Monica Crowley Caught Plagiarizing From a Single Mom And Her Baby

A few weeks ago, 23/6 made a parody of the "You Can't Have Alex" MoveOn.org ad. We called it "John McCain, Meet William," with me as the mom and my son as "William." Huffington Post linked to it. We got a lot of hits. Nice.

On Saturday, June 21, I was listening to The Monica Crowley Show on 770 AM. Monica is one of the crazier of the right-wing radio personalities and I am fascinated by her rabid devotion to George Bush. She began tearing apart the MoveOn ad and she played our parody ad as she went to commercial, without crediting us.

Annoying.

When Monica came back from commercial, she played our parody again but this time she claimed she created it. "We put together a little spoof there of that MoveOn.org where the woman holds up her baby..."

Oh, bitch, no you didn't.

I dropped my baby and picked up the TiVo remote. Then I realized TiVo doesn't replay radio. I dropped the remote and picked up my baby. I tried to calm down. Breathe. You probably mis-heard. Let Monica know, so she can correct her mistake. Republicans always do the right thing. I found Monica's website and sent her a email, asking her to give 23/6 (or me!) credit.

I didn't hear back.

I began checking Monica's website every day. Podcasts of her Saturday shows are always available for America's downloading pleasure, usually within 3 or 4 days. But June 24, 25 and 26 came and went with no June 21 podcast. She taped another show on June 28th - that podcast was posted on July 1. But still... June 21st's show is nowhere to be found online.

Monica, are you deliberately hiding your podcast from me?

Because I found it.

It turns out Monica Crowley's June 21 podcast was sitting on her server, all I had to do was load the June 14 show (20080614.mp3) and change the 14 to 21. She's just not linking to it.

Monica, Monica, Monica. You stole content from a single mother and then you hid the evidence. This isn't the first time you've been caught stealing either. Did you not learn anything from working with Richard Nixon? It's not the crime, it's the cover up.

Update: Since this post went up at 6:03 pm, Monica Crowley's site has been updated to include the June 21 podcast. Better late than never.

Comments

[Bluedog12]

Crowley is hollow. Tried listening but the shrill complaning cadence of her presentation is comparable to fingernails on a blackboard.

[maryyooch]

I saw this joker, Monica Crowley, this morning on the McLaughlin (SP) Group. The name and face rang a bell, but I just could not figure from where. I figured maybe from Faux News, all their anchor women seem to resemble each other. But to make a long story short, she is worse then Tony Blankly and Pat Buchanan combined! I could not believe they would have someone like that as a guest on their show!
Loyal Bushie or what?!?!
She made my skin crawl. For you see, I NEVER watch anything on Fox. Even if they run a movie that I love.
They are just too disgusting.
I always thought about taking classes for creative writing when I was younger. Now I'm kinda glad I didnt. If I had become a journalist, I'd have to listen to them day in and day out.
I guess that Italian temper would definitly get to me.
Bless your hearts for having to do THAT job. You all do a good job, or else I never would know all the things the wacko-right-wing-nuts are up to!

THANK YOU.

[MikeyG]

Sue her, expose her, do whatever it takes to get her smug, condescending face off of the McLaughlin group. She makes Pat Buchanan seem downright cuddly!

[applecrispbetty]

She's boring on McLaughlin. She keeps saying the same things over and over again. Not a deep thinker.

[InedaName]

I just emailed Laurie to encourage her to file suit against Monica Crowley. Maybe if enough of us contact Laurie with our support, we can convince her to seriously pursue this.

[e-mail]

[Myshkin57]

At the very least, Crowley should have to admit the theft. Usually there is at least payment for the use of other people's material.

[Budokan]

What do you expect? Republicans don't know how to do anything but lie, steal and cheat. Doing the same from a mom and her baby just makes it all the easier as far as they're concerned.

These people have no capacity for self-reflection. Lie? Steal? Cheat? Just words to them.

[cemkaner]

If the facts are as you described them, then you can file a claim for Copyright Infringement. And given the massive broadcast, you can probably file a criminal complaint. Don't get mad, get even. And get paid.

[RadicalConservative]

Sorry -- but you're wrong. You don't have a "copyright infringement" until a copyright is filed. The story doesn't say that her parody had a copyright. If it didn't there is no copyright infringement.

[MTGradwell]

Er, you have a copyright infringement if you have a copyright, and it's infringed. You have a copyright if you have authorship. That's the only requirement. You don't actually have to write copyright (c) blablabla on every page. And Laurie Kilmartin can clearly demonstrate authorship because that's her, and very obviously her, sat in front of the camera with her son. It could be argued that she's transferred the copyright to Comedy News Ventures, because it says at the foot of every 236.com page I've looked at recently "© 2007-2008 Comedy News Ventures, Inc". In that case it would be up to Comedy News Ventures to pursue the lawsuit, but whoever it is that eventually pursues the case it would seem to be an open-and-shut one.

[dawlishgal]

The law used to be that as long as something was marked copyrighted, one could wait at least a certain amount of time (I forgot how long) before filing, and if somebody ripped it off before the filing, it was still infringement as long as it piece of creative work was labeled as copyrighted. I don't know how that works on the web, though.

Anyhow, it seemed to me that at the time, the important thing for new creations was the labeling rather than the immediate filing.

[elmoor]

I am just amazed at the number of time we have heard a Republican comment " but it's not ILLEGAL'. when confronted with a clearly unethical position

[Myshkin57]

You don't have to have an official filing of a copyright for original material. Sorry - but you're wrong.

[mydogshakespeare]

Ms. Kilmartin,

This is why the most rabid, extreme Republicans are often referred to as "neo-cons". But actually, it's just the same old game they've been playing for decades, thus the "neo" just begs the issue and should be removed. They are just plain old "cons". (And cowards, and liars, and thieves, and murderers.)

Don't expect a correction any time soon.

[watcher269]

That's all Republicans can do is steal others ideas - because - it is a know fact - they lack originality and they make up for it by oppressing those that do.

[kjdwyer]

That's so true. I made a similar comment regarding McCain's Environmental Proposals (reported on this site by David Roberts).

Republicans have obstructed efforts to change our energy policy (not to mention denying the existence of global warming) for the last 30 years and now that they're inextricably linked hot button issues, they have no vocabulary to deal with them. They resort to idiot schemes (please read McCain's proposals, they're laughable) or outright plagiarism.

When you've spent the last 30 years obstructing truth and progress and the resulting crisis occurs, you have nothing to offer but more obstruction.

The Republican party is intellectually bankrupt. A party of Limbagh-listening, Crowley-copying drooling idiots.

[Mover]

Who told you that?

Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Independents and all the others have their share of closeminded, unoriginal, thinkers. Your post proves it.

[TheHandyman]

And so does yours, so what?

[SmellyOne]

Stealing bits is a fact of life in radio. Getting called to the carpet on it is a rare occurrance.

[ReelBusy]

Stealing bits is borderline okay if you are a local DJ that has no real audience.
Not a nationally syndicated show.
That type of show means you are supposed to be original and good at what you do.

[munkeyfuk]

ReelBusy,
Having a syndicated show does not "mean you are supposed to be original and good at what you do", it means you have connected with some rich conservative who owns lots of radio stations and they eat up your lies and distortions.
Cases-in-point would include Slimebog, OLiely, Beck and Hannity, as well as Laura Ingraham, Savage, etc.
None of these "broadcasters" could be accused of being smart or talented, and none of them are suited for any kind of real, honest work but they have been "handed" the bully pulpit of a national radio show. It is equally impossible to believe that this cast of losers has "earned" or "worked" to get where they are now or that there aren't more talented people out there who nonetheless cannot get a gig because they insist on telling the truth and aren't willing to parrot administration talking points.
I listen to a lot of AM talk (know your enemy) and this is NOT a deep or thoughtful crowd.
Mostly, they sound like they are channeling Jesse Helms and/or Grover Norquist (be scared, white folks, the darkies want to raise your taxes to help pay for abortions after they rape your daughters, and the democratic party approves of this).
The only sad part is how stupid their loyal listeners really are...

[dgscol]

it sounds like the two of them would hit it off, except they are working different places.

[Querent]

"I dropped my baby and picked up the TiVo remote."

Probably not the best possible choice of language. Remember, you are going in the faces of the extreme right wing. These people will stop at nothing, and they love to argue by distorting and misrepresenting the facts, as well as the words and actions of those who oppose them. Conservatives and Repigs will choose to lie when the truth would serve their ends just as well. Careful what you say, or they will make your words into an accusation against you. Of course, if that option isn't available, they will just flat out lie.

[bazokbros]

Lighten up a bit, it's part of Laurie's satire of being the perfect mom.

[arunachala]

i HATE monica crowley. well not her, just the way she talks. i watch the Mclaughlin report every week, and just cringe every time she opens her mouths spouting off with fallacious arguments.

[CreekProf]

That's too bad.
I watch Monica Crowley on the Mclaughlin Report every week and I like her. She's brings balance to Eleanor Clift's irrational hatred of George Bush and the Republican Party.
If you will bother to research her answers, you will probably find that she's usually right on.

[boony]

"irrational hatred of George Bush" ...right. Not that he's done anything to deserve it.
If you will bother to do your research you'd see that she's become just another parrot for the right.

[Gib]

"irrational"? That's funny.

[dgscol]

It is not plagiarism. Monica also is not a riipoff of some other personality. She is the one
personality that understands the center of the right and the excess of the left and extreme right, tutored by none less than Richard Nixon himself. Although bound by a radio niche, Monica is more than just a personality, a thing with which she toys, , but rather a specialist in foreign policy.

[mlaiuppa]

1. Look up definition of plagiarism in the dictionary.

2. Yes, it is.

[ZekeBundren]

Monica Crowley might be a specialist in foreign policy but she is not any more of an expert than the rest of The Bush League. Having heard some of her blather, she is about the same as Limbaugh or Ingraham only without the success they have. That is a possible indicator she is more honest than those two, but if she is, I haven't caught her at it.

Not that I am looking.

Oh, and of course it is plagiarism.

[doctormaus]

If it's not plagiarism to plagiarize, what is?

[Myshkin57]

A specialist on foreign policy? Get real. She regurgitates little points she reads in magazines. Read a few magazines on foreign policy then listen to what Crowley says the next week. You'll hear more than a few lines taken verbatim from someone else's column.

[LarryKingBarelyAlive]

Monica Crowley has a history of ripping people off. On August 9, 1999, an article by Crowley titled "The Day Nixon Said Goodbye," appeared in the The Wall Street Journal. Four days later, after the paper received charges of plagiarism from at least one reader, they acknowledged what they termed the "striking similarities" between Crowley's article and an article by Paul Johnson titled "In Praise of Richard Nixon" published in the October 1988 issue of Commentary Magazine. The Journal editor stated "Had we known of the parallels, we would not have published the article." Crowley herself acknowledged the similarity between the pieces, agreeing "there are clear similarities in the language.

[SwingingFromCenter]

Step 1: Locate a lawyer
Step 2: Sue
Step 3: ....
Step 4: Profit!

Seriously, you should take her down. Not even kidding.

[nancytheragingliberal]

Mellene, Oh, you are sooo correct. I detest Crowley, can't stand the sight of her, but what really gets to me is that she has her own hate-filled radio "show." My question is, how come I don't have enough liberal shows to suit my fancy? You should see me, always on the lookout for liberal shows, but I do find them and stick with them. Sam Sedar, Mike Malloy, Rachel Maddow, Randi Rhodes, AAR, etc. I enjoy Keith O. very much. Nancy to the TV bigwigs, yes, even ol' Murdock,how about a 24/7 station just for liberals? Try it, you might find a new pot of gold.

[CreekProf]

There aren't enough liberal shows because the liberals want the government to pay for their shows, unlike the conservatives who have a broad enough base to be successful without taking government funding.
The difference between republicans and democrats. Rep: I can do this. Dem: Give me money so I can do this.

[munkeyfuk]

CreekProf,

Did Rush BUY a radio station to get himself on the air?
Of course not, a RICH, CONSERVATIVE radio-station owner signed him up because he liked his lies and distortions, and 99.9% of all radio stations are owned by CONSERVATIVES. If you doubt this, HuffPo has a current story about a radio station REFUSING ADVERTISING DOLLARS because the ad was a liberal parody of a GWB thanking the up-for-reelection congressperson for supporting the "Grand Oil Party" and nowhere did it mention that the advertisers got their money, which the station REFUSED, from a government handout. In fact, the money probably came from private donations.
So, CONSERVATIVE GASBAGS get HANDOUTS of AIRTIME from CONSERVATIVE FATCATS to tell LIES that benefit CONSERVATIVES AND misinform the public, on the PUBLIC AIRWAVES, and you try to claim liberals aren't self-reliant enough to compete in such a "free market"!?! WTF!?
I have NEVER HEARD a liberal talker, because ALL radio in my area is either Clear Channel or Salem Communications. Seems to me the conservatives are afraid to compete and the nonsense spouted by CreekProf is an attempt to distort that fact.

[maca]

There are two reasons for the relative lack of liberal voices on radio. The first is that the airwaves are dominated by corporate entities like Clear Channel who have a blatantly conservative agenda. The more corporate media consolidation we allow, this worse this will get.

The second, though, is a difference in the needs of the audience. Even liberal shows which do exist, like those of Air America, don't do as well as conservative ones. Why? Because liberals tend to be voracious for knowledge; if we're interested in an issue we glean every available source of info about it, even those on the right wing. Then we weigh everything we've found, and make up our own mind. Conservatives, on the other hand, tend to like the "oracle" telling them what to think, how to vote, whom to hate. That's why Al Franken's show, for example, never came close to the ratings of Rush Limbaugh, and never would have, even if it were allowed as great a distribution by the conservative corporations (dream on). It's not that liberals don't like Franken, or agree with his position, it's that we don't NEED a voice telling us what to think. I never listen to Air America. I don't need to. Every liberal is his or her own Air America. We know what's wrong with the country, and we're out to fix it. Conservatives, on the other hand, can't be bothered with researching actual facts, they prefer the "oracle". Big Brother speaks, they obey.