I have Google News set to alert me to news articles containing the word "Prius". As a result, I have become familiar with the web site ConsumerAffairs.com, published by a law firm. Their articles on the Prius, suffice it to say, have been less than flattering and arguably inaccurate. But I was surprised today to see Consumer Affairs pop up under another Google News alert I have, "Portland Light Rail". I clicked through to read today's article and portions of it seemed strangely familiar, as though I had just read a similar article moments before... Did the Consumer Affairs "author" copy/paste from a mainstream publication directly into their article, without attribution? You be the judge. From: http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006...s_prices70.html (scroll down to the section about Oregon) "Gasoline Prices Remain High, Oil Above $70 a Barrel" "by Joe Benton" Now, compare to an article published 8 hours earlier in The Oregonian newspaper... From: http://www.oregonlive.com/newsflash/region...orylist=orlocal "A gallon of regular gas tops $3 in much of state" "Associated Press" Now, this "Joe Benton" author is listed on multiple stories at Consumer Affairs. It is entirely possible that they subscribe to the AP and are authorized to excerpt from and rewrite AP wire stories, but normally in such cases the sources are mentioned. Consumer Affairs at the very least should disclose their sources out of ethical considerations toward their readership. At worst, if they do not have permission from the AP or the Oregonian, they may be violating copyright restrictions and engaging in what some might call "plagiarism". Disclaimer: As the publication in question belongs to a law firm, I have been extra-cautious in my wording. I am not accusing them of anything, merely pointing out evidence which in my personal opinion I believe leads me to the impression that they are up to something. Don't sue me.
OK, I will not mince words. This firm is not too subtly soliciting clients for (mostly) bogus class action law suits.
Oh, that much is not in dispute! I just get the impression there is a hint of a slight possibility that they might be plagiarists, too! - Bob R.
I mentioned that earlier about one of Mr. Benton's 'articles' which was basically a reprint of a San Jose Mercury News one. I'm sure, being lawyers, they know just how many words they have to change to make it not worth while suing them for copyright violations, but yeah, they absolutely steal articles. It just happens entirely too often to be coincidence.
ConsumerAffairs.com is not "owned by a law firm." It is owned by a privately-held publishing company. It is not written by lawyers. We spend a lot of money with lawyers, defending ourselves and the consumers whose comments we publish from libel and slander charges filed by companies who think only good news should be presented. Joe Benton is a veteran journalist with more than 30 years of experience at ABC News, Chronicle Broadcasting, Conus, TV Direct and other names you know. We do have one or two lawyers who contribute stories, just as we have a doctor, a handyman, an elderly person and others who write about their areas of expertise. The stories we have published about Priuses point out real and documented problems that have plagued the Prius owners who write to us. It's not our job to be cheerleaders. We write about consumer problems of all kinds. It's fairly amazing to me that this is not evident to anyone who made it through the 8th grade. Those who open their mouths in public should first learn whereof they speak. James R. Hood Editor In Chief ConsumerAffairs.com (Porsche owner, no Prius yet))
I thought for sure that was going to be a respectable counter-point to previous posts. Until, that is, it turned ugly there at the end. Looks like we're not going to see any positive articles in the near future.
Excuse me while I go laugh my nice person off.... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA! Yup, reads like pagiarism to me, btw.
Plagiarism and trolling seem to go hand in hand.... Next time you decide to post you are better off explaining why Mr. Benton seems to have plagiarized the above mentioned article rather than arguing from a position of authority, making childish comments, and adding superfluous information in your title. I mean was it necessary to mention what kind of car you drive as if it was going to somehow impress us? Get over yourself already.
According to the FAQ page on your site, it is a tool used by lawyers to troll for class action law suits.
Please keep up the great work on your website. It is an even more hilarious source of fake news than The Onion.
Yes. It's plagiarism. If Joe Benton is as experienced as claimed, you'd think he'd know better. Kaavya Viswanathan copied a lot less than Joe did and she got nailed big time. If the original copyright holders are alerted to the plagiarism and provided an URL, I suspect the plagiarist will get a "cease and desist" from the copyright holder's lawyers in a few days. I know. New York Times did it to a poster at another forum I frequent. She had a habit off copy/pasteing entire articles without permission or link. She would tell us where they were from, but that doesn't negate the infringement. Now, wouldn't it be fun to repord ConsumerAffairs.com repeatedly every time they did this?
And to think for years I thought ConsumerAffairs.com and The Onion were one and the same. Both always give me a good laugh.
Oh my goodness, been a while since I have seen a hissy fit like that one. Paying attention Jimmy Hood? BTW I almost bought a 914 too, glad I didn't.
I'll start by admitting I've never been to your website. I've an inkling, now, to go read it. Then again . . . I'll also admit I am one of the few PriusChat member who did make it through the 8th grade. I even graduated. I have a feeling that as a member of this forum I was to be insulted by what you wrote. Perhaps, instead, you meant to chide and correct, instead of insult. I'll opt for the latter as you and I never have had the pleasure of being introduced. For one thing, I am glad to hear that one day you hope to put off the shackles of the Porsche and purchase a Prius. I know they have been difficult to come by, but I saw in this weekend's paper that our local dealer had 35 available for purchase. PM me and I'll give you the info. I like the sound of your parting shot, though it doesn't really flow well. The basic logic is missing, as far as I can tell. I mean that if you have the whole "whereof they speak" thing going, then there certainly is no more requirement for learning before speaking. By the time one gets that "whereof" in hand, hasn't the badge of courage already has been applied? Let me share a quote from a source I find instructive: "But these, as creatures without reason, born mere animals to be taken and destroyed, railing in matters whereof they are ignorant, shall in their destroying surely be destroyed." 2 Peter 2:12 (American Standard Version). Added not only because it sounds good, but also for the personal edification of our unlearned members and readers.
As long as we're back on the subject http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200702/NAT20070212a.html http://www.hitecpet.com/consumer-affairs-dot-com.html
Uh, Jimmy? This post is about PLAGIARISM. You really haven't addressed that point. Those that print in public, should practice better citations and conformity to the law regarding plagiarism. Seems you missed that point. I'd think as an editor you'd be a more careful reader. As was pointed out, this isn't the first incident of blatant "cut and paste" *writing* by your staff. They steal. They copy. They don't write anything original. We'll leave their methods of *choosing* what they steal to another post. Now....about the blatant plagiarism.... How about a few paragraphs in an attempt to defend *that*?
I'm sorry to say, this, but I forgot a few things in my earlier post: I notice this is your first post: Welcome to PriusChat! I hope you take the time to read up and learn a great deal about what I call "the greatest [production] car ever made." Thank you for joining under your name and making your position quite clear. I appreciate the caution (quote above), though I think slander is not the issue here. In fact, the charge would appear to be libel, as the words here are printed. Truth, as always, is the best defense. You are quite free to mount an attack on the Prius and to criticize those PriusChat members who've taken offense to your website and/or your post. If you are going to do this, though, please try to engage in a dialogue . . . . . . and answer the question of plagiarism. I notice no other posts: Please return.
Fails to address the point, which, in itself says, "yep, we take other's articles and fail to give them credit". Is it any wonder why, after 13 years of being a mouthpiece, that I put my license into 'Inactive' status this year? Forgive me lord, for when I joined "Consumer Attornies" for a short time there in the early years I sold my '89 speedster after 2 years of ownership. Put another way, my self image grew, so then I didn't need it. Lastly, "problems that have plagued the Prius owners" Really ?? That would be the seat comfort. Didn't see any articles about that. Oh, that's right ... the proving up "ascertainable damages" issue. Never mind.
Yay! another driver realizes that his manhood is not "inadequate"! Okay, sorry... it's just that this thread is apparently not supposed to stay on topic, since the editor of the web site in question established the precedent of posting completely off-topic...
