âThe notes donât match up with the right pages in a few cases, and this was unintentional and will be promptly corrected.
Sloppy work. She was the executive editor of the NYT!
The language is too close in some cases and should have been cited as quotations in the text.
Where I went to university I would have been expelled for that. Itâs called plagiarism and again, as a former executive editor she knows it.
And I canât imagine why in the world you would leave yourself open to something like this:
âNever thought in my wildest dreams that the former exec editor of NYT would school @Vice on how to do irony,â Vice co-founder Suroosh Alvi tweeted Wednesday. âImagine plagiarizing for a book on ethics â riddled with factual errors â and then calling it âMerchants of Truth.â Hats off to you @JillAbramson!â
And we all know that the NYT never has any typos or sloppy errors.
Through the family of an in-law, I once had access to some of the internal post-mortem material that the NYT went through periodically (Iâm thinking it was weekly), hunting down various examples of sloppy editing, some of it frigginâ hilarious.
Maybe she figured no one would read itâŚ
Italie: âIt is widely believed that an outside source should be credited in the body of the work if there is a close similarity.â
This is inadequate, even misleading.
Academic honesty requires clear and complete attribution of sources, with author of source material recognized in the text and quotation marks signifying replication of source wording. Abramsonâs fraud, from the examples Michael Moynihan cited, consists of appropriating substantial wording sans quotation marks. In Abramsonâs case, unlike that of the poorly schooled or harried college freshman, this does not derive from ignorance or sloppiness.
Abramson and her Simon and Shuster publisher have been disingenuous in their statements. Her lapse in academic honesty has zero relation to the number of pages of notes and bibliographic entires supporting her research. The only escape from responsibility comes in pointing the finger at her research assistant, whom the book affords no recognition as co-author. This, of course, would expose fraud of another kind, no less reprehensible in a treatise on journalistic ethics.
Yeah, I should have said she was an editor and left it at that.
The NYT publishes corrections virtually every day, amending, correcting or rewording items that ran the previous day. If you read the paper youâll see it for yourself.
70 pages of footnotes? Thatâs not the defense. Thatâs the problem. Sheâs probably been hiding plagiarism in âfootnotesâ her whole life. If youâre repeating someone elseâs words, you use quotes and cite them in the main work. You donât hide them in footnotes and expect the reader to search for your sources.
Good writers WANT you to see their source. Bad writers hope you wonât read 70 pages of footnotes.
⌠She currently teaches creative writing at Harvard University.
Given she feels that NYT is too liberal then creative writing perfect class for her to teach. 
This is most certainly true.
Itâs also not only the plagiarism; much of whatâs not plagiarized is straight-up wrong. Matt Yglesias of Vox had a good thread yesterday showing that basically everything she wrote about Nate Silver and Ezra Klein at NYT and WaPo respectively was wrong (unfortunately he seems to have deleted all his tweets this morning). All in a section on how âthe speed of political news on digital platforms results in factual errorsâ!
That Abramson was replaced as Executive Editor by the execrable Dean Baquet says volumes about why the NYTâs editorial slant in its coverage of U.S. politics is heavily weighted towards the âboth sidesâ nonsense.