Don’t Wriggle Around Much Anymore

Must be a federal holiday, things are so slow out there. How about a fun New York Times meta-correction?

In a number of business articles in The Times over the past year, and in posts on the DealBook blog on, a Times reporter appears to have improperly appropriated wording and passages published by other news organizations.

The reporter, Zachery Kouwe, reused language from The Wall Street Journal, Reuters and other sources without attribution or acknowledgment.

Where’s Jayson Blair when you need him? Oh, he’s a Certified Life Coach these days.

Wasn’t that exciting! No? Fine. Original Wonkette Ana Marie Cox, late of the late Air America, landed on her feet at GQ, where she posted this blast from the past on Friday:

“We’re talking about taking the penis of a man and putting it in the rectum of another man and wriggling it around in excrement. And you have to think, would I want that to be done to me?”

No, no, the clip and quote — from New Hampshire State Representative Nancy Elliott, R-Merrymaking — are very recent. But it reminds us why Wonkette’s slogan was originally “Politics for People with Dirty Minds.”

New Hampshire State Representative Nancy Elliott Does Not Get Out Much [GQ]

Sounds like she needs a visit from Homofascist’s Army and a thorough explanation of the benefits of anal douching.

Wow, this was making the rounds last week. I think she was misquoted and really said, “you have me thinking, oh, please won’t someone here do that to me?” If you listen closely, you can hear a couple of people shout “NO!” from the back of the room.

Re this Elliot woman… I have to go drink a cup of tea.

BTW. Shocked to hear that the Times hires douchebags who crib other people’s work. I did not see that coming. No way no how. No sirree. But good to see that Jason’s landed on his feet in another career for which he is entirely lacking in qualifications.

@Benedick: Some other dude just got fired from Daily Beast for multiple infractions. Don’t these people get it? Getting busted is just a click away.

@blogenfreude: Or that you can cite or quote. The trouble is in some respects endemic to the trade when you are writing from primary documentation and the expository instrument is a news report which preferentially collects and quotes primary and secondary sources. If two parties just pull the language, say, straight from a law suit, they’re going to be the same. Another argument for writers of all stripes to pursue the organizing, insightful angle rather than inventory available primary resources and ring up the usual suspects.

I don’t think she’s had anything wriggling around anywhere since 1988.

Good see Ana Marie returning to her roots.

@Mistress Cynica: Alas, you can’t go home again:

Is the the subject matter and content we can expect from Cox?

First comment on her GQ post.

Gawker exiles can’t go home again, either — had another look at The Awl tonight, edited by Mothership castoffs Balk and Choire. I’m still not sure what it’s about, unless it’s about proving how hip they are. Do you care about their take on Dave Eggers’ take on magazine publishing? Me neither.

@FlyingChainSaw: I am aware of this – in fact, when I was in law school, we learned a very strict citation method. If you can inject someone else’s ideas that you know about, it’s so close to having an idea of your own. So close. No reason to cheat.

@blogenfreude: Of course. A big part of the rhetorical arts is recruitment of relevant facts and precedents, the latter having all their power in giving status (positive or negative) to arguments that have already been decided.

@FlyingChainSaw: . . . relevant words as I grind away on a memo on tribal law. I built the framework tonight, so just gotta dress the scarecrow tomorrow. I really would rather have been reloading and going to the gym tonight.

Hey, you guys know tomorrow’s Fat Tuesday? Damn. Lent starts Wednesday.

@redmanlaw: I built the framework tonight, so just gotta dress the scarecrow tomorrow. There’s a sentence you don’t often see.

@Benedick: After extensive research, I can confidently state that the sentence you quoted from redmanlaw is sui generis, new-coined, unique in the annals of prose.

So… Basically, her argument is that gays shouldn’t be allowed to get married because gay sex is icky. Have I missed something? That’s it? That’s what she brings to the table?

Republicans are pretty fucking stupid.

@Qunt: Her sexual activities, on the other hand, are not icky to contemplate.

And what is the obsession with buttfuquing? It’s by no means ubiquitous. In some places it’s not even very popular. France, par example. There they like to rub against each other while eating cheese. So I’m told.

dont knock it till youve tried it Nancy

Add a Comment
Please log in to post a comment