The Jewish Press – A Chronology of a Theft

The Chronology of a Theft:

1. Rabbi Gershon Tannenbaum, "director" of the Rabbinical Alliance of America (Igud HaRabbonim) and weekly Jewish Press columnist publishes a column on 8-22-07 that is almost in its entirety plagiarized from the Catskill Institute website.

2. Jewish Press editor Jason Maoz is contacted on 8-23-07 both by email and voicemail. He does not respond questions about this theft and about the general policies of the Jewish Press regarding plagiarism.

3. The Jewish Press removes Rabbi Tannenbaum's 8-22-07 column from its website on the morning of 8-27-07. It remains down through the early morning today, 8-29-07.

4. Jason Maoz does not respond to emails sent and phone messages left on 8-27-07 asking for clarification.

5. On 8-29-07 Rabbi Tannenbaum's column is reposted with the following clarification:

(Note: The following article was written by Dorothy Shapiro for the Catskills Institute website. Some very slight modifications have been made for this column. We thank Mrs. Shapiro for her research and her suggestions about what to include in a follow-up column.

Here it is in PDF:

Download jewish_press_my_machberes_change_822_posted_83007.pdf

6. Rabbi Tannenbaum and the Jewish Press admit no intentional wrongdoing.

7. Rabbi Tannenbaum remains a Jewish Press columnist.

I think this incident amply illustrates why the Jewish Press should never be taken as serious journalism. It is also another example of Rabbi Tannenbaum's theft problems, his honesty problems and his ethics problems.

For all of you who were critical of other plagiarisms when they originated from the left (i.e., the NY Times and Jayson Blair or, more parochially, from a left wing Orthodox Jewish blogger), why are you silent now?

UPDATE – The following note appears on Rabbi Tannenbaum's 8-29-07 column:

Editor’s Note: In last week’s column, Rabbi Tannenbaum, as he acknowledges this week, utilized an article that originally appeared on the Catskills Institute website. He regrets his error in not crediting that article to its author, Dorothy Shapiro.

More on this and the Jewish Press response to Rabbi Tannenbaum's plagiarism here.

Previous posts: 1, 2, & 3. Newer post: Here.

Comments

[Ariel Sokolovsky]

B"H
You want a a scandal for the sake of scandal?
As you yourself quote from their site the author of the "plagiarized" content doesn't object to it and even offered suggestions to improve their follow up column:

(Note: The following article was written by Dorothy Shapiro for the Catskills Institute website. Some very slight modifications have been made for this column. We thank Mrs. Shapiro for her research and her suggestions about what to include in a follow-up column.

did you contact Mrs. Shapiro and see if she is even aware of this?

[Shmarya]

Plagiarized forst, asked permission – and provided attribution – only after he was caught. And he and the Jewish {ress do not admit their wrongdoing.

Simple halakah, Ariel – you steal, you get caught, you pay back and you admit your sin.

Otherwise, it is not teshuva.

[Shmarya]

On a secular level, readers have the right to know about the ethical lapse and the correction, and the JP has the ethical obligation to inform them.

[Shmarya]

did you contact Mrs. Shapiro and see if she is even aware of this?

If she was aware and gave permission before the JP's original publication the proper and correct course for the JP to take would be to write that attribution was inadvertantly left off.

That the JP did not do this and did not admit any error, along with Jason Maoz's constant refusal to answer questions or clarify proves the theft.

[steve]

Ariel, you're missing the point. Plagiarism is a crime in this country and is a sin. According to the Pirkei Avos, it is a sin that delays the geula. If it wasn't for Ploni and Shmarya exposing Tannenbaum's theft, the Jewish Press would never have mentioned the true author in the followup. Had they apologized for the apparent plagiarism, it would not have been as bad. Trying to cover it up by mentioning that the author gave her suggestions for a followup, in order to show that the author was fully aware from the start that her article was being copied, only aggravates the situation.

[I can smell the hypocrisy all the way from Brooklyn]

It's funny you should use the word "theft" in reference to borrowing freely from another person's words without attribution. I find it funny because you seem to take these types of things far less seriously when it doesn't dovetail with your obscene and intellectually dishonest anti-Charedi agenda.

For example, when you rushed in to defend an indefensible act by a fellow Charedi-bashing blogger (and I quote Shmarya here):
"Her findings point to what many of us thought: DB isn't an intentional thief; he's a sloppy, rushed writer who made mistakes. Those mistakes needed to be corrected and he has done so."

Tannenbaum's mistakes have been corrected. But you want blood. That's because of the color of the hat he wears.

[Shmarya]

Not at all. It is because he as a 30-year history of theft and fraud, because he leads a rabbinic organization and is a columnist for a major Orthodox newspaper.

[I can smell the hypocrisy all the way from Brooklyn]

And how do you explain the way you brushed off dovbears examples? In this very post, you call Tannenbaums actions "theft". But you went out of your way to make sure we don't think the same actions are "theft" when it comes to your buddy. Are you really missing the point here?

[steve]

Tannenbaum's mistakes have been corrected.

Not until he confesses. Chodesh Elul is a perfect time for vidui.

[Shmarya]

In other words, Rabbi Tannenbaum has a long record of theft. DovBear, as far as I know, does not.

Further, the physical act of blogging – by this I mean the HTML coding, etc. – lends itself to certain errors.

A broken tags (like this one leads to no link being displayed and no sign of an attempt to make that link appearing.

This problem does not apply to newspapers which publish in print, as the Jewish Press does.

[Shmarya]

What is missing? The link and some text. Why? Broken tag.

In blogger you get dead links or no links, but the words remain.

[Shmarya]

Another example:

This is meant ot indicate a quote. Do you know why?

[Shmarya]

It should have looked like this:
This is meant ot indicate a quote. Do you know why?It was supposed to be a blockquote, but the tag was broken.

[Shmarya]

And how do you explain the way you brushed off dovbears examples? In this very post, you call Tannenbaums actions "theft". But you went out of your way to make sure we don't think the same actions are "theft" when it comes to your buddy.

I wrote at that time that some of what DovBear did was plagiarism just as some was sloppy, unclear posting and some was bad html tags, like I demonstrated above.

[I can smell the hypocrisy all the way from Brooklyn]

OMG! You are actually explaining away dovbear's plagiarism as a "bloquote error"?? I find this difficult to swallow, even from you, Shmarya.

I think you forget what the Weasel found in dovbear's archives. Remember the splicing together of different articles into one post? The minor wording changes in otherwise whole passages from articles that he represented as his own?

[I can smell the hypocrisy all the way from Brooklyn]

No, you went out of your way to tell us that dovbear wasnt a "theif". Yet you call the example in the JP "theft", even though it appears that the original writer has given her permission.

Explain?

[Shmarya]

No, you went out of your way to tell us that dovbear wasnt a "theif". Yet you call the example in the JP "theft", even though it appears that the original writer has given her permission.

Explain?

I clearly said DB was wrong. I said he had to apologize and make corrections.

I said some of what he did was intentional plagiarism and some – what looked like the majority – was bad posting, sloppiness and bad html tags and I cited some examples of this then.

The JP has not apologized and not admitted the theft. The woman in question gave her "permission" after the theft took place ansd after the article was already in print.

[Shmarya]

Apparently the JP did acknowledge the problem in a separate editor's note. I'm going to look at it now.

[I can smell the hypocrisy all the way from Brooklyn]

I think you should go back and look at the enabling you did of dovbear's actions way back when. You minimized it from day one. Look at the original dovweasel site and your comments on SIW's canonist site.

And you defended dovbear when he went back and fixed posts without telling his readers about it. Why is this any different? WHy do you get to decide that fixing the mistake, getting permission and attributing the article isn't enough for the JP - but that surreptiotiously fixing the mistakes is enough for DB?

[I can smell the hypocrisy all the way from Brooklyn]

"Apparently the JP did acknowledge the problem in a separate editor's note. I'm going to look at it now."

waiting for an apology. I think you should print it here, and also call Maoz and Tennenbaum personally. As you said above, apologizing and aknowledging your sin is the only way to do Teshuva.

[Shmarya]

The Catskills Institute was never contacted. The author, Dorothy Shapiro was – but the circumstances of this contact are still unclear. Suffice it to say that Ms, Shapiro did not expect to find her article used without attribution. The JP correction reflects that.

And, as I've noted many times, I have tried to contact Maoz.

[Shmarya]

I'd also add that I have nothing to apologize for.

Tannenbaum stole the article. The JP (innocently, I suspect) printed it.

When he got caught, he made his excuses.

The point is, the "mistake" here, the lack of attribution, originates with Rabbi Tannenbaum. It was not not the error of the JP itself.

[I can smell the hypocrisy all the way from Brooklyn]

Um, did dovbear contact all the publications he ripped off? Like TNR, Andrew Sullivan, the Atlantic Monthly, the numerous bloggers? Yet you write his story as if he apologized to all involved and has done full Teshuva. Case closed, right?

If you have standards, you have standards, Shmarya. And you obviously move your standards around.

You brought up the dovbear affair, not me. I'm just reminding everyone how you dealt with it.

[I can smell the hypocrisy all the way from Brooklyn]

"When he got caught, he made his excuses."

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

And that's different from how your buddy handled being outed as a plagiarist HOW EXACTLY?

[Shmarya]

DoveBear publicly apologized, admitted guilt and made corrections.

Rabbi Tannenbaum did not apologize publicly and did not admit guilt. And Rabbi Tannenbaum is a convicted criminal with a federal and SEC record, all for theft and fraud. His is a far, far different case.

[Important note]

DovBear apologized right away and he did it publicly. He bowed and bowed low.

That's one important difference, among many.

[I can smell the hypocrisy all the way from Brooklyn]

shmarya, arguing with you is always pointless. you dont ever see the truth even when it is staring you in the face. The truth here is that you set diofferent standards for different people.

Db got caught, and made his excuses after too. You aren't the plagiarism police that Maoz has to apologize to. They fixed their mistakes. As you said post dovweasel, move on.

[I can smell the hypocrisy all the way from Brooklyn]

"DovBear apologized right away and he did it publicly. He bowed and bowed low.

That's one important difference, among many."

we arent talking about dovbear here, who i happen to enjoy readsing. we are talking about shmaryas hypocrisy, which is crystal clear.

shmarya made far more excuses for dovbear last year than dovbear did. I actually think dovbear handled it fine. its shmarya thats the hypocrite.

[I can smell the hypocrisy all the way from Brooklyn]

From this week's JP:
" Editor’s Note: In last week’s column, Rabbi Tannenbaum, as he acknowledges this week, utilized an article that originally appeared on the Catskills Institute website. He regrets his error in not crediting that article to its author, Dorothy Shapiro."

"Regret"? And fixed the mistake? And Tannenbaum hasn't done the right thing here how, exactly?

[Shmarya]

He "regrets" his "mistake." He does not admit theft and apologize for it. DoveBear, by the way, did.

[I can smell the hypocrisy all the way from Brooklyn]

as i mentioned, i have no problems with dovbears handling of his little plagiarism problem. i have problems with your handling of it.

And re Tannenbaum, how is a note mentioning the lack of attribution not an admission of doing so, exactly? this story was over as soon as they added the note, shmarya. you are just making yourself look foolish now, which i admit i get some small measure of satisfaction from.

[steve]

Face it, there would never have been an admission of anything, nor any mention of Dorothy Shapiro in the JP, if it wasn't for Shmarya. Give credit where credit's due. That's the whole point of proper attribution.

[Shmarya]

Again, Tannebaum says he regrets "not crediting" the article to its source.

That is not the same as saying I apologize for stealing and I will not do so again.

You see, Tannebaum says it was all one big "mistake," not theft.

[I can smell the hypocrisy all the way from Brooklyn]

"Face it, there would never have been an admission of anything, nor any mention of Dorothy Shapiro in the JP, if it wasn't for Shmarya. Give credit where credit's due. That's the whole point of proper attribution."

yawn. this has nothing to do with tannenbaum, who im sure has credibility problems. its about shmaryas hypocrisy, plain and simple.

does Shmarya heart dovweasel?

[I can smell the hypocrisy all the way from Brooklyn]

"You see, Tannebaum says it was all one big "mistake," not theft."

Kind of like what you said about dovbear last year. If you don't believe me, go look at your comments. Yet you made it clear to us that dovbear isn't a "theif", just "sloppy". So you were saying that dovbear just made a "mistake", not "theft".

Like I said, hypocrisy.

[Shmarya]

Kind of like what you said about dovbear last year. If you don't believe me, go look at your comments. Yet you made it clear to us that dovbear isn't a "theif", just "sloppy". So you were saying that dovbear just made a "mistake", not "theft".

No.

Again, I wrote then that some was plagiarism, some sloppy posting and some bad html code.

I did not write that it was all a mistake.

[I can smell the hypocrisy all the way from Brooklyn]

you should really go back and take a look at all your comments. you said straight out that dovbear is not a thief. but this instance is an instance of theft. why the double standard?

[I can smell the hypocrisy all the way from Brooklyn]

also, as i peruse the archives of our friend dovweasel, i see that you gave him a very hard time. i guess i learned to torture the messenger from the best: Shmarya!

[Shmarya]

I said clearly that there were several different things going on.

I also said clearly that DB was wrong, needed to apologize publicly, make corrections, etc.

I clearly said some of what he did was plagiarism.

The difference between the two cases is that Rabbi Tannenbaum has a record of theft and fraud that covers thirty years. He has a federal conviction, SEC violation, civil judgments against him, etc.

To the best of my knowledge, DB does not.

Further, Rabbi Tannenbaum writes for a large-circulation Jewish newspaper. DB does not.

So Rabbi Tannenbaum's case is more serious, I think, because of these factors:

1. His criminal history.

2. His positions of communal responsibility.

3. The magnitude (measured by reach) of his theft.

Admittedly, the third reason is the weakest.

[Anonymous]

This is rich. We get to hang two hypocrites over this incident. Tannenbaum AND Shmarya.

[steve]

Face it, if it wasn't for Shmarya there would never have been an admission of anything, nor the mention of Dorothy Shapiro's name in the JP. Let's give credit where credit's due. That's what proper attribution is all about.

[Shmarya's own words]

"Anyway, most of the valid plagiarisms seem to have much more to do with poor writing (or, more likely, rushed writing) than stealing.

The AP “plagiarizes” more on any given day than what DB is alleged to have done, and the AP does it to make money. Same for the JTA, who rips from the Forward and other news sources without attribution."

"Most of us argued it showed, if anything, sloppiness."

"Her findings point to what many of us thought: DB isn't an intentional thief; he's a sloppy, rushed writer who made mistakes. Those mistakes needed to be corrected and he has done so."

but sure. you aren't a huge hypocrite, shmarya.

[I can smell the hypocrisy all the way from Brooklyn]

"This is rich. We get to hang two hypocrites over this incident. Tannenbaum AND Shmarya."

exactly. aint life grand?

[Anonymous]

Ploni could have easily informed UOJ just the same. And as a matter of fact, UOJ did choose to let someone post about it.

The JP follows UOJ's blog because they know darn well what a huge readership he has. Shmarya's blog and emails / calls didn't hurt, but the JP was in a corner nonetheless.

Right before this story broke, someone at the JP typed a poison pen and insult riddled note trying to give UOJ a piece of their mind for constantly mocking the newspaper and the Klass family.

[Shmarya]

but sure. you aren't a huge hypocrite, shmarya.

1. You took those quotes out of context.

2. You fail to quote the times I wrote that DB was wrong, needed to apologize, correct, etc.

That makes you a "huge" jerk.

[Shmarya]

And stick to one nickname or I'll have to ban you.

[Anonymous]

Uh oh, the Shmarya censor and banishment dragon is raising it's ugly head. Funny how that happens when someone makes him look stupid.

[Shmarya]

No. Actually it ususally happens when I notice tow identical IPs with different names, one after the other, in the comments.

[Shmarya]

And I believe I once banned you for repeated comment rule violations and after you ignored my warnings.

Perhaps I should reinstate that ban. Your racism alone calls for that.

[Anonymous]

It's obvious to the readers that it was the same critic posting with very similar names to make a point. Stop being such a stickler. It makes you look petty.

If Shmarya zaps him it's because he can dish it out but can't take it.

[Shmarya]

If Shmarya zaps you it is because you continually violate comment rules and are an open racist.

He'll only be banned if he keeps changing his name.

[Anonymous]

Oh now he's threatening to zap me too.

If Shmarya wants to act like a Kacka and silence dissent, even his usual supporters will view him as going from translucent to transparent.

[Shmarya]

It's obvious to the readers that it was the same critic posting with very similar names to make a point.

It is not always obvious. That is why I do not allow people to do it.

[Shmarya]

Oh now he's threatening to zap me too.

I banned you months ago for repeatedly violating comment rules. You came back and violated them again.

By all rights, I should ban you.

[Anonymous]

Come now Shmarya. You have no rule against racism. And according to your definition, most people would be racists because they would act as Rabbi Zimmerman did in being proactive against a Black tresspasser (who you claim is not a tresspasser). Who would be welcome here except for people who buy into the editorializing from such sources as NY Times Select. I hate to inform you that most people do not agree with you and the Bob Herberts of this world.

You did ban me a few back for leaving the name slot blank, although you seem to tolerate others who don't take you on.

You also banned me a year ago - even though I was using a screen name. You couldn't take that someone had refuted you in halacha which you constantly distort and/or know very little of. Your constant pre-emptive posseling of others who you accuse of having "superficial" halachic knowledge makes it bemumo passul. You are a hypocrite to NNNNth degree who banned me AND deleted my comments at the time to save face for yourself.

You are a LIAR if you deny it.

I expect you to do just that and then ban me shortly.

I hope everyone reading this sees what a farce you are.

[Shmarya]

I banned you for repeatedly violating comment rules. I warned you both times. I asked you not to come back. You did.

As for your racism, it does violate comment rules to insult other commenters. I take insults do not generally ban people for attacking me, because I have a bully pulpit, so -to-speak, and I feel obligated to allow people to express their criticism of me, no matter how unfair or rude it may be.

But when someone does that by using various nicknames to bolster his argument or by refusing to follow other comment rules, I sometimes ban them, especially if they are attacking other commenters and using these unfair and rude tactics against others to tru to win arguments.

That is why I banned you then.

And the only comments I delete are those left using the several nickname approach to winning arguments or those that list people's home phone numbers, etc.

You, I think, had one or two comments deleted because you did the former and then later because you refused to choose a nickname even though you were repeatedly asked.

[Anonymous]

I know what happened when I was deleted a year ago. I was not using more than one screen name. You may have accused me of being rude. It's easy to stretch that definition to include most things and I can say I was being more polite than I have been this week.

[Shmarya]

You were being very rude to other commenters and you were refusung to use eith one alias or your real name.

[anonymous]

This thread is pretty pointless now. Time to lock it and move on.

[Anon]

"For all of you who were critical of other plagiarisms when they originated from the left (i.e., the NY Times and Jayson Blair or, more parochially, from a left wing Orthodox Jewish blogger), why are you silent now?"

Dude, we are silent because no one really cares about the JP. Not because they get special treatment. Criticizing the NYT and Jayson Blair was appropriate because the NYT is a real newpaper. Criticizing DB was fun because he is so pompous.

[Moshe]

u expect a rabbi to write an article on his own?

[yona loriner]

such stupidITY!!!!! who the heck cares?

[yona loriner]

its a really foolish argument!!!!!!!!!!!!!