100Feed: Fareed Zakaria apologizes for plagiarism

By Richard Best

Time columnist and CNN host Fareed Zakaria has apologized profusely for apparently lifting a paragraph out of The New Yorker for a recent Time column.

Conservative media watchdog Newsbusters was the first to spot the similarities between a Zakaria piece on gun control and an article by Jill Lepore that appeared in the New Yorker in April.

From Lepore’s piece:

As Adam Winkler, a constitutional-law scholar at U.C.L.A., demonstrates in a remarkably nuanced new book, “Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America,” firearms have been regulated in the United States from the start. Laws banning the carrying of concealed weapons were passed in Kentucky and Louisiana in 1813, and other states soon followed: Indiana (1820), Tennessee and Virginia (1838), Alabama (1839), and Ohio (1859). Similar laws were passed in Texas, Florida, and Oklahoma. As the governor of Texas explained in 1893, the “mission of the concealed deadly weapon is murder. To check it is the duty of every self-respecting, law-abiding man.”

From Zakaria’s:

Adam Winkler, a professor of constitutional law at UCLA, documents the actual history in Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America. Guns were regulated in the U.S. from the earliest years of the Republic. Laws that banned the carrying of concealed weapons were passed in Kentucky and Louisiana in 1813. Other states soon followed: Indiana in 1820, Tennessee and Virginia in 1838, Alabama in 1839 and Ohio in 1859. Similar laws were passed in Texas, Florida and Oklahoma. As the governor of Texas (Texas!) explained in 1893, the “mission of the concealed deadly weapon is murder. To check it is the duty of every self-respecting, law-abiding man.”
Robert VerBruggen, a writer for National Review, noticed other portions of Zakaria’s article that hewed closely to Lepore’s as well.

The Atlantic Wire posted a statement from Zakaria on Friday afternoon, taking full responsibility for the incident:

“Media reporters have pointed out that paragraphs in my Time column this week bear close similarities to paragraphs in Jill Lepore’s essay in the April 22nd issue of The New Yorker. They are right. I made a terrible mistake. It is a serious lapse and one that is entirely my fault. I apologize unreservedly to her, to my editors at Time, and to my readers.”
A spokesperson for Time told The Huffington Post, “Time takes any accusation of plagiarism by any of our journalists very seriously, and we will carefully examine the facts before saying anything else on the matter.”

This is not the first time Zakaria has come under ethical fire. Columnist Jeffrey Goldberg accused him of lifting quotes without attribution in 2009. He also caused controversy for his series of off-the-record conversations with President Obama, though he said they were no different than those the president held with any other journalist.

100Feed: Jonathan Alter Doubling Down on Romney Death Charge

By Jane Zuckerberg

Political columnist Jonathan Alter is doubling down on his charge that “people will die” if Mitt Romney is elected and repeals “Obamacare,” and disagrees with the suggestion that his remarks were over the line.

“Saying something is ‘over the line’ or ‘beyond the pale’ or whatever standard you have established for decency only works if you provide some evidence to back up your claim,” he told POLITICO by email. “What is your evidence that people will not die if Obamacare is repealed? If you cannot refute the point then it is — by definition — within the realm of legitimate debate.”

As evidence for his case, Alter cited a study by the New England Journal of Medicine that found nearly 3,000 fewer deaths per 500,000 people in states where Medicaid has been expanded than in states where it has not. The expansion of Medicaid is a central part of Obama’s health care legislation.

“In other words, I’m right on the facts. So tell me again why that’s out of bounds?” Alter wrote.

Alter’s email came in response to a previous post on this blog, in which I argued that his remark on MSNBC — “people will die in the United States if Obamacare is repealed” — was evidence that no statements were out of bounds in 2012. As I told Alter, I do not necessarily disagree with the factual accuracy of his statement. (Nor do I disagree with the factual accuracy of the opposite statement: “People will die in the United States if Obamacare is not repealed,” as neither presidential candidate is promising an end to death in general any more than they’re promising to outlaw the sale of cigarettes, which can kill you.)

What I do believe is that accusing a presidential candidate of intending to let American citizens die is an incredibly bold, headline-grabbing statement that invokes the same tone and invites the same vacuous quibbling that Alter says he wants the press to ignore.

In a follow up email, Alter acknowledged that many of his critics make the point, “people will die whomever is president.”

“It’s the circle of life, as they say in the Lion King. That’s obvious,” Alter wrote. “The question is, will more people die if Obamacare remains or is repealed?”

That is a reasonable questions to ask — or, more specifically, will more people with pre-existing conditions die (or, in his words, be “thrown to the wolves”) if Obamacare is repealed than if it is not?

“Whose policies promote life and whose will lead to more death seems to me to be not only legitimate but essential for discussion in a high stakes election,” Alter wrote.

Sure thing, but the charge that “people will die” if Romney is elected is as dangerous for our political discourse as it is useless.