On July 7, I shared about the article published in NY Times titled Whom Not to Marry. This post generated a number of comments/reactions. That was actually one of the most emailed posts that week.
Over the weekend, I read the ‘almost’ same article in a Philippine broadsheet. In the Lifestyle Section of Philippine Star, Mayenne Carmona had a post which was titled the same, ‘Whom Not To Marry’. The title is not the issue. But she wrote all the same points written in NY Times with a little pinching of salt of the ‘story of her divorced friend’.
Okay. Give her the benefit of the doubt. Let’s pretend that’s purely concidental (oh, wow). But, check the closing statements:
In NY Times article, July 6 issue:
“After I regale a group with this talk, the despairing cry goes up: ‘But you’ve eliminated everyone!’ Life is unfair.”
In Philippine Star article, August 2 issue:
“How am I going to find a new husband?” sighed my newly divorced friend. “He just about eliminated everyone! Life is not fair.”
I am wondering if the lifestyle editor of Philippine Star is aware of this indicative plagiarism. To the writer, I think there is a double whammy there. Father Pat Connor is a 79-year old priest and not 70.
As we, or as most bloggers do, we do put a link back to or mention the source of our article and photo, whenever applicable. Well, that’s very basic, especially if you are writing for a broadsheet. Will it hurt to mention the source? If yes, then don’t plagiarize.
Oh well, I don’t think my post is aptly titled. Should I delete indicative? You may check the above links to judge.
http://static.addtoany.com/menu/page.js
witsandnuts 