Media Criticism

The Media Shouldn't Overlook Kamala Harris' Plagiarism

The pouncing isn't the point.

|

Kamala Harris | Phil McAuliffe/Polaris/Newscom
Kamala Harris (Phil McAuliffe/Polaris/Newscom)

In 2009, Kamala Harris co-authored a book called Smart on Crime: A Career Prosecutor's Plan to Make Us Safer. Its purpose was to outline her criminal justice policies in advance of her campaign for California attorney general.

The book has attracted the attention of conservative writer and activist Christopher Rufo, who contends that Harris and co-author Joan O'C. Hamilton plagiarized several passages. Rufo's analysis—which relies on the work of Stefan Weber, a noted exposer of plagiarism—finds that there are at least 12 sections of the book in which sentences or entire paragraphs were copied from another source without proper attribution.

"Taken in total, there is certainly a breach of standards here," writes Rufo. "Harris and her co-author duplicated long passages nearly verbatim without proper citation and without quotation marks, which is the textbook definition of plagiarism. They not only lifted material from sources without proper attribution, but in at least one case, relied on a low-quality source, which potentially undermined the accuracy of their conclusion."

Readers may disagree about the severity of some aspects of the plagiarism: Harris borrowing from her own work or not paraphrasing sufficiently. But there are more striking examples of entire passages being lifted from other sources without citation. This is definitely a no-no, and meets the standard definition of plagiarism.

Similar transgressions ended the career of Harvard University President Claudine Gay, who resigned after conservative writers—including Rufo, but initially The Washington Free Beacon's Aaron Sibarium—uncovered numerous instances of plagiarism in her academic work. One can certainly argue that Gay, a professional academic and leader of the most prestigious educational institution in the country, should be held to a higher standard than Harris. But plagiarism is often taken seriously when politicians are caught engaging in it. In fact, then-Sen. Joe Biden's first stab at running for president all the way back in 1988 came to an abrupt end after it was discovered that he had plagiarized a speech from a British Labor Party leader.

Indeed, even plagiarism involving merely quasi-political figures attracts considerable media attention. In 2016, Melania Trump gave a speech at the Republican National Convention, a section of which contained phrasing that was similar to a previous speech made by Michelle Obama. The media did not hold back. In recapping the incident, Vox reported that the plagiarism episode was "one of the biggest stories" from the RNC, and that the Trump campaign's refusal to address it had "made a bad situation worse." Vox even wondered whether the plagiarism allegations would "damage Trump's image with voters," a concern that seems downright quaint.

CNN had a field day with the story, publishing half a dozen articles and videos about it, featuring side-by-side comparisons of Melania's and Michelle's remarks. The Associated Press reported that plagiarism had marred Melania Trump's moment. The Washington Post did not hold back, describing the Trump campaign's defense of Melania as ridiculous. (The word "ridiculous" actually appears twice in the same headline.) The higher education news site Inside Higher Ed, an authority on plagiarism, wrote that "Yes, It Was Plagiarism" and the "scandal shouldn't be trivialized." The plagiarism allegation were covered by NPR, The New Yorker, The Guardian, the BBC, and of course, The New York Times: "How Melania's Speech Veered Off Course and Caused an Uproar," read one Times headline.

One might expect plagiarism allegations against an actual presidential candidate—rather than their spouse—would merit similar or greater outrage from the media. But the Harris allegations have not attracted nearly the same level of interest. In fact, their ire is directed not at Harris for plagiarizing but at Rufo for uncovering it.

 

Pounce and Seize

CNN's report on the Harris plagiarism accusation is headlined: "Conservative activist accuses Harris of plagiarizing passages in co-authored 2009 book." Note that the identity of the accuser—of the plagiarism discoverer—was not at issue in the Melania Trump case. But here, mainstream media feels compelled to position Rufo rather than Harris at the center of the controversy.

Conservatives complain ceaselessly—and not without reason—that scandals involving Republicans, conservatives, and Trump world personalities are reported in straightforward fashion, whereas scandals involving Democrats, liberals, and the media itself are not. In these latter cases, the media focuses on the motivations, agendas, and responses of conservatives who are involved in surfacing the controversy. This is often done, in headlines, using the exact phrasing Republicans pounce on X or Republicans seize on X, where X is the thing Democrats did wrong.

This is such a well-worn trope by now the one might have expected mainstream media institutions to take greater pains to avoid it, if only to deprive conservatives of ammunition. And yet The New York Times write-up of the Harris plagiarism accusations is headlined: "Conservative Activist Seizes on Passages From Harris Book."

The article itself minimizes the extent of Harris' wrongdoing, and cites a plagiarism expert, Jonathan Bailey, who claims that Rufo was "making a big deal" out of relatively minor transgressions. The Times did not share with him the full list of plagiarized passages in the book, however; on his website, Bailey noted that after reviewing all the allegations, the case is "more serious" than he first thought, although he maintains Harris did not engage in "wholesale fraud."

It's perfectly fine for journalists to report on the agendas of conservative activists making such claims; Rufo does not deny that he is politically motivated; on the contrary, he constantly explains his agenda, and strategy for implementing it, in posts on X. But perhaps The New York Times might consider whether the pouncing and the seizing are the most important parts of this story.

 

This Week on Free Media

Amber Duke returns to the program! We discuss Harris' Fox News interview, Whoopi Goldberg's defense of Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton's zeal for social media censorship, whether Venezuelan gangs are taking over apartment buildings, and the media response to the plagiarism accusations.

 

Worth Watching

I filled in for Emily Jashinsky on her show, Undercurrents, and interviewed journalist Ken Klippenstein about his suspension from X and a recent encounter with the FBI. Watch here: