More plagiarism at the New York Times?

Remember what the Washington Post's ex-conservative blogger Ben Domenech said when he got busted for plagiarism? He claimed that his former editors had been illicitly adding other people's work to his articles. His excuse got the reception it deserved--goggle-eyed incredulity.

Amazingly, The New York Times is happy to publish the same excuse with a straight face if the guy in the hot seat is a senior staffer. Yesterday the paper of record admitted in an editorial note that that four paragraphs of this story were lifted directly from the website of a London newspaper without attribution. The NYT claims that the replication was an accident that happened when writer Andrew Ross Sorkin appended some of his notes to his final story, which his editor mistook for Sorkin's original work:

"In preparing the article, The Times's writer consulted an online report from The Independent on Sunday ... which he appended to the end of his computer file for reference," the note, which ran on A-2, said in part. "Through an editing error, four short paragraphs of The Independent's report, about the history of Steve Forbes's political ambitions, were incorporated in the Times article. The Times regrets the error."

The Times, following its usual style, did not disclose the name of the writer or the editor. But a New York Post story on the incident published today identified the writer as Andrew Ross Sorkin. "An editor added the paragraphs into the story not realizing it was part of my notes," Sorkin told the Post. He called this a "stupid error." [Editor & Publisher]

Neither the Times nor Editor & Publisher provides a link to the original article. So, for your perusal, I present a link to Jason Nisse's Independent story about Steve Forbes' search for outside capital for his media empire, dated May 7.

Presumably these are the "four short paragraphs" from the Independent that the Times says were accidentally submitted along with Sorkin's story on Steve Forbes' search for outside capital for his media empire, dated May 8:

It is expected that any deal will value the business - 51 per cent owned by the publisher-in-chief, Steve Forbes, with the rest held by relatives - at around $1bn.

The magazine was founded in 1917 by B C Forbes, who ran it until his death in 1954. His son, Bruce, was in charge until 1964, when he was succeeded by his son, Malcolm.

Steve, Malcolm's son, took over in 1990 and has used the magazine as a launchpad for his political ambitions, twice failing to win the Republican nomination for presidential candidate in 1996 and 2000. His brand of right-wing, free-market politics includes an anti-abortion stance, and advocating a flat-tax system and an anti-United Nations foreign policy. [Independent]

Here's Sorkin's version as it appears online as of this writing:

The magazine was founded in 1917 by B. C. Forbes, who ran it until his death in 1954. His son, Bruce, was in charge until 1964, when he was succeeded by his son Malcolm.

Malcolm's son Steve took over in 1990 and has used the magazine as a launching pad to seek political office, failing to win the Republican nomination for president in 1996 and 2000. Besides his brand of untrammeled free-market politics, he has adopted an antiabortion stance, advocates a flat-tax system and is skeptical toward the United Nations.

He owns 51 percent of the business, with the rest held by relatives. [NYT]

A side-by-side comparison of the Independent's article and Sorkin's piece reveals more similarities than the editor's note lets on. In fact, the two pieces are essentially identical. Here's just one further example:

A spokeswoman for the publisher declined to discuss any specific plans but said: "Forbes, like many companies, has had discussions from time to time with potential partners." [Independent]

A spokeswoman declined to comment about any specific talks, except to say, "Forbes, like many companies, has had discussions from time to time with potential partners." [NYT]

Sorkin's excuse is even less plausible because quote from the spokeswoman appears in the middle of his piece and at the end of the Independent article. Possibly, Sorkin's anonymous editor incorporated the extra material and then reworked the piece heavily. That might explain the why the borrowed material isn't a contiguous block at the end of Sorkin's piece, as you'd expect if the Independent's words had been appended as a block and lifted by accident.