Staff Reports
Kamala Harris is facing some serious scrutiny following revelations of plagiarism in her co-authored book, “Smart on Crime.” Her recent appearance on Fox News only added fuel to the fire, as she came across as defensive and combative. Meanwhile, Christopher Rufo, known for his investigative work, highlighted numerous instances of Harris lifting parts of her book without proper attribution. While the mainstream media did their best to bury the story, a New York Times expert was finally called in to assess the situation, with predictable results.
The expert, Jonathan Bailey, initially downplayed the seriousness of the offenses, suggesting that the lapses were not particularly concerning. However, as Rufo’s revelations gained more attention, Bailey took a second look and had a change of heart. He conceded that the plagiarism was indeed more serious than he had previously claimed. Even the so-called expert couldn’t ignore the glaring issue that Harris had plagiarized two paragraphs straight from Wikipedia without citation. It simply can’t be spun as anything other than what it is: plagiarism.
Why isn't the media talking about this? Switch the name to Trump and it would be non stop on all channels!
Hoo Boy: 'To Be Clear, That Is Plagiarism'—NY Times Expert Revises Analysis of Kamala's Book Scandal https://t.co/O9z34TZJCX
— OdieBaby (@baby_odie) October 17, 2024
In the realm of journalism, such an admission would typically send shockwaves through a candidate’s campaign, especially if they were on the right side of the political spectrum. One can only imagine the media circus that would ensue if a conservative politician was caught red-handed committing the same faux pas. Instead, in Harris’s case, the mainstream media has decided to do what they do best—deploy damage control and downplay the scandal. This is yet another chapter in the ongoing saga of a media landscape that is quick to protect Democrats while raining fire on Republicans for far less.
Bailey’s latest comments are telling. Despite acknowledging aspects of Harris’s work that are problematic, he attempts to hedge by suggesting that it’s not all that bad. He describes the issues as reflective of sloppy writing habits rather than malicious intent. This feeble defense attempts to soften the blow of a serious ethical breach that has derailed many political careers in the past. Even more absurdly, the implication is that Harris should be treated with kid gloves because, well, she’s a progressive.
What’s particularly infuriating is that Harris was not merely careless. She directly lifted material from a non-credible source without acknowledgment, which, for anyone who adheres to academic integrity, is a cardinal sin. This isn’t just a minor oversight that can be waved away with buzzwords like “sloppy” or “unintentional.” Actual careers have been destroyed over similar offenses, with far less wiggle room offered to those on the right.
If a New York Times expert unequivocally states that plagiarism occurred, it should be front-page news. Yet, the coverage is muted, and the witch-hunt mentality that typically emerges when a conservative is accused of wrongdoing is nowhere to be found. Instead, the prevailing narrative quickly shifts back to supporting a candidate who is quickly becoming the face of progressive hypocrisy. Whether or not this scandal sticks with voters remains to be seen, but the idea that Harris can evade accountability for her actions while the media protects her at all costs is emblematic of a troubling double standard that conservatives continue to face.
