| |  Not plagiarism
Until we hear otherwise from the G&M or Ms. Innes, this post should be closed and a clarification issued. | |
|
  El Quintron... a faint odor of kerosenePremium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:2 | Re: Not plagiarism So Goldie's taking full cred for this one? | |
|
 | Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
2 edits | Re: Not plagiarism If you see the Globe And Mail clarify this, let me know. To my understanding, Goldman does appear to be employed by carriers as a consultant to repeat talking points about how AWESOME Canadian broadband is (kind of like our Scott Cleland here in the States, unless I'm missing something:
»www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009···lus.html
Which is convenient for carriers, given these guys testify before lawmakers and are quoted in the media as supposedly objective analysts.... | |
|
| | | | Re: Not plagiarism said by Karl Bode:If you see the Globe And Mail clarify this, let me know. To my understanding, Goldman does appear to be employed by carriers as a consultant to repeat talking points about how AWESOME Canadian broadband is... Don't get me wrong, Mark and I disagree on more than a few points, and he's done private consultative work for telecoms in the past. He's obviously well-connected enough to attract a good crowd to his Telecom Summit last year, which means most of us here are going to be instantly distrustful of him.
But it does none of us any good to accuse a man of plagiarism when the real problem is just some administrative snafu by the G&M.
More people are posting needless accusations to his blog, likely redirected from this thread. Please, let's take this post offline and post a clarification. | |
|
| | | Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
1 edit | Re: Not plagiarism Users accused him of plagiarism. I simply illustrated that an editorial from a Rogers lobbyist mirrored his blog post word for word, while highlighting the use of paid consultants as tools to discredit science that doesn't fit with mega-carrier policy world view.
So is he a truly "objective" analyst, or is he essentially paid to repeat the industry's policy talking points? | |
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Not plagiarism Lots of posts about how Canadian broadband is secretly inexpensive, really fast, and heavily deployed. I believe I get it. | |
|
| | | |
2 edits | said by Karl Bode:Users accused him of plagiarism. I simply illustrated that an editorial from a Rogers lobbyist mirrored his blog post word for word, while highlighting the use of paid consultants as tools to discredit science that doesn't fit with mega-carrier policy world view. So is he a truly "objective" analyst, or is he essentially paid to repeat the industry's policy talking points? The editorial in question was not written by Jan Innes, this 'lobbyist' you mention. It was written by Mark GoldmanGoldberg. He then copied a section of his own letter onto his own blog. He is under no ethical or moral obligations to not plagiarize himself. There is no plagiarism here, direct or otherwise.
EDIT: I get the point you're trying to make about paid consultants, but the word-for-word thing is a red herring, and detracts from your main point. If you think his arguments are ridiculous, say so. There's no conspiracy or coincidence here - the man quoted himself. There's nothing wrong with that. | |
|
| | | | | Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| Re: Not plagiarism If you think his arguments are ridiculous, say so. I believe I did. He ignores entire swaths of consumer realities, including Canadian ISPs love for painfully low caps and high overages.The editorial in question was not written by Jan Innes, this 'lobbyist' you mention. Not sure why you put lobbyist in quotes. Jan Innes is a Rogers lobbyist.
The Globe and Mail byline claims it was written by Jan Innes. If the Globe and Mail issues a correction or retraction, or Mark himself wants to write a second blog post claiming the Globe and Mail screwed up, I'll update the post with that information.... | |
|
| | | | | | | | Re: Not plagiarism said by Karl Bode:Not sure why you put lobbyist in quotes. Jan Innes is a Rogers lobbyist. The Globe and Mail byline claims it was written by Jan Innes. If the Globe and Mail issues a correction or retraction, or Mark himself wants to write a second blog post claiming the Globe and Mail screwed up, I'll update the post with that information.... I don't tend to think of executives as lobbyists, but technically you are correct. Jan Innes, VP Corporate Affairs at Rogers, is registered as a lobbyist for Rogers.
My point that the whole 'word for word' claim is a red herring at this point still stands, however. | |
|
| | | | Is it Goldman or Goldberg? I'm confused.  | |
|
| | | said by El Quintron:So Goldie's taking full cred for this one? Yes, Mark claims he wrote the original letter on Monday evening. His blog post is date-stamped the following day, before the letter was published (but after it was written), so the timing makes sense. | |
|
| | | | Re: Not plagiarism Ok but lets examine his objectivity.
He is being accused of being in bed with big telco.
How can they both use the same talking points and claim objectivity?
At minimum, he sent his letter to someone at rogers and they plagiarised him.
How is that better for Canadian Internet? How does that make the statement anymore truthful or relevant to the discussion? | |
|
|
|
·
·
·
·
