michael said,
wait wait, seward wrote lincoln’s first inaugural address? how disappointing
about the actual article- if you want to defend obama, saying that every politician (let alone every person) plagiarizes doesn’t help. he really is running on the fact that he’s not like every other politician, and admitting that he is, and saying that it doesn’t matter if his “just words” are his words or not… i don’t know.
what i’m trying to say is, because obama quoted deval patrick without giving him credit you should vote for hillary (even if she missed the blu-ray train)
yosef said,
What Obama would really like to argue is not that every politician plagiarizes, but that every politician uses speech writers. But luckily he’s not so naive as to say that, even though I think Hillary was trying to bait him into doing so in the debate last night. To call attention to that fact would discount his main appeal to most of the country (pay no attention to the man behind the curtain hype!)
But as for plagiarism, I think it depends on context more than anything, as well as permission. When a novelist steals words, its a crime because the context gives an implied representation of originality. When a journalist lifts words from an op-ed of another journalist, it is a crime, but when she takes entire paragraphs from a press release about say, a new product, it is entirely with permission (in fact, this is the hope of the PR department that wrote the release).
It’s not that every politician plagiarizes, it’s that in the context of political speeches and ideas there is no plagiarism, because there is no representation of originality. We expect and hope that our politicians will take every good idea and implement it into improving the character of our nation and the lives of its citizens, regardless of its source. Hence when we hear, say, a new healthcare plan, or a plan to ensure every child has the opportunity to attend college, we don’t assume that the candidate came up with the specifics of that plan himself. We assume that they examined all possible plans and decided on that plan as the best. A political leader should be primarily an editor and arbiter of ideas, to aggregate the best and synthesize them into a unified whole.
That’s why citations and footnotes aren’t appropriate for a political speech: sources are irrelevant, the content of an idea must stand on its own merit in this arena. And the same goes for the poetry language of rhetoric—it is not expected or represented to be original, only to be the most effective means to inspire and call to action, be they the words of Deval Patrick or Dr. King or scripture.
matthew said,
i agree. perhaps we can together revive the idea of politics as a master art.
this issue has a subtle connection to the nature of media coverage, which focuses on politicking rather than substance. they wink at the audience, saying “not that you would be influenced by propaganda… but let’s gossip (because everyone else is).” and if a people choosing a leader inevitably focus on the rhetorical and theatrical, doesn’t the authenticity of the performance obtain?
michael said,
i think yosefblog should follow in Lessig’s footsteps… and by yosefblog i don’t mean yosef klein, i mean all of us collectively
RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URI