Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: Chissà dove scrive Giulio Meotti? :)

http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/100344/italian-journalist-also-plagiarized-in-u-s-outlets
 
 
Last week, I reported that the Italian journalist Giulio Meotti had 
appeared to lift quotes without attribution—in short, to plagiarize—for 
a Ynet column about Israel’s record on gay rights. Since then, several 
observers, including Tablet Magazine contributors James Kirchick (who 
was plagiarized for the Ynet column) and Michael Moynihan, noted on 
Twitter and elsewhere several other instances in which Meotti had 
plagiarized. You can see them in Max Blumenthal’s catalogue (on which 
more later). Additionally, I’m afraid I’ve found two other posts in 
which Meotti plagiarized, these in the National Review’s well-trafficked 
blog, The Corner. And Moynihan pointed me to a post Meotti contributed 
to Commentary‘s Contentions blog that also contains plagiarisms. All 
three were published in 2011.
 
John Podhoretz, Commentary‘s editor, emailed today, “Commentary ended 
its relationship with Giulio Meotti the same month that these acts of 
plagiarism occurred, with the exception of a single article that 
appeared on our website in February. I am saddened and outraged that 
Commentary hosted such theft and I apologize deeply to the writers who 
had their words appropriated.” The 2012 post does not appear to be 
plagiarized.
 
“I very much regret the apparent conduct of Mr. Meotti, an outside 
contributor who is not a Ynet employee,” a Ynet editor emailed today. 
“We have now decided to terminate our relationship with him.”
 
Kathryn Jean Lopez, the editor of National Review Online, did not 
respond to a request for comment lodged late last evening. (Lopez 
interviewed Meotti in 2011.)
 
“I took inspiration from this very important column of my friend Bret 
Stephens. And that of Kirchick,” Meotti, who said he translates his own 
articles from Italian into English, had told me. “I had no idea of the 
others.” The first part of this is, essentially, an admission; the 
second half of it is basically impossible to believe, especially in 
light of his other thefts.
 
Shown these new instances, Meotti responded last night: “This has 
nothing to do with ‘ethical journalism,’ it’s ridiculous. As I told 
before it was my carelessness if I quoted without credit. But this is a 
personal attack against my person and work of ten years, a demonization, 
a witch hunt against one of the last and few pro-Israel journalists in 
Europe. An attack in which arrogant and failed journalists didn’t 
hesitate to call me ‘hasbarist’ and ‘zionist’ in Arab newspapers. It 
seems that they don’t understand the consequences and the severe risks 
that an author like me in Europe can suffer because of their incitement.”
In a post last October on The Corner about the freeing of Gilad Shalit, 
Meotti wrote: “No other country would conceivably act in this manner: 
The deal reveals the compassion Israelis share and the lengths they will 
go to avoid forsaking their sons on the battlefield.”
 
In a column published the day before in The Jewish Week (and published 
on a personal blog two days before that), Isi Leibler wrote: “No other 
country would conceivably act in this manner, and it reveals the 
compassion Israelis share and the lengths they will go to not to forsake 
their sons in the battlefield.”
 
In the same post, Meotti wrote: “It will also be much easier to recruit 
terrorists when they are encouraged to believe that no matter how many 
Israelis they kill, there is every likelihood that, if apprehended, they 
will be released.”
 
Leibler wrote: “it will be much easier to recruit terrorists when they 
are encouraged to believe that no matter how many Israelis they kill, if 
apprehended, there is every likelihood that they will be released.”
 
In a post on The Corner about the Jerusalem bus station bombing in March 
2011, Meotti wrote: “Word has it that a meeting has been held in 
Khartoum by members of Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, attended by 
Palestinians, Egyptians, Tunisians, and even English people, where they 
supposedly coordinated a large-scale international plan for terrorist 
attacks, to be headed by Iran, the primary target of which would be Israel.”
 
More than a week before, Fiamma Nirenstein, a fairly prominent Italian 
politician, wrote: “Word has it that a meeting has also been held in 
Khartoum by members of Hamas and sundry Muslim Brothers, attended by 
Palestinians, Egyptians, Tunisians and even English people: they 
supposedly coordinated a large-scale international plan for Islamic 
terrorist attacks to be headed by Iran, the primary target of which 
would be Israel.”
 
Meotti wrote: “The background to the Jerusalem bombing is, on one side, 
that of the ‘Arab revolution,’ and on the other side that of the most 
traditional form of hatred.”
 
Nirenstein wrote: “The background to the attack carried out the other 
night is on one side that of the revolution occurring in the surrounding 
Arab countries, and on the other side that of the most traditional form 
of hatred.”
 
On Commentary‘s Contentions in early 2011, Meotti reported on the Muslim 
Brotherhood. He wrote: “Perhaps the best illustration of the 
Brotherhood’s capability was its remarkably efficient and politically 
opportune response to the 1992 Cairo earthquake. The Brotherhood’s 
engineering and medical branches built shelters and medical tents that 
served thousands of victims. The group’s growing financial resources 
provided an influx of food, clothing, and blankets, and the Brotherhood 
even donated US$1,000 to every newly homeless family in the city.”
 
In 2009′s The Mubarak Leadership and Future of Democracy in Egypt (h/t 
Moynihan), Alaa Al-Din Arafat wrote: “Perhaps the best illustration of 
the Brotherhood’s capability was its remarkably efficient and 
politically opportune response to the 1992 Cairo earthquake. The 
Brotherhood’s engineering and medical branches built shelters and 
medical tents that served thousands of victims with food, clothing, and 
blankets, and the Brotherhood even donated $1,000 to every newly 
homeless family in the city.”
 
In the same post, Meotti wrote: “University dormitories and lecture 
halls were, and still are, overcrowded, and the costs of textbooks, 
lecture notes, food, and transportation constituted a serious economic 
hardship for students. Again, these are the circumstances in which the 
Brotherhood traditionally has been most successful.”
 
In 2003 in Harvard International Review, John Walsh wrote (h/t 
Moynihan), “University dormitories and lecture halls were, and still 
are, horribly overcrowded, and the exorbitant costs of textbooks, 
lecture notes, food, and transportation constituted a serious economic 
hardship for students. Again, these are the circumstances in which the 
Brotherhood traditionally has been most successful.”
 
In the same post, Meotti wrote: “A nostalgic, utopian, and well-ordered 
traditionalism is the future heralded by the Brotherhood.”
 
In 1995 (!), John Balzar wrote in the Los Angeles Times: “A nostalgic, 
utopian and well-ordered traditionalism is the future heralded by the 
brotherhood.”
 
In the same post, Meotti wrote: “The Islamists running these unions 
offered medical insurance for tens of thousands of members, loans to buy 
houses and cars, as well as short-term funds for getting married.”
 
In 2003, Geneive Abdo wrote in the Boston Globe: “The Islamists running 
these unions offered medical insurance for tens of thousands of members, 
loans to buy houses and cars, as well as short-term funds for getting 
married.”
 
Intriguingly, the blog on which Nirenstein’s work appeared later quoted 
Meotti’s very post. Which suggests it’s possible that, in that one 
instance, his lifting was sanctioned. But it was still unattributed. And 
quoting without attribution is plagiarism, which is extremely serious 
and never justified—is, in fact, theft.
 
It is not, however, proof that the politics espoused by both plagiarist 
and plagiarized are mendacious, or even proof of groupthink. This is 
what Max Blumenthal accuses, writing, “Because Kirchick, Stephens and 
Meotti draw their arguments from the same storehouse of recycled 
Likudnik hasbara, their columns are virtually indistinguishable and 
completely interchangeable.” Actually, they are very easily 
distinguishable and obviously not interchangeable, because Stephens and 
Kirchick wrote their words by themselves, whereas Meotti, by his own 
admission, plagiarized them. Podhoretz’ apology further disproves 
Blumenthal’s thesis. Blumenthal doesn’t care about the plagiarism—he 
just wants to use it as evidence of the bankruptcy of “neoconservatism.” 
He should save his false piety about journalistic standards.
 
“Serial Plagiarist or Common Hasbarist?” Blumenthal asks. The answer is 
simply: “serial plagiarist.” As if there were any other kind.
-- 
Namib
--
I have examined maps of the city with the greatest care, yet have never 
again found the Rue d'Auseil (HPL)

 Last week,
 
Qualcuno (giuanin?) aveva già riportato la notizia a maggio.
 
Plagiarismo del plagiarismo: una forma di ricorsione che sarebbe più 
facile apprezzare se alle elementari si studiasse non dico un po' di 
BASIC, che non ce l'ha, ma forse di C o di PASCAL.
 
 
 
 
fe...@delenda.net
 
-- 
http://delendanet.blogspot.com
 

 Qualcuno (giuanin?) aveva già riportato la notizia a maggio.
 
ovviamente. Essendo di gran lunga il meglio informato di IPI, io le notizie le riporto quando escono. SHame on Namib che non legge i post migliori di IPI