Latest News → MediaWire

Editor: Cal Thomas column ‘essentially plagiarized’ from NYT

avatar by Published Feb. 25, 2011 10:35 am Updated Feb. 25, 2011 10:56 am

Romenesko Letters
The Temple Daily Telegram decided not to run Cal Thomas‘s latest column after noticing that it’s “essentially plagiarized from the New York Times,” says managing editor Carroll Wilson. “I will be looking very closely at every Cal Thomas column in the future, judging his work on a case-by-case basis.” Tracy Clark, Thomas’ editor at Tribune Media Services, tells Romenesko that no other clients have complained about the column, and that she’d forward Wilson’s letter (and links I provided) to Thomas for comment; he has yet to respond. || Letter and links after the jump.

From CARROLL WILSON, Temple Daily Telegram, Temple, Texas: Has anyone else pointed out that Cal Thomas’ recent column on the price put on a human life is essentially plagiarized from The New York Times? The Times had a story on this subject with wording Thomas has usurped. We were planning to run the column tomorrow. That column was spiked, and I will be looking very closely at every Cal Thomas column in the future, judging his work on a case-by-case basis.

—–

NEW YORK TIMES (February 16)

The Environmental Protection Agency set the value of a life at $9.1 million last year in proposing tighter restrictions on air pollution. The agency used numbers as low as $6.8 million during the George W. Bush administration.

The Food and Drug Administration declared that life was worth $7.9 million last year, up from $5 million in 2008, in proposing warning labels on cigarette packages featuring images of cancer victims.

The Transportation Department has used values of around $6 million to justify recent decisions to impose regulations that the Bush administration had rejected as too expensive, like requiring stronger roofs on cars.

CAL THOMAS (February 24)

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has set the value of a human life at $9.1 million. It reached this determination while proposing tighter restrictions on air pollution. During the Bush administration, EPA calculated our value at $6.8 million. Was the difference in price caused by inflation? The EPA didn’t say.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) arrived at its own figure for the value of an American life. It says each life is worth $7.9 million. That, too, is an increase from the $5 million value FDA had assigned each human American life in 2008. The agency calculated our value while proposing new and tougher warning labels on cigarettes that include pictures of cancer victims.

The Transportation Department — yes, Transportation — put our worth at $6 million while seeking to justify recent decisions to impose regulations the Bush administration had rejected as too costly, such as stronger roofs on cars.

A fair-use rewrite, or plagiarism? You decide.

We have made it easy to comment on posts, however we require civility and encourage full names to that end (first initial, last name is OK). Please read our guidelines here before commenting.

  • Anonymous

    I can’t imagine anyone with the experience and integrity of Cal Thomas intentionally plagiarizing, especially from a source like the NYT. He would have known he’d be caught. This charge is making him out to be a fool. I know that is not the case. He should just let it blow over and get back to work doing what he does best — speaking the truth, no matter how irate it makes liberal media elitists like The New York Almighty Times. I borrowed those last five words from Paul Greenberg (Arkansas Democrat-Gazette), for full attribution.

  • Anonymous

    Cal defines plagiarism in earlier column
    Plagiarizing a War

    By Cal Thomas

    February 15, 2010

    Plagiarism, as defined by dictionary.com, is “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.”

    @http://www.calthomas.com/index.php?news=2837

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Buffalo-Rude/100001622083462 Buffalo Rude

    How is that not plagiarism? Unless Cal’s preceding paragraph references the NYT article. e.g. “According to a February 16th New York Times article by Binyamin Appelbaum…” (Ya know, so as not to mislead his reader into believing that the subsequent thoughts expressed are entirely his own.)

    Three paragraphs wherein the arguments are essentially identical and presented in exactly the same order. He even uses the exact same example at the end of the third paragraph cited! C’mon. What are the odds that Cal and the NYT’s reporter came upon the same structure and order of their thoughts, using the same cited numbers and sources?

    Who wants to bet more instances of arguable plagiarism will be found if people keep digging in Cal’s archives? I doubt he got caught on the first try.

    Also, when does Cal lose his platform to comment on public affairs now that is entire body of work may be suspect?

  • http://www.anamericanlion.com/ Norman Rogers

    Goodbye, Cal Thomas.

    How do you survive after this? He’s going to be dropped like a hot potato.

  • http://www.ppmgcorp.com Noemi Pollack

    Fair use or plagiarism is very subjective. In this world of re-purposing articles and regurgitating news to fit other news, it becomes a gray area. I would say that a guideline would be to use the stats, but have your own deductions as to implications, making it more of an opinion piece. Alternatively, using publishe stats on which to base a new story would sound legit, as long as credit is given as to whose stats they are. In this case, a simple, “according to the NYT” might have been a disclaimer to using like language.

    Noemi

  • http://dbcooper.livejournal.com Mike Boomshadow

    His paragraphs came out in exactly the same order as the ones from the Times piece. This looks like what we musicians call a “cover.”

  • http://www.leosoderman.com Leo Soderman

    Straight-up plagiarism? Probaby not. Fair-use rewrite? Not exactly there either. He really didn’t rewrite so much as regurgitate and enhance. He’d have been much better off quoting the NYT piece, then adding his own insight. Instead, he goes into that gray area that calls into question his methods, instead of making his point.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=746940508 Tom Siebert

    Not sure if it’s straightforward plagiarism, but it sure is lazy journalism and Cal Thomas deserves to be called on it in either case. Give us all a rest, Cal….

  • Anonymous

    i don’t even think this is even as close to the original as a fair-use rewrite. i think that it is perfectly plausible that cal thomas wrote his piece without ever seeing the nytimes piece. neither piece is a work of magnificent prose or great journalism. each of the pieces basically contain numbers and comparisons. it think carroll’s ‘plagerism’ call is way off base and that he/she has blemished thomas for no good reason. i’d be quite irrate if i were him.

  • Anonymous

    What is “fair use rewrite?” in the world of commentary? I spent decades of journalism combining, rewriting, shifting around and otherwise mashing the bejabbers out of all kinds of copy to create vast roundups on things. but in many years writing columns, i have never stooped to “fair use rewrite” of someone else’s stuff. someone once did that to a friend of mine and he wrote a note saying, “Loved your column!” and I don’t think the guy ever understood. It’s not right to do it this way and is a sign Cal has stopped thinking, I think.