My dowdy prediction

A week has elapsed since I wrote about Maureen Dowd. I thought by now she would have acknowledged an intentional 43-word copy job, followed by a sorry-I-forgot-to-attribute apology.  I think that's all it would have taken to make this saga go away.

Ms. Dowd points out that she had indeed given proper credit to two other writers and so by her reckoning, she could not have planned to copy from a third. Two out of three isn't bad.

I'd have preferred to hear her say she was working too quickly, or she was distracted when a bird smacked into her office window, or whatever, but that after she used the work of another writer, she simply forgot to credit the author, but had meant to do so. I would have bought that, but it isn't what we are asked to believe, which is why this episode is extraordinary.

Maureen Dowd, Wikipedia

The essence of her account is this: After communicating with a friend about another person's work, she plopped some sentences in her column and then discovered she was using the same 43 words after bloggers told her.  Here's what she wrote to explain her actions (repeated from Michael Calderone's space at Politico.com): "i was talking to a friend of mine Friday about what I was writing who suggested I make this point, expressing it in a cogent -- and I assumed spontaneous -- way and I wanted to weave the idea into my column. but, clearly, my friend must have read josh marshall without mentioning that to me. we're fixing it on the web, to give josh credit, and will include a note, as well as a formal correction tomorrow."

My prediction that within a week Ms. Dowd would be finished by the absence of a plausible explanation was completely wrong. I misjudged how serious the matter would be taken by the New York Times.  I see reader and writer outrage and even scorn, but little from the Times itself. 

I think Ms. Dowd made a mistake, got rattled during the firestorm and then made more mistakes by blaming her quotable friend.  My reasoning is that she didn't need to take risks deliberately, so it probably wasn't theft. She's already a famous, award-winning columnist in little danger of losing her space, so she doesn't need to lift other people's work including the unremarkable, 43 words she borrowed.

I rarely agree with her views (save for the attention she aptly paid to Bill Clinton's peccadilloes in the 90s).  So I admit that my antennae went up easily when I learned about her ordeal.  Perhaps too easily.

However, I'd like to think that if a columnist I normally agree with like Noonan, Krauthammer, or Goldberg, had inserted 43 words written by another writer and then proffered such a lame excuse, that I'd have been equally critical.  When and if something like that happens, we'll see if I rise to the task.

Is Maureen Dowd in trouble?

The answer is yes.

Forty-three words without attribution, a poor excuse and by now, I suspect, a truth audit of her work is well underway.

Had Ann Coulter done this, the New York Times (and perhaps Ms. Dowd herself) would have hung her from the highest limb. My prediction is that Ms. Dowd will either come out and declare she knew what she was doing after all and apologize profusely within the next week, or she's finished as a nationally-syndicated columnist.