively cut out sections that do not support his agenda or tip off readers that this is a cut adn paste job.

    Also interesting to note that he once again uses the image source from the actual article....

    So is this evidence enough to report his blog as spam or plaigiarism and get it shut down?

    ReplyDelete
  2. show one case where "cut and paste" changed one stinking thing in the original article. One thing.

    This -- "you see him actively cut out sections that do not support his agenda" --- is a blatant lie. Not once has this happened.

    Typical libs. Cannot debate issues so you go for the "I'm going to tell on you" defense. You all are such girls. Why not turn me in to PEW. There is no one, absolutely no one, who reads that article who will go away thinking plagiarism (note the correct spelling) is an issue.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Typical libs. Cannot debate issues so you go for the 'I'm going to tell on you' defense."

    I had actually answered your questions on particular issues, offered a rebuttal, asked you questions on other issues, and then offered a rebuttal. I believe that would be called debate.

    There is no one, absolutely no one, who reads that article who will go away thinking plagiarism (note the correct spelling) is an issue.

    You obviously don't understand what plagiarism is. Here is a definition from dictionary.com:

    the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work.

    People who read your article would have no idea that you copied it from the Pew Center.

    ReplyDelete
  4. As for your response to Craig's comment that "you see him actively cut out sections that do not support his agenda," as I had pointed out in my article, your cut and paste job ripped most of the article, conveniently leaving out the part about the word "progressive," so your article appears as if most people view socialism or liberals as bad but conservatives and capitalism as good.

    I would think showing that people have a positive opinion of the word "progressive" would have hurt your agenda, considering an overlying theme of your website is that progressives equal liberals and liberals equal socialism/communism/Marxism/etc.

    Considering you use the Pew Center's research to support your claim about socialism, then logically, you could use the omitted part of the research to prove that people have a positive view of liberals, and there would be a distinction between socialism and liberalism.

    ReplyDelete
  5. @jds
    "how one case where "cut and paste" changed one stinking thing in the original article. One thing."

    Interesting choice of words. You again try to cleverly sidestep the accusation of omitting sections that don't support your agenda, and focus on whether you actively "change" content in the article. Change is something you yourself brought up, not me. Something to hide perhaps?

    As for examples. Both articles about your blatant plagiarism on this site show where you left off sections that either a) did not support your agenda or b) would have alerted your readers that the the article was not your own.


    Oh, and those who live in glass houses should not throw stones. At least when I post an article that goes to the front page of the site I will at a minimum run spell-check. Obviously you can't even be bothered to do that in your "hack-cut-and-paste style". And I quote from the last line of this article "Story by Greg Sargent of the Liberal Wasington Post."

    Funny. You have the source material open and you still get it wrong. Oh right....that was your ONLY contribution to the article, a lazy tacked on citation which was added as a light gray color so that it could easily be missed by your readers.

    Added, only because of us forcing you to be an honest person. Your welcome Jon! Your kids will be happy to know that you might not blow through their inheritance in legal fees from being sued by people you have plagiarized.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I love that there is no hyperlink to the original post...

    Give it a couple more days for another plagiarized work to surface on The Midknight review...

    ReplyDelete
  7. Also, jds wrote the following:

    "show one case where 'cut and paste' changed one stinking thing in the original article. One thing."

    He doesn't seem to understand "plagiarism."

    He copied the article, but then gets upset when we mention that he omitted certain parts... not copying the whole article doesn't mean it isn't wrong. Smithson stole the intellectual property of another and then led his readers to believe it was originally his, either intentionally or unintentionally.

    If I gave my professor a work like Smithson's, and then said I forgot to cite the worker, I would face a failing grade and possible expulsion...

    ReplyDelete

Please share your thoughts and experiences in relation to this post. Remember to be respectful in your posting. Comments that that are deemed inappropriate will be deleted.