Patterico's Pontifications

3/24/2006

L.A. Times on Domenech Resignation

Filed under: Blogging Matters,Dog Trainer — Patterico @ 11:53 pm



The Los Angeles Times has a story about Ben Domenech’s plagiarism and resignation, but nothing about his latest post admitting the plagiarism and expressing contrition.

I hope whatever the paper runs tomorrow is current and contains a reference to his latest post. Then again, they might not. After all, Times editors don’t have Allah keeping them up to date.

UPDATE 3-25-06: Nothing on his apology.

It’s not as though his apology cured the problem. Not only had he been a serial plagiarizer, but he was initially dishonest about it. He still deserved to be fired from the Post.

But it’s part of the story that he is now contrite — even though it seems the apology was dragged out of him very reluctantly, when his back was against the wall. It’s only fair to report that the guy has issued a no-holds-barred apology. It doesn’t make matters right, but people should know about it.

The apology was available by 8:15 p.m. Pacific time last night, and was reported on this blog within an hour. Yet even the next day, the Times web site has nothing about it. One wonders if the paper will ever mention it.

UPDATE x2: Commenter JRM says it’s not surprising that the apology was not reported, given its late timing (late Friday evening — the time when virtually everything is ignored). Maybe, as a practical matter, the apology couldn’t have been reported this morning, given the dinosaur speed of newspapers. (That was part of my point: to contrast newspapers’ slow reaction time with the speed of the blogosphere.)

But the apology should be reported at some point to complete the record. It’s just not fair to leave readers with the false impression that Domenech never apologized. If it’s not reported today, it should be in the future.

Also, JRM says the apology was not “no-holds-barred” because Domenech told a big pack of lies yesterday, and didn’t sufficiently acknowledge and address that fact. JRM has a point. But, on the other hand, Domenech did indeed appear genuinely contrite in his apology, and refused to pad it with more rationalizations. That is a positive step, even if the apology wasn’t everything it should have been.

It should be clear that I am not making excuses for this guy. I was one of the very first conservatives to denounce his plagiarism and suggest that dismissal might be appropriate, posting something about it in the early morning hours of Friday. I spent a lot of time and energy last night taking apart his excuse on O’Rourke. I agree with JRM completely on this point:

From the conservative side, it’s vitally important to make no excuses, to participate in no RedState “Yeah, he made a mistake but all the liberals are way worse,” sort of rhetoric, and to admit Domenech is not an honorable person. (If he were now, he would not have lied about O’Rourke and his editors.)

Amen. (Except: I don’t want to talk about what kind of a person he is, but his initial actions yesterday were definitely not honorable.)

9 Responses to “L.A. Times on Domenech Resignation”

  1. It’s a good apology, on its face. I await arguments that it proves that the Right is morally superior.

    One quibble: he titled the post “Contrition.” That’s a cheesy bit of fanfare for his own apology, and shows that underneath it all, part of him is still crowing.

    Quibble #2: his defense had previously been that the Left was smearing him, and it was “just a matter of who you believe” (paraphrase). That was pure libel in itself. Where’s the apology for that?

    biwah (c18db3)

  2. Of course, Domenech waited until 11:15 p.m. to make his apology and express contrition–after first claiming that he was innocent. But nothing will stop you from trying to turn this redstate fiasco into a dig at the LA Times, right?

    mikekoshi (a4f90b)

  3. Why didn’t you just quit while you were ahead, Patterico? Your initial take on this whole affair was admirably clear-headed and damn near judicious. What an example of objective thinking for your loyal collection of knee-jerkistas. Sadly, now this. In the Middle East, they call it a circle of violence. If anyone wonders how it works, this is it. Should be a lovely weekend of picking scabs around here.

    Asinitra (ffa071)

  4. Why didn’t you just quit while you were ahead, Patterico? Your initial take on this whole affair was admirably clear-headed and damn near judicious. What an example of objective thinking for your loyal collection of knee-jerkistas. Sadly, now this. In the Middle East, they call it a circle of violence. If anyone wonders how it works, this is it. Should be a lovely weekend of picking scabs around here.

    Asinistra,

    See my UPDATE for an explanation of the relevance. It appears you find it completely irrelevant that the guy has now issued a complete apology, and you would be content to leave Times readers eternally thinking that the guy’s last word on the matter was a lame and unconvincing defense of his clear plagiarism. I think it’s part of the story.

    I don’t think it excuses anything. I think the Post was right to fire him — especially in view of his initial dishonest explanation, which I spent a good deal of time last night picking apart and showing to be unconvincing. But I think it’s part of the story.

    Patterico (de0616)

  5. I agree with Pat that it’s part of the story, but I’m not surprised that the apology made that late on a Friday evening didn’t make the paper.

    The main thrust of the story ought to be that Domenech engaged in serial plagiarism, got caught, lied repeatedly about it, and made accusations that appear on their face to be ludicrous.

    If the Times does a follow-up story, the apology should be mentioned. But I don’t think a criticism for failing to mention it is warranted, especially given Domenech’s initial response and the timing of the way this went down.

    From the conservative side, it’s vitally important to make no excuses, to participate in no RedState “Yeah, he made a mistake but all the liberals are way worse,” sort of rhetoric, and to admit Domenech is not an honorable person. (If he were now, he would not have lied about O’Rourke and his editors.)

    Finally, I don’t think this is a “no-holds-barred” apology. He lied about some people, then called those lies “obfuscations.” Which they weren’t. They were mendacious, deliberate untruths in an effort to cover his ass. If there’s an alternative explanation, I don’t see it.

    –JRM

    JRM (de6363)

  6. JRM:

    See my second update quoting from and responding to your excellent comment.

    Patterico (de0616)

  7. Boy, Patterico is sure having to bend over backwards to find some angle to criticize the LA Times on this story. Pretty funny, considering how indifferent he’s been to important updates concerning his 3/6 post claiming Iran committed an act of war.

    Patterico maintains one set of rules for the LA Times and another for himself.

    m.croche (71415b)

  8. There is an update to that post, and has been since the time you pointed it out, linking to someone who says the story is bogus. The subsequent evidence you keep pushing (the Joint Chiefs of Staffs Chairman saying he doesn’t know the Iranian *government* is behind it) doesn’t prove Bush to be a liar, as you keep claiming. The post is fine as is.

    Patterico (de0616)

  9. However, if it makes you happy, croche, I’ll put another update linking your comment.

    Patterico (de0616)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0753 secs.