Sometimes if one does an internet search for the headline of an article, one will find it in several different places on the internet.
For instance the article that Johnathan Pearce linked to in this post, a piece by Gerard Baker for the Wall Street Journal with the title “Biden Emerges as Progressive Government’s Mr. Bad Example” turned up in a site calling itself “Daily News 4 U” which offers “News for you all day” in English, German and Filipino. The headline seems to have lost the final word “example” but apart from that it is the same article.
It could be that the WSJ has a particularly active syndication sales department, I suppose. Though one would think they would get the headline right.
Whether or not the route by which an article that appeared in the Wall Street Journal on 20th December reappeared in Daily News 4 U on 21st December was entirely … homologated, there is no mystery about why a little-known news site would want to re-publish an article by an established columnist alongside lots and lots and lots of articles by columnists from all over the world.
But there is a related phenomenon which I do not understand.
On December 14th an opinion piece by Bret Stephens in the New York Times caused a stir. Its headline was “Biden Should Not Run Again — and He Should Say He Won’t.” The full article is behind a paywall, but here are the opening paragraphs:
Is it a good idea for Joe Biden to run for re-election in 2024? And, if he runs again and wins, would it be good for the United States to have a president who is 86 — the age Biden would be at the end of a second term?
I put these questions bluntly because they need to be discussed candidly, not just whispered constantly.
In the 1980s, it was fair game for reputable reporters to ask whether Ronald Reagan was too old for the presidency, at a time when he was several years younger than Biden is today. Donald Trump’s apparent difficulty holding a glass and his constricted vocabulary repeatedly prompted unflattering speculation about his health, mental and otherwise. And Joe Biden’s memory lapses were a source of mirth among his Democratic primary rivals, at least until he won the nomination.
Yet it’s now considered horrible manners to raise concerns about Biden’s age and health. As if doing so can only play into Trump’s hands. As if the president’s well-being is nobody’s business but his own. As if it doesn’t much matter whether he has the fortitude for the world’s most important job, so long as his aides can adroitly fill the gaps. As if accusations of ageism and a giant shushing sound from media elites can keep the issue off the public mind.
And here is the Uncanny Valley version from an outlet called “Lightlynews.com”:
Is it a good suggestion for Joe Biden to run for re-election in 2024? And, if he runs once more and wins, would it not be good for the United States to have a president who’s 86 — the age Biden can be on the finish of a second time period?
I put these questions bluntly as a result of they must be mentioned candidly, not simply whispered continuously.
In the 1980s, it was honest sport for respected reporters to ask whether or not Ronald Reagan was too previous for the presidency, at a time when he was a number of years youthful than Biden is in the present day. Donald Trump’s obvious issue holding a glass and his constricted vocabulary repeatedly prompted unflattering hypothesis about his well being, psychological and in any other case. And Joe Biden’s reminiscence lapses had been a supply of mirth amongst his Democratic major rivals, a minimum of till he received the nomination.
Yet it’s now thought-about horrible manners to lift considerations about Biden’s age and well being. As if doing so can solely play into Trump’s arms. As if the president’s well-being is no one’s enterprise however his personal. As if it doesn’t a lot matter whether or not he has the fortitude for the world’s most essential job, as long as his aides can adroitly fill the gaps. As if accusations of ageism and a large shushing sound from media elites can preserve the problem off the general public thoughts.
The level of similarity between this and the original is too great to save the publishers from a lawsuit, but let’s be real, the example of the Gerard Baker article and many others suggests that no lawsuit is likely. Why did someone bother to pass this article through the word-grinder, when it is clear they could have just copied the real thing with less trouble and no greater risk?
It’s about Biden. The plagiarism part is just traditional.
Sad to say but my brain read the first part of that sentence as ” As if accusations of ageism and a giant sloshing sound from” and filled in the rest as, well you can imagine. Had to do it over three times to get it right.
Lightlynews.com is . . . interesting.
I can’t find much info about it anywhere, but it’s full of badly-grammar’ed rip-offs of other people’s work. And lots of cheap services seem to steal from them . . . er, I mean, use them as a source, too.
Maybe they figure that, if they butcher the words that the original author used, no one will want to claim it as their own. Shame-plagiarism, as it were. No way Bret Stephens is going to point to that article and claim it as his own.
Obviously, they’re all BIG Warren Zevon fans!
On the trouble/cost side, after you have set up a fairly simple script that runs thesaurus substitutions on “your” text, your marginal cost/trouble is practically zero. This is fully automated – see “whether or not Ronald Reagan was too previous for the presidency”.
On the risk side, these days copyright enforcement rarely involves humans, much less courtrooms. Most likely scenario: WSJ runs (or subcontracts to someone else to run) automated searches on fragments of their articles, and when it finds matches on other sites, it forwards this info to Google/Facebook in order to demonetize (Lightly News does run ads) and/or deprioritize in searches/feeds – also most likely automated. Altering the text enough could disrupt both parts of such a process.
So, if Natalie would excuse me, I’d paraphrase her: Why wouldn’t someone bother to pass this article through the word-grinder, when just copying the real thing is no less extra trouble, but could plausibly give your “victim” a small, but tangible edge?
An effective propaganda method is to mix lies with truth.
What the New York Times person is doing is to (sort of) half-admit the truth about Mr Biden – in order to LIE about President Trump.
I have seen many interviews President Trump – he is not senile, Mr Biden clearly is senile.
In the past the New York Times would sometimes, at least partly, admit the truth about the Soviet Union (admit that it was a tyranny) – but they would only do that in order to gain credibility for their attacks on the United States and the West in general.
The passage quoted from the NYT person is using the same method – partly admit the truth about Mr Biden, in order to gain credibility for their attack on President Trump.
Remember Mr Biden is not going to be the candidate in 2024 – indeed it would not matter to the New York Times if Mr Biden was removed right now (after all he would be replaced by K. Harris – the daughter of a leading Marxist academic), so it does not matter to the NYT what is said about Mr Biden. The target of the NYT (and the rest of the Collectivist Totalitarians) remains President Trump – and any other defender of the West.
“No it is just President Trump they hate – it is personal, not political” – no, that is a mistaken view. Anyone who defended such things as Freedom of Speech and lower taxation and less regulation, would attract the same level of hatred (and the same tidal wave of lies) from the New York Times and the other Collectivist Totalitarians.
Twice through Google Translate?
Of course Biden isn’t going to run again. In fact, I expect him to step down sometime after 21st Jan 2022. That way Harris will contest 2024 as an incumbent – a huge advantage – and will be able to contest 2028 too.
Quentin – I agree with your assessment of the situation.
However, I do not believe that K. Harris will contest the 2028 Presidential election.
Unless there is Election Rigging (Election FRAUD) on a truly old-style Liberian scale (although 2020 came close to that with vast numbers of “votes” that did NOT come from voters), then K. Harris will go down the largest defeat of any incumbent in America history.
Remember – there is going to be economic collapse over the next few years. Nor can K. Harris (FALSELY) claim that “infrastructure” schemes will help – as the “infrastructure” Bill has already been passed.