Whether it was Josh Marshall directly, or someone who transmitted Marshall’s words, plagiarism did indeed take place. So, why is it that the New York Times is, as Michael Calderone writes, “defend[ing]” Dowd? And Calderone is right to ask why Marshall’s lack of an objection to his words being appropriated without attribution is enough to justify the lack of action being taken by the Times.
The act of Dowdification alone should have justified Dowd’s firing from the Times. Her employer’s failure to fire Dowd led to the current controversy over her ethics. If it fails again to punish her, the New York Times will set itself up anew for yet another embarrassment visited upon it by the actions of Maureen Dowd.