Redstate

1. To Ben: Take some time off, then come right back and defend yourself here on RS. Don't let the vicious left get away with smearing your character. I realize that it's not easy to get all the notes, and contact all the writers and editors, but it's worth it. Do it for your supporters who stand behind you, and would like nothing better then to throw this whole thing back in the left's face.
   
2. To the Editors: Get To Work. You're a talented bunch of guys, start digging into those holier-than-thou lefties. Let's see how their closets look. They declared war, we should end it at our choosing.

to the directors on this decision- not that it was a remotely difficult decision to make.

...I'd like to see more confession and less self-defense from Ben. Not because I love suffering, but because I love redemption and forgiveness, which has to come AFTER confession, not before.

1. Not only the leftwingnuts attacked
   
   
2. Arguing with idiots is contagious, avoid it
   
   
3. Talent wins, ignore the cretins
   
   
4. Let folks with less talent and more time attack the idiots
   
   
5. Debunk theory, don't bother discrediting idiots

I think that we should come up with two bloggers to blog at WaPo under the Red America blog.  If they knock down one of ours, two should spring up to take his place.

"We are disappointed in the turn of events, yes. We are also disappointed in some of our allies in their rush to judgement."

What, no disappointment in Ben plagiarizing?  There has to be line drawn somewhere.  What if Ben committed a double homicide OJ Style?  Should one defend Ben forever because he is the founder like how one defend OJ because he is black?

Time to cut bait before further examples of plagiarism are found.

I am with Malkin and Moran on this.

Either you didn't read his long post in the previous article, or you're worthy of a blam.  Which is it?

The extent to which Ben may or may not have made mistakes should have no bearing whatsoever on the continued existence of Red America. It would be cowardly for the WaPo to eliminate it. Red Staters everywhere should implore the WaPo to continue the feature, but with a different author.

Clayton, you may in fact be right about the rush to judgement stuff, but I've seen some pretty good evidence (as has NRO, apparently) that the accusations aren't entirely without merit. On that basis, I sort of resent your comment. I can read. I, for one, based any criticism of Ben on that reading -- nothing else.

Ben seems like a fine young man. He clearly has lots of friends. He'll be fine. But if he did "the crime", he needs to do "the time". I hope we don't let the irresponsible behavior of the looney left dissuade us from seeing this.  To me, it's patently obvious that the charges at least have merit. Ben, like any of us, has the right to defend himself against those charges, and I sincerely hope he does.

I read his long response, and frankly I'm not satisfied with it. Add me to the list of people who still, frankly, think that Ben has some 'splainin to do.

I don't agree with your comrade about much, but am impressed by your loyalty to him.  I appreciate that he's done some fine things, like helping set up this forum, that many will now overlook.

It may well be appropriate to stand with him now, and defend him based on your knowledge of him.  But at some point, in some way, for the sake of his credibility and future career, one or another of you should talk with him candidly about what he's done.  And you shouldn't keep backing up his excuse-making indefinitely, or blaming the rest of the world for "rushing to judgment."  He needs friends, not enablers.

If you have been falsly accused, then self-defence is entirely appropriate.

Lets all chill out and listen to what Ben has to say.  I think that we owe a man who has always demonstrated honesty in the past the opportunity to defend himself before we crucify him.

Thats my motto: Trial first, execution second.

(I always enjoy gallows humor).

But his first  attempt conveninently omits what, to me at least, seems to me the most damning case: the NRO movie review, which the editors of same have seen fit to apologize for.

I'm listening, but as much as I despised the witch hunt it doesn't change the fact that some evidence has been brought to light that merits rebutting. And he has chosen, as of yet, not to do so.

You have got to take that one back, it makes conservatives look bad.

OJ was tried.  OJ was never convicted of these acts.  Your speculation is not evidence that he did.

And then you play the race card?  o.O

Should I stop coming here?  After all, I'm a conservative man of color and I feel greatly maligned sometimes with some of the comments made here.

Sheesh...

You tell me what exactly Ben has done.

Seriously.

Plagiarizing himself for NRO?>p?

Seriously?

Being age 24?

Please.

I've never seen so many peudo-sanctimonious midgets in my life.  (Let 'em attack the Lion.)

A MESSAGE TO OUR READERS [The Editors]


As the previous links on the matter mention, at least one of the pieces Ben Domenech is accused of having plagiarized was a movie review for National Review Online. A side-by-side comparison to another review of the same film speaks for itself. There is no excuse for plagiarism and we apologize to our readers and to Steve Murray of the Cox News Service from whose piece the language was lifted. With some evidence of possible problems with other pieces, we're also looking into other articles he wrote for NRO.

Unfortunately, this is one allegation that Ben quite clearly did not address in any way in his recent post. I for one think it ought to be.

The most recent accusation, is that I stole a music review from Crosswalk and passed it off at National Review Online. In fact, I wrote both lists myself; I was one of Crosswalk's music review contributors at the time.

Can a person plagiarize himself?

:)

The comment @ the Corner refers to a movie review written by Steve Murray, of Cox News Services. I assume it's the bit about slimy things with tentacles that's been drifting around.

In his rebuttal, Ben is talking about a music review, when I have personally seen (both the NRO and Crosswalk versions). This is a completely different allegation.

contrite!

Ban me if you must, but you have no good reason to do so. I'm well aware that the left flung truckloads of dung at Ben hoping something would stick. Well, something has. He needs to answer this.

There's no apparent plagarism - at least to my eye.  That accuastion has about as much validity as Ronnie Earle's indictment of Kay Bailey Hutchison.

You have to put this controversy into this category.  

Either Mr. Domenech has been defamed or he has been exposed.  Only the facts will tell, and they are never explored objectively during feeding frenzies.

I am perplexed about the concept of plagiarism as "an unforgiveable sin".  On the plus side, the chattering classes believe in at least one religious concept.  (Note to the good Catholics on NRO- you are bordering on heresy.) I don't like plagiarism, but it is hardly unforgiveable.  Plagiarism can be adequately dealt with by civil law, which has standards to evaluate it and the damage resulting therefrom.  

As for the personal abuse hurled at Mr. Domenech, aren't unsubstaniated allegations libelous?  And personal threats illegal? There is more than one legal issue here.

comprised of the liberal left.

I don't see any apparent plagarism.

At least not that I am aware of.

You're hounding someone, repeatedly. That's contrary to the intent and letter of the Posting Rules. If you feel the need to be a martyr to stupid, go for it.

Ben deserves to be on the staff.

mcg, I'm with you.  Ben does need to answer to the specific charges and not hide behind the hordes of bloggers who will rush to defend him without getting all the facts (not that I claim to have them, just that I'm not rushing to anything).

Thomas: mcg wasn't "hounding" anyone.

that's fine with me.

Otherwise you'd be wise to stay on the porch in this one.

in the huge number of people that aren't actually READING what Ben said.  You among them.  Lucky for you I'm not your friend and I don't know you so it shouldn't bother you that I am.

Ben, if the Washington Post fired you for no reason then you need to at least sue for lost wages.

The twelve-year-olds rule the roost here. Hopefully someday Krempansky will go out on his own and leave this blowhards.

Honestly, you're as bad as the Kossacks here.

Bye.

...He said PJ O'Rourke granted him permission to localize his piece. Such permission is usually granted in writing, but if that's not available, then it should be easy to check. Just call PJ.

Mr. D also said his editors at The Flat Hat inserted plagiarized material into his reviews. Anybody willing to hear their side of the story?

If Red State is truly interested in the truth of this matter, in addition to standing loyally by their friend, then a few phone calls should suffice to make the case.

The Lord will know his own.  They're nothing but jackals.

My unimportant 2 cents...

First, I think mcg has a point in that the "controversy" won't die down until Ben discusses what's up with the movie review. It's obvious from looking at the two articles that there's been some "copying" done. However, I won't dwell on this as mcg has pushed it enough and I know first hand that it's not easy dealing with plagiarism allegations (whether they're true or not).

Secondly, as a moderate liberal (if the term makes sense) I feel ashamed of the way people attacked Ben through email, and I guess via the phone lines. I've never understood the need for violent personal threats when discussing politics on the internet. Now, this goes for those who emailed Ben and also for some of the comments I've seen on RedState basically saying that everyone on DKos can drop dead and it wouldn't matter. I feel this is just stooping to their level.

In the end, what I would like to see is a separate website set up where Ben posts some of the stupid emails he got along with the email addresses. He should then send the list of emails to DKos and ask that action be taken against posters whose emails appear on the site. Such behavior should not be tolerated in any discussion forum, even a political one.

with a recognizable historical reference!

Becoming a public journalist exposes one to  the same depraved violence aimed at candidates for and holders of public office. Examples of this include Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, Sam Alito and Ben. Neither journalists nor Independent candidates have the support of experienced political warriors that only a major political party can provide. They become Lone Rangers surrounded by the enemy with no Cavalry to rescue them. Accordingly, few conservative public journalists like Bob Novak have been able to survive this combat. This incident vividly distinguishes blog from public journalism.

And wrote into Atrios

Hi --

This all seems to have happened really fast. I hadn't really checked the news til midday today when I saw all of this happened. It might be kind of moot now, but I was Domenech's editor at The Flat Hat when he was writing the reviews. Four people, including me, would have handled his copy, the others being my assistant section editor, the managing editor and the editor.

This should seem obvious, but no one on the editorial staff was going into Salon (or wherever) and pasting whole sections into his reviews. We were more concerned about getting the paper done so we could get home at 2 in the morning instead of 5. We may have put additional words in the story, but it would never have been completely foreign content. It was just editing.

(emphasis mine)

So we have one of the editors admitting to inserting things into Ben's pieces. And this section "We were more concerned about getting the paper done so we could get home at 2 in the morning instead of 5" seems like they might have used shortcuts to insert material into Ben's reviews. We will ever actually know? I doubt it, Tempest...Teapot.

he doesn't seem to understand "resignation != firing"

...that part of an editor's job is to add words, subtract words, clarify meanings, et cetera. Which is what the editor in question seems to be saying.

Bloggers made serious charges against Mr. D. They backed it up with specific instances, including some which do NOT date back to the days when he was just a fledgling.

Mr. D has himself made a serious charge, that editors inserted plagiarized material into reviews that ran under his byline. He should be prepared to back up this accusation.

"We were more concerned about getting the paper done so we could get home at 2 in the morning instead of 5"

For the slow...."We.... were.... more.... concerned.... about.... getting.... the.... paper.... done.... so.... we.... could.... get.... home.... at.... 2.... in.... the.... morning.... instead.... of.... 5...."

No apparent plagiarism? Have you seen the reviews?

Have a look. Here's what he wrote for the National Review, and here's what Steve Murray wrote for the Cox News Service. Search both for "translucent and glowing" and tell me that's not blatant plagiarism.

It's hard not to rush to judgment when there's a smoking gun. Blam me if you must, but as a conservative I'm damned angry at Domenech. We don't need this kind of embarrassment. Congratulations, Ben, you've damaged the movement.

Ben is going to have to explain this:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/06_03_19_corner-archive.asp#093326

like was suggested and you'll see them used by more than Cox and Ben.

Thanks for giving the lefties more ammo.  'Preciate it.

A Google search for "translucent and glowing" "final fantasy" -murray -domenech comes up with three results, none of which is a review of the movie. What was your point again?

Somebody gave ammo to the lefties, and it wasn't me. All this talk about how Domenech's enemies set out to bring him down sounds like so much whining to me. Well, yeah, they did. Enemies will do that. It's kind of their job. To avoid letting them succeed, don't do something so mindbogglingly foolish as to plagiarize.

...I mostly stand by my comment this morning:

http://www.redstate.com/comments/2006/3/24/03958/4019/20#20

Some partially lifted arts reviews are a problem, but one that Ben can live down -- once he cools off and comes round to acknowledging that he should have known better and does a little crossing of the desert. Professional writers will always be personally peeved by it (as is to be expected given how they make a living), but for everyone else it will wash.

But no one has yet come up with a good explanation for this (from June 2002):

http://www.bendomenech.com/globe.htm

If he did fabricate some of the quotes in the AP article as is alleged (allegedly to provide cover for previous statements in his blog rather than having to back down), this is far more serious than anything else. Plagiarism is serious but it is such a huge deal only among professional writers. Fabrication is a big deal for everybody. It will stick around as a problem for him long after everything else is forgotten and forgiven. Ben, can you please address this ASAP and provide proper sourcing? Call the Associated Press or the Boston Globe if you have to, but you just can't let this one out there.

I read that way back when, and took it for satire. It's way too tongue in cheek.

and the one that is being slighted is just who and what our opponents are, and what they might be capable of in the future.  The sky's the limit!

I wrote it here rather than in Ben's thread because I really didn't want it to come across as personally confrontational. Ideally someone else here would do the leg-work.

I'm trying get over this, and everything else I've seen I'm pretty sure I can, eventually. But this one is much more difficult for me.

In any case, I'm not coming back to it -- I've said it, now I'll just keep an eye on what Ben has to say over the next few days.

If Ben truly felt he did nothing wrong, he should have stood his ground and forced the Post to fire him, as Mary Mapes, to her credit, when she felt she had done nothing wrong, forced CBS to fire her.

And Ben's fellow conservatives should not have been in such a rush that they condemned him without having heard what he had to say.  Have we become so scared of liberals that we race to eat our own in hopes of not having to hear bad things written about us?

Why should he endure the kind of abuse he's been enduring, the personal threats to himself and his family, so that he can write for some lying leftist newspaper's website?

Well, Republic of Texas I guess, in a weird way. Course five other flags have flown over texas.

But thats fluff, ignore everything in this post above this.

I'm not clear on whether or not Ben was "asked to resign". The Washington Post seemed set on killing the piece anyway. I got the impression from Ben's post that he was pretty much terminated despite any facts. I'm no lawyer, is there a difference between "asked to resign" and "fired"?

unless you have a contract that provides otherwise, you're pretty much terminable at will in this country.  one of the reasons we don't have 25% youth unemployment, like, say, france.