October 17th, 2006
More on Pitfield’s blog SNAFU
By Matthew Blackett // No Comments
In an article in today's Toronto Star, Jane Pitfield claims that her blog post of Oct. 7th was not plagiarized from a column on Oct. 6th by Spacing Votes' John Lorinc. From the Star:
Last night, at a campaign stop in Scarborough, Pitfield said it wasn't a case of plagiarism. Instead, she said, a campaign staffer merely failed to properly credit the material.
"I believe that when something like this occurs, the most important thing to do is to rectify it by removing it," she said.
Ummm, failing to properly credit material fits the definition of plagiarism. According to Dictionary.com, "plagiarism" is defined as: "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
From Oct. 7th to Oct. 12th, her blog post contained, almost word-for-word, a paragraph from Lorinc's column. In Ms. Pitfield's other blog posts, she used the word "I", which would indicate that the posts on the blog were based on her own opinion, and possibly written by her. Before the blog was removed from her site, it was titled "Jane's Blog."
Ms. Pitfield's post on Oct 7th was presented in a manner that would have visitors to her website believe it was Ms. Pitfield's own words. Only on Oct. 13th did an attribution to Mr. Lorinc and Spacing appear.
From our end of things, Ms. Pitfield's blog post could seriously compromise our integrity. It is possible that a visitor to her site could visit our site and conclude that there is a connection between her campaign and our columnist John Lorinc. Most of us know this not to be true, but we cannot assume all readers can make this distinction.
Just to be clear, let's compare the two posts again. The text below is exactly how Ms. Pitfield's blog entry from Oct. 7th appeared:
David Miller made a thin promise yesterday — $28 million to Toronto’s 13 distressed neighbourhoods, spread over four years. That works out to be just over $500,000 per neighbourhood per year — a bit less than what the city’s works department requested last winter to hire six new enforcement officers. In fact, the annual cost of Miller’s new program adds up to just 0.1% of the city’s total spending. This amounts to very little for at-risk youth. Municipal spending alone won’t solve the problems for young people growing up in distressed neighbourhoods. These steps won't do much other than generate a few more summer jobs.
Now, read the following paragraph, taken from Lorinc's Oct. 6th column, the day before Pitfield's blog entry. Similarities are in bold:
How else to explain the paper-thin promise he made yesterday — $28 million to Toronto’s 13 distressed neighbourhoods, spread over four years. Do the math, and that works out to be just over $500,000 per neighbourhood per year — a bit less than what the city’s works department requested last winter to hire six new enforcement officers. In fact, the annual cost of Miller’s new program adds up to a princely 0.1% of the city’s total spending. How’s that for commitment? All those low-income, at-risk, gang-involved youth we’ve been talking about so earnestly these part three years — let’s pitch them what amounts to a rounding error and hope for the best. (Oh yes, and cops, too, but that comes out of another budget.) Miller has been saying in his stump speeches lately that in his Toronto, “no one will be left behind.” But this line is not only eerily reminiscent of George W. Bush’s “No Child Left Behind” education reform slogan; it also has a distinctly hollow ring, given yesterday’s developments. Municipal spending alone won’t solve the problems for young people growing up in poor neighbourhoods, but it’s hard to imagine that what Miller plans to ante up will do much other than generate a few more summer jobs.
UPDATE: Ms. Pitfield called Spacing this afternoon at 5:15 to apologize. She said sorry three times.
Click here to read comments from our original post about this silly fiasco.
Interact
Sorry, comments are
closed at this time.
Rate this post
Loading ...
Facebook
Twitter!
stumbleupon
Reddit
TechnoratiComments
Neither the author nor Spacing necessarily agree with the comments posted below. Spacing reserves the right to edit or delete comments entirely. See our Comment Policy.
