Blogs

I love the Press, and love Hairs Balls, etc...but I gotta admit I really like the response by "Mark Williams." He is correct that it is a BFD moment in a world where blogging routinely steals from other sources. Stealing on blogs is just another day at the office, but, by God, you put it on pulp and it is a crime against man.

C'mon.

So would Mark Williams have sympathy for someone who stole his TV and then fenced it for money? I'm a freelancer - a freelancer who makes enough to keep her kid's orthodontist paid. I don't buy these romantic notions of being an underpaid media worker. Maybe if Mr. Williams were a little more aware of rights and rates, he would be more financially successful. And he wouldn't have to steal from other writers to make a living.

Underdog victimhood aside, at the end of the day you have to publish your own writing. This wasn't a case of paraphrasing or accidental misattribution. Entire passages were copied nearly verbatim. The words of other writers were cobbled together like Franken-journalism. What would you call that besides plagiarism?

Mr. Brown,
As a rule, bloggers may link to and/or copy bits of other people's writings, but the good ones always credit the source. Even when swiping almost an entire article, a blogger will say, "From CNN" or some such. That's not what Williams was doing, was it? No, he was pasting together stories written by other people then slapping his name on top of it.

Oh, do stop your wimpering, Mark Williams, and take it like a man. Journalism is simply not meant for you. Please find another career. Or write your own articles, and you'll never be "brought down to your knees" again.

Mr. Williams may be a plagiarist, but he's certainly an entertaining writer. I really enjoyed his note.

He just needs weightier things to write about. or perhaps, less weighty. He could be hilarious.

Go for it dude. You're halfway there.

*whimpering*

Williams response is adolescent whining. Rosen's response is worse. Neither one takes any responsibility for plagiarizing or abetting plagiarism. These are serious issues and I'm not surprised he's shutting the paper, as it is a standing target for lawsuits.

To Mr. Ladyman: Your main complaint seems to be that Mr. Rosen, as a matter of courtesy, ought to have been more persistent in taking this matter up with you before taking it public. To what extent that may or may not be true—how often and how politely he contacted you—is obviously not something we as followers of this story can know. But you seem to be mistaking the difference between “courtesy” and “responsibility.” Even if (and I’m far from conceding the point) Mr. Rosen owed you the “courtesy” of more zealous follow-up before going to print, you—as the publisher, editor, and owner of your paper—are solely responsible for everything printed in it. If you were the parent of a ten-year-old child who set fire to his school building, you as the parent would have to assume moral and financial responsibility for that child’s actions, even if—as is certainly the case—you couldn’t physically be with your child or monitor his activities 24 hours a day. And you would have no reasonable cause for complaint if the school turned the matter over for police investigation without showing you what you believed to be a proper amount of "courtesy" before doing so.

To Mr. Williams: It seems to me that it has taken you 20 years to learn that you are unable to support yourself as a writer, and that the closest you have been able to come is earning a pittance—and that only by stealing from others. Many people wish to earn livings as writers. Most of them are unable to do so. That is always, and understandably, disappointing. However, it is your responsibility, as a man, to find a way to support yourself honestly. Moreover, it is your responsibility, as a man, not to destroy the livelihood and reputation of those who have trusted you—i.e. Mr. Ladyman in this case—in the process of discovering that you cannot earn an honest living as a writer.

The entire narrative of human history is people laboring at jobs they don’t love because it is simply the only way they can survive. You are neither unique nor uniquely sympathetic in being one of the billions to whom this sad reality applies.

To Mr. Ladyman: Your main complaint seems to be that Mr. Rosen, as a matter of courtesy, ought to have been more persistent in taking this matter up with you before taking it public. To what extent that may or may not be true—how often and how politely he contacted you—is obviously not something we as followers of this story can know. But you seem to be mistaking the difference between “courtesy” and “responsibility.” Even if (and I’m far from conceding the point) Mr. Rosen owed you the “courtesy” of more zealous follow-up before going to print, you—as the publisher, editor, and owner of your paper—are solely responsible for everything printed in it. If you were the parent of a ten-year-old child who set fire to his school building, you as the parent would have to assume moral and financial responsibility for that child’s actions, even if—as is certainly the case—you couldn’t physically be with your child or monitor his activities 24 hours a day. And you would have no reasonable cause for complaint if the school turned the matter over for police investigation without showing you what you believed to be a proper amount of "courtesy" before doing so.

To Mr. Williams: It seems to me that it has taken you 20 years to learn that you are unable to support yourself as a writer, and that the closest you have been able to come is earning a pittance—and that only by stealing from others. Many people wish to earn livings as writers. Most of them are unable to do so. That is always, and understandably, disappointing. However, it is your responsibility, as a man, to find a way to support yourself honestly. Moreover, it is your responsibility, as a man, not to destroy the livelihood and reputation of those who have trusted you—i.e. Mr. Ladyman in this case—in the process of discovering that you cannot earn an honest living as a writer.

The entire narrative of human history is people laboring at jobs they don’t love because it is simply the only way they can survive. You are neither unique nor uniquely sympathetic in being one of the billions to whom this sad reality applies.

To Mr. Ladyman: Your main complaint seems to be that Mr. Rosen, as a matter of courtesy, ought to have been more persistent in taking this matter up with you before taking it public. To what extent that may or may not be true—how often and how politely he contacted you—is obviously not something we as followers of this story can know. But you seem to be mistaking the difference between “courtesy” and “responsibility.” Even if (and I’m far from conceding the point) Mr. Rosen owed you the “courtesy” of more zealous follow-up before going to print, you—as the publisher, editor, and owner of your paper—are solely responsible for everything printed in it. If you were the parent of a ten-year-old child who set fire to his school building, you as the parent would have to assume moral and financial responsibility for that child’s actions, even if—as is certainly the case—you couldn’t physically be with your child or monitor his activities 24 hours a day. And you would have no reasonable cause for complaint if the school turned the matter over for police investigation without showing you what you believed to be a proper amount of courtesy before doing so.

To Mr. Williams: It seems to me that it has taken you 20 years to learn that you are unable to support yourself as a writer, and that the closest you have been able to come is earning a pittance—and that only by stealing from others. Many people wish to earn a living as writers. Most of them are unable to do so. That is always, and understandably, disappointing. However, it is your responsibility, as a man, to find a way to support yourself honestly. Moreover, it is also your responsibility, as a man, not to destroy the livelihood and reputation of those who have trusted you—i.e. Mr. Ladyman in this case—in the process of discovering that you cannot earn an honest living as a writer.

The entire narrative of human history is people laboring at jobs they don’t love because it’s the only way they can live. You are neither unique nor uniquely sympathetic in being one of the billions to whom this sad reality applies.

To Mr. Ladyman: Your main complaint seems to be that Mr. Rosen, as a matter of courtesy, ought to have been more persistent in taking this matter up with you before taking it public. To what extent that may or may not be true—how often and how politely he contacted you—is obviously not something we as followers of this story can know. But you seem to be mistaking the difference between “courtesy” and “responsibility.” Even if (and I’m far from conceding the point) Mr. Rosen owed you the “courtesy” of more zealous follow-up before going to print, you—as the publisher, editor, and owner of your paper—are solely responsible for everything printed in it. If you were the parent of a ten-year-old child who set fire to his school building, you as the parent would have to assume moral and financial responsibility for that child’s actions, even if—as is certainly the case—you couldn’t physically be with your child or monitor his activities 24 hours a day. And you would have no reasonable cause for complaint if the school turned the matter over for police investigation without showing you what you believed to be a proper amount of courtesy before doing so.

To Mr. Williams: It seems to me that it has taken you 20 years to learn that you are unable to support yourself as a writer, and that the closest you have been able to come is earning a pittance—and that only by stealing from others. Many people wish to earn a living as writers. Most of them are unable to do so. That is always, and understandably, disappointing. However, it is your responsibility, as a man, to find a way to support yourself honestly. Moreover, it is also your responsibility, as a man, not to destroy the livelihood and reputation of those who have trusted you—i.e. Mr. Ladyman in this case—in the process of discovering that you cannot earn an honest living as a writer.

The entire narrative of human history is people laboring at jobs they don’t love because it’s the only way they can live. You are neither unique nor uniquely sympathetic in being one of the billions to whom this sad reality applies.

I guess press kits should come with an instruction manual for dolts like Mr. Williams? He give all writers a bad name.

"Williams" is a jackass.
Being a poor soul scribbling for a small paper does not confer the right to blatantly steal another's work.
You get caught doing it, it's the profession's death sentence: You're done, get out.
Anyone who knows anything about writing for pay knows that. I guess he never had his stuff ripped off.
Interesting that a freelancer would take the time to recount the many successes of the publication (in a fairly well written, if wildly off base, screed). Did the accused plagarist freelancer have anything to do with any of them?

The owner-editor-deliveryman says he was deceived. OK, that happens. But it was his decision to pull the plug. No reason to blame out-of-town bullies who had every right to be royally pissed.

"Williams" is a jackass.
Being a poor soul scribbling for a small paper does not confer the right to blatantly steal another's work.
You get caught doing it, it's the profession's death sentence: You're done, get out.
Anyone who knows anything about writing for pay knows that. I guess he never had his stuff ripped off.
Interesting that a freelancer would take the time to recount the many successes of the publication (in a fairly well written, if wildly off base, screed). Did the accused plagarist freelancer have anything to do with any of them?

The owner-editor-deliveryman says he was deceived. OK, that happens. But it was his decision to pull the plug. No reason to blame out-of-town bullies who had every right to be royally pissed.

Oldest trick in the world -- and haven't we all been schooled by experts the last couple decades? The perp blames the victim.

I would have preferred to have seen Slate apply its resources to afflicting the comfortable, but this is the magazine that published fun, contrarian articles about how the Iraq War will be a surprisingly good idea.

Sure, Rosen has every right to be pissed.

But... (yawn...) why should I care?

On the other hand, Williams was hilarious!!!

That's a writer I am willing to read. As opposed to some Manhattan pissant crying because a columnist in Podunk, Ky, stole his work for 7 frickin' cents per word.

Williams tries to paint this as an attack against some poor schmuck, but the reality is he was a thief, plain and simple.
A college dropout who struggles with clinical depression? This is supposed to make it okay to steal someone else's work? Cry me a river.
Hope you get a job selling used cars next.

Rosen did his job: he researched and reported expertly. Williams did not: he stole others' work (substitute that with something concrete, and you'll "see" that it's theft), signed his name to it, profited from it. Simple, occasional attribution to other writers would have forced him to use variety in his sources for story ideas and would have exposed him to original journalism that would have increased his writing abilities--and, in seven years, that would've been quite a bank. Practice makes perfect. Yeah, I made that up just now.

Good god, people, the Bulletin is the savior of Montgomery County and all you can do is laugh at the Messiah, Mark Williams? Standing toe to toe with the KKK and crazy Republicans...and it cost him his teeth and a chance to have a normal, happy life and a career as the brilliant writer he so wants to be but never will. We owe him our undying gratitude and the right to steal from anyone he wants.
That is what you want, right, Mark?

If his mea culpa is any indication, Williams is a better writer than Rosen.

Huh. So Williams is saying that doing some good things in life and experiencing setbacks and suffering -- and being a loser -- entitles one to commit intellectual theft or do other bad things.

That's twisted and, yeah, pathetic.

The Mark Williams response to Rosen is the most stupid thing I think I've ever read on the internet. Ever. Anywhere. He's bitter and angry because he got exposed for copying other people's work and rewording it. Williams may quite possibly be mentally retarded.

Incidently, it appears several of the comments on this page may be from Ladyman or Mark Williams as anon responders, on account of they are also completely retarded.

to Ladyman/Williams: you screwed up big time. Blaming the victim only makes you appear petty and ridiculous. Most folks have had setbacks int their lives, but they don't go out and steal the work of others and claim it as their own.
FYI-Stephen Glass is doing improv comedy in LA. Jayson Blair is hiding somewhere in NYC, so there is life after fucking up in journalism.

Grow up Williams--it's time.

Clearly "Mark Williams" doesn't exist and Ladyman is just a whining little thief who got caught. Anyone defending this plagiarism is just as stupid.

To the various enablers on this thread who want to excuse Williams -- if you could please e-mail me your bank account information. I would enjoy plagiarizing your funds, and I will when caught blame it on my acne as a teenager.

Nice "apology". I wonder who wrote it for him.

Mark William's reply is very entertaining, (he's a good writer) and I read the various comments and Rosen's original story with great interest. I am torn between understanding Rosen's beef with the reality that Williams presents---and ultimately the small Texas town is the biggest loser, since they no longer will have an alternative to the daily Williams mentions. The whole story makes me sad, sad for all of the parties, all, I must say, except Rosen, who really didn't lose anything at all, compared with the other two men.

It's so unfair to the paper! But it gets worse: I found out the other day that when you go to the store now, you have to give them money before you take stuff home, or they get all in your face about it. Plus, when you go out for a beer, the bartender's, like, "Give me money, dude." This sucks!

For the sake of argument, I'll grant you that Mark Williams is an OK writer.

For the love of God, then, why, if he can write a decent sentence, does he go to the trouble of seeking out, reading, then cutting and pasting the work of others?

It's EASIER for lazy writers to just tap out your own stuff. It really is! Takes way too long to research other, "better" writers.

It's like the work of any petty thief, you have to wonder, if they just applied the energy and brains they used in commiting the crime, to working and living a normal life, they'd be ahead!

I know how Ladyman and Williams feel ... I stole this dude's car one time. he asked me if i did it and i said yeah, guess so but i'll try to get it back ... but then the jerk goes and calls the cops AND starts running me down around the neighborhood telling people i'm a car thief ... that's the probelm with people today. NO COURTESY!

The idea that plagiarism somehow isn't "really" stealing and that the person who calls someone on it is the truly dishonorable one is as familiar as it is pathetic. But the idea that the tear-stained, middle-finger-raised suicide note credited above to "Mark Williams" could strike any English-speaking adult human being as well-written and/or hilarious seems so far outside the realm of actual possibility that, until DNA tests prove otherwise, I'll have to assume that those comments were written by Williams, Ladyman, and their mommies. Or Lee Siegel.

Mr. Nugent,

To the extent that your post is commenting on my post, I'll respond.

I never excused plagiarism by Mr. Williams or anyone else. It's wrong. Period.

My comment was only that I like his letter. It's funny. It's well written. It's good.

I'll leave it to him if it is necessary to shut down his paper, but it does seem extreme.

But, I do think that Slate is killing a fly with a sledgehammer here. They made this a giant deal where it is clearly not as far as they should be concerned (Robb Walsh is another matter - if I were him I would be pissed, bc the plagiarism of his work is a distinctly local item/story).

I stand by what I wrote in that in today's world of blogging, plagiarism (albeit not of the verbatim type)is so rampant as to be the norm. We've all read how newspapers are cutting staff (ie., reporters) so we live in a world where bloggers/commenters are commenting on the second or third hand comments of commentators with no actual knowledge. Sourcing is not done as it should be. (Don't believe me? Read Jonathon Alter's column in Newsweek from about two weeks ago.)

Who has "boots on the ground" anymore? Apparently, Mr. Ladyman was someone who could report firsthand, but now he's quit. He screwed up, but who wins?

Why is the Houston Press exulting in his collapse? (If the reason is that they are backing up the excellent Robb Walsh, I suppose I understand. Really, I mean it. Robb Walsh is better at what he does than 98% of the Chron's writers.)

Lastly, I should say I had never heard of Mr. Ladyman before this, I have never met him, never read or even seen his paper, nor have I ever met "Mr. Williams."

My name is as posted. Really. (don't get me started on the anonymity of blogs and message boards).

Bloggers: I suppose it is time that I made a comment here, since Mark Williams seem to be your favorite new obsession. For such a heralded and busy bunch of people, it is obvious that you have an abundance of free time in your daily schedule. You have done an exemplary job of exposing the seedy underbelly of Mr. Williams' letter. You have indeed brought him to his knees.
I'm sure that he sincerely apologize for his crimes against humanity and any perceived damage done to anyone or their career accomplishments. It was never his intention to cause you harm.

OK, Mr. Williams, we're sorry you've had a rough life, but that's no excuse. I happen to be from Montgomery County, and I, too, struggled. I joined the Army to help pay for college; worked a graveyard shift, and took classes during the day and worked at The Daily Texan in Austin because I really wanted to be a reporter. It was a tough time, and later it was tough meeting deadlines at small dailies -- going to council and school board meetings; dictating stories in the rain from scenes of car crashes or crimes; or making endless calls and knocking on endless doors to get the sources I needed.
And I gradually moved up the journalism food chain. But I NEVER made it up or stole material from other writers. You, Mr. Williams, also stole from your employer, who trusted you to report and write yur own material. Is he guilty of poor oversight? Certainly -- but you are a thief, and have made the whole profession look bad. Do us all a favor and find another way to earn a living.

Lord above, Mark Williams -- if there really is a mark Williams -- IS a scumbag and a thief. That he has the nerve to expect sympathy for his thefts is mind-boggling.

Lord above, Mark Williams -- if there really is a mark Williams -- IS a scumbag and a thief. That he has the nerve to expect sympathy for his thefts is mind-boggling.

Oh, and Ladyman is pathetic, too, blaming the reporter who exposed him. Good riddance to the both of them.

Oh, and the suggestion that "Mark Williams" is a good writer ... unbelievable.

Worst. Apology. Ever.

(Oh well. It was probably cribbed.)

When I read the comments posted here that question why Slate's writer, Jody Rosen, could make such a big deal about this, I shake my head.

You would think Mark Williams was the victim here.

As to Williams' being a good writer based on his sarcastic, pathetic, whimpering letter -- some of us here are not exactly in the literary set.

What it does show is that the man suffers from a basic character defect and needs a 12-step prgram.

As Lyndon Johnson once said, "I can't stand a man who pisses on my leg and then tells me it is raining."

"And I gradually moved up the journalism food chain."

Sorry, can't do that any more.

I have a stack of awards from the AP, various publisher's associations, and a few national-level organizations to prove it. Sterling record. Flawless quarterly reviews. Still couldn't find anything that wasn't a lateral move, making the same crappy pay, living like a piece of shit, wondering where I was going to get the money to fix the same car I drove into the ground while working for the ungrateful hoarders at Gannett.

I'm luck to have gotten out in my late 20s, and I'm on the cusp of a career change that will finally let me live like a normal member of society.

But don't ever say that journalism rewards hard work and dedication, because it doesn't. All you need to do is take a look at the various media sites that report layoffs at papers across the country, every day.

The few remaining good jobs have long since been claimed by those with j-school connections or memberships to minority journalist associations.

The people who stick it out are insane, delusional or stupid.

And while there's no excuse for ripping off Joe Conason columns or smarmy pieces by Slate jerk-offs, I can understand why a guy like Williams would be resentful. Clearly, he can write. Unfortunately for him, he doesn't have the ins that a douchebag like Jody Rosen has.

If I was 44 and still working low-paying jobs at shitty weeklies, I'd be depressed too. Like I said, I'm glad I got out when I did.

As for people like Rosen, fuck them.

"Nope": What a despicable, despicable thing to say. No, journalism careers don't pay off for everyone, and no, the field doesn't always reward the best people or the best work. It's an imperfect field, like any other, and the urge toward bitterness is understandable. That doesn't excuse stealing others' work and passing it off as one's own. Nor does it excuse needless name-calling when someone values his work enough to protect it from frankentheft. But hey, based on what you've written here, I suspect you're not the only one who's glad you got out of journalism when you did.

Something doesn't compute in a posting here. Someone had a stack of AP awards and national acclaim before age 30 and no one out there hired them away from Gannett with a bigger, better deal?

Hmmmmmmmm.

The post goes on to acknowledge that Mark Williams stealing from another journalist is indefensible, but then attacks Jody Rosen -- the victim of the theft -- with hateful invective.

The whole thing is a non-compute kinda deal.

As a sportswriter who has had information taken from them, I understand Jody Rosen's concern. Should he have taken it to the extreme he did, perhaps not, but when you do not get an acceptable response in a resonable amount of time, I can understand. As for three stories not being enough evidence, one is all that is needed.
In my case, a writer from another newspaper, whom I worked with at one time, did not attend some games that both our papers cover, yet there were direct quotes from the coach that matched mine exactly. Could he have talked to the coach the next day and the coach have same the same thing -- perhaps -- but, verbatim, hardly. It was my editor who actually saw it and he contacted the writer and he admitted to doing it. Many people might say that it was a quote from the coach, so what difference does it make? It gives the impression that he was actually at the event and worked to get the information, that's the difference.
I guess that based on the thoughts of some here, it would be no different in the business world if someone worked hard to get a sale, but somebody else got the commission because they just happened to be the right person to pick up the phone at that time, while the original salesperson was making another sale.
Why do the work if you can get paid off the work of others.

When you plagiarize - even once - you lose the right to the moral high ground. And when you're then revealed to be a serial plagiarizer, there aren't really any mitigating circumstances that can explain it. Rosen wasn't the sole victim, and surely can't be blamed for being angry. Frankly, Ladyman's response is unforgivable as well. Any editor or publisher, when confronted with clear evidence of plagiarism, fabrication, or any other misdeed, is responsible for immediately rectifying the situation - i.e. checking the veracity of the charges, firing the guilty parties, and issuing very public apologies and promises to reform along with notifications of measures being put into place to ensure future problems will not occur. Ladyman's nonchalant response makes it clear that he doesn't belong in the newspaper business any more than Williams does. When he was presented with charges of massive plagiarism, it's his reputation on the line as much as it is Williams, and it has been irreparably damaged.

PS - How lazy do you have to be to plagiarize music reviews? Sure, it helps to be knowledgeable, but there's no research or any legwork involved, other than listening to the album. Sure, *good* music reviewing requires more, but this rag didn't seem to care even a little bit about the quality of the writing. All that you have to do is listen to the album and say what you thought. All you have to do to write a crappy music review is to write your own words.

He plagiarized text from an Amazon .com customer who wrote a review of the album they bought. ho pathetic is that? Enough said.

The letter above is the most he's ever written above, and I bet he typed it using a thesaurus. I also bet there is no Mark Williams and this is all Ladyman.

Then Ladyman complains about Rosen going public? He's a writer, so of course he wrote an article about it. Ladyman didn't respond. Any "reputable" publisher would be appalled at accusations against one of his contract employees and would immediately investigate, but Ladyman couldn't because "he had a deadline and needed to get the paper out"?!??!?! What about fact checking? Such an easy job now that the Internet exists. this shows a lack of ethics on Ladyman's part, and his split personality Williams.

I worked for The Bulletin before Mark was hired and worked for Mike Ladyman. There is question to some of you, yes there is a Mark. Mark fooled everyone and seemed to know what he was talking about.
Mike is a reputable person in the community and stands up for what is right and is there to lend a hand when needed. I believe that the situation could have been handled differently. I mean between him and Mr. Rosen. The other paper in this county does not talk about what is really going on in the community, and would rather "sweep it under the rug" and The Bulletin would tell it like it is and let the unheard community be heard. Yes some of the articles were taken from other papers and that is wrong.
What Mark did was plain and simple, he did steal to make a living and it is unexcusable.
Maybe Mike was too trusting. I feel that he was. He believes in his employees and went the extra mile. He believes in his community and told it like it was, without sugarcoating it like another local publication. I worked at this one as well.
I know that my personal opinion of Mike is not what some of you might want to hear but, I see a lot of people on here really making him out to be a terrible individual that was running a scam on purpose. That I know was not the case.
It did make The Bulletin look bad, it made Mike look bad, but it was because of Mark.

"in our crappy little town,"...says it all. They've had that attitude since they've moved into town and took over the newspaper. Before these people came in and took it over, the Bulletin was a successful community newspaper. My good friend freelanced for them as a photographer back then. She use to be embraced by everyone when they saw her coming, but after they took over, people began to shun her... and for good reason. All you have to do is compare the paper back then to the paper after they took over to realize how significant the words "in our crappy little town" is. Good ridance!