Originally Posted by banyon
Not to speak for cosmo, but I think the point is that the blog post author's words were not used in the Maddow piece complained of. The just used the same historical reference (which happens all the time, since our country has a shared history, people will regularly point out how current events remind them of historical events, and occasionally people will think of the same historical event because they are logically connected). The point is plagiarism is using someone else's words as your own. Not referencing the same idea. Not referring to a movie. Not using video obtained by someone else.
This isn't a libel slander situation. Plagiarism extends to all intellectual property. You can plagiarize a team playbook, an analogy, an argument, video, computer code, math calculations, etc., etc.
This is quiet different in quality from Biden's past plagiarism, that Maddow tries to use as the foundation for her fury. If he did appropriate the material, he did so from a free encyclopedia to describe the plot of a movie. He didn't change the plot of the movie to fit his narrative. He didn't claim that he'd had some flash of inspiration heretofore unnoticed by others. MoF, if there was any novel intellectual property at play it was in making the connection between the movie plot and current events, which is Paul's property, Paul's observation, not Wikipedia's. Lazy and hammy, yes. Scandalous, not so much.
Biden's plagiarism was taking the details of another politicians LIFE and the stirring stump speech that life led the politician to craft and appropriated it as his OWN life narrative.
And Maddow appropriated some specific and obscure arguments/analogies that others had the wherewithal to craft and presented them as her journalistic efforts.