NYT’s Latest Miss: The Harris Book Fake Controversy

Breaking down a right-wing hit job on Kamala Harris—amplified yet again by the New York Times.

Well, here we are again, folks. It seems the New York Times has once more fallen into the trap of "publish first, question later" when it comes to Kamala Harris.

In their latest foray into the realm of non-stories masquerading as journalism, they've decided to breathe life into accusations so flimsy they'd struggle to hold up a paper airplane: A conservative activist has cried "plagiarism" over a 15-year-old book, and somehow, this warrants the full Times treatment.

So I guess it's time for another round of meta media debunking.

After all, if the Fourth Estate insists on chasing shadows, someone's got to turn on the lights.

The Setup

Conservative Activist Seizes on Passages From Harris Book
A report by Christopher Rufo says the Democratic presidential nominee copied five short passages for her 2009 book on crime. A plagiarism expert said the lapses were not serious.

Right from the headline, we're witnessing the birth of a non-story. The use of "seizes" suggests an opportunistic grab rather than a substantive discovery. Note the immediate counterpoint from a plagiarism expert, which should have been the end of this horsefuckery. Instead, it's just the beginning of a narrative that never needed to unfold.

The Numbers Game

The passages called into question by Mr. Rufo on his Substack platform involve about 500 words in the approximately 65,000-word, 200-page book. Ms. Harris, the Democratic presidential nominee, wrote the book with another author when she was the district attorney in San Francisco.

Let's put these numbers in perspective. We're talking about 0.77% of the book's content. If this were a 2-hour movie, we'd be discussing about 55 seconds of footage. Is this really worthy of national attention? The inclusion of these statistics in the article already undermines its own newsworthiness.

The Nature of the "Offense"

In a review of the book, The New York Times found that none of the passages in question took the ideas or thoughts of another writer, which is considered the most serious form of plagiarism. Instead, the sentences copy descriptions of programs or statistical information that appear elsewhere.

This paragraph essentially debunks the entire premise of the story. If there's no theft of ideas or original thoughts, what exactly is the controversy? Copying factual descriptions or statistics without perfect citation is hardly the stuff of scandals. It's more akin to forgetting to attribute a well-known quote – regrettable, but hardly nefarious.

Expert Opinion

Jonathan Bailey, a plagiarism consultant in New Orleans and the publisher of Plagiarism Today, said on Monday that his initial reaction to Mr. Rufo's claims was that the errors were not serious, given the size of the document.
"This amount of plagiarism amounts to an error and not an intent to defraud," he said, adding that Mr. Rufo had taken relatively minor citation mistakes in a large amount of text and tried to "make a big deal of it."

Here's where the article should have ended. An expert in the field has dismissed the claims as insignificant. By continuing beyond this point, The New York Times is actively participating in the amplification of a non-issue. They're turning a petty right-wing molehill into a mountain, all in the name of "balanced" reporting.

The Political Angle

The Harris campaign in a statement rejected the accusations as a right-wing attack to try to derail her growing support.
"This is a book that's been out for 15 years, and the vice president clearly cited sources and statistics in footnotes and endnotes throughout," said James Singer, a campaign spokesman.

The inclusion of the campaign's response further legitimizes what should have been a non-story. By giving space to this rebuttal, the article implicitly suggests that there's something substantial to rebut. It's a classic case of "when did you stop beating your wife?" – the very act of responding lends credence to the accusation.

The Accuser's Background

Known for his work opposing diversity, equity and inclusion programs, Mr. Rufo, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank, published plagiarism accusations last year that helped lead to the resignation of Harvard's president, Claudine Gay.

This paragraph provides crucial context about Rufo's background and motivations. However, its placement this far into the article means many readers may have already formed opinions based on the earlier paragraphs. The Times should have led with this information to provide readers with the necessary lens through which to view these accusations.

The Broader Campaign

Mr. Rufo is part of a loose confederation of conservative writers and activists who, during the past year, have tried to expose plagiarism among academics, many of whom have been Black scholars who work in the field of diversity and inclusion.

This is perhaps the most important paragraph in the entire article, and it's buried near the fucking end. It reveals a pattern of targeted accusations that raises serious questions about the motivations behind this campaign. By not highlighting this context earlier, the article fails to provide readers with the full picture from the outset.

The Selective Scrutiny

Mr. Rufo said that while he and his colleagues had examined mostly published work by white academics, plagiarism had shown up almost always among papers written by Black scholars, particularly Black women who work in diversity and inclusion.
"We can speculate as to why," Mr. Rufo said, but he suggested that academic studies that lead to careers in diversity, equity and inclusion were not as rigorous as some others.

These paragraphs reveal the true nature of Rufo's campaign. The implication that Black scholars, particularly women in DEI fields, are more prone to academic dishonesty is a serious accusation that demands scrutiny. By presenting this without immediate critical analysis, the article risks legitimizing a potentially biased and harmful narrative.

The Bottom Line

What we have here is not a story about plagiarism. It's not even a story about Kamala Harris. It's a story about how easily the media can be manipulated into amplifying baseless accusations and how a respected institution like The New York Times repeatedly and pathologically lends credibility to what is essentially a political hit job.

The real story – the one that should have been written – is about the systematic targeting of Black scholars and political figures under the guise of academic integrity. It's about the weaponization of plagiarism accusations as a political tool. And it's about the media's responsibility to discern between genuine controversies and manufactured outrage.

By giving this non-story prominence, The New York Times has not only wasted valuable column inches but has also contributed to the very distraction tactics they should be exposing. In an era where real news is often drowned out by noise, it's more crucial than ever for respected media outlets to exercise judicious restraint and critical thinking in what they choose to amplify.

*insert assorted fart sounds