Um. Ben is full of shit.

Wow. I'd really have to read deep to find any evidence of plagiarism. Where is he getting that idea? You have similar reactions to the show, but that is not a crime. When does a critic ever attack another critic for having similar opinions? That's just wierd. I respect both of you as critics, it seems out of left field for him to accuse you of this. Is he being forced to drum up attention by the WW editors?

Great googly moogly. Between Ben's post and the embarrassingly (and hysterically) discredited Betsy Johnson piece from late last week, WW is sure racking up some kind of pattern.

Oh, I see what happened! He was reading it on the bus, which can make the words all shaky-like. (He even says "I felt vertigo"—see? Must have been a bumpy bus ride that interfered with his reading accuracy! Especially if he's riding that bus that goes down potholey NW 23rd, near WW's office.)

Is he being forced to drum up attention by the WW editors?

Honestly, it's irrelevant. Tossing out a charge of plagiarism when it's false on its face should be a firing offense.

If Ben isn't out on his ass by the end of the week, then Willy, by all rights, should take another credibility hit.

b!X, you are a plagiarist! i JUST made the very same point to my co-worker Erik, only for you to conveniently post about it minutes later.

no, seriously, i did. plagiarism is such a heavy term, one that should not be tossed around, even in jest.

now back to furiously plagiarizing from Pitchfork...

So now "having the same opinion" = plagiarism? What a load. If that's the case, I should prepare to sue every writer who, just like me, hated Fantastic Four part II.

I agree wtih b!X--this is a serious charge, perhaps the most serious charge you can make in journalism, and it's a real problem if they are just throwing it around like that.

What's the over/under on number of hours until the inevitable "I was just joking!" post appears on WW?

My money's on them pulling it, like they did the airport post earlier this week.

And just a few days ago we were all playing so nice. Laughing, cajoling, drinking each other's free booze. Ah, the memories.

Byron Beck just made me laugh. I better do a "news" post.

Pulling the post? I don't think so. Pull this:

We're behind Ben 100 percent over here. Alison's aping of his opening line ("This is a play about a man stuck in a hole," "Floyd Collins is a play about a man trapped in a cave") is outrageous enough to inspire concern all by itself. But for her to follow his argument, point for point, for the entire length of the review is an affront. It may not be plagiarism per se (maybe that's why Ben never used that phrase?), in that I don't see any exact phrases copied and pasted. But it is, at best, unforgivably derivative and lazy.

I just got 17,900 hits for the phrase "this is a play about." And 92,400 for "this is a film about." Another 381,000 for "this is a book about." Seems to me those are incredibly common phrases that critics employ to describe a play/film/book, not some unique construct Ben coined this week.

I don't get it. I read both reviews, and did not see Alison following Ben's arguments line for line.

I guess we just have different opinions, but considering how subjective and vague an accusation of "not plagiarism per se" is, I think it would have been classier for Ben to keep this suspicion to himself and let other people raise any doubts. Which I don't think anyone would do.

I have to say, this whole WW/Mercury rivalry thing is really dumb.

(maybe that's why Ben never used that phrase?)

Oh wow. Are you guys over there angling for jobs at City Hall or some other political operation? Ben specifically goes out of his way to insinuate plagiarism.

"Notice any similarities? Like maybe the whole thing?"

and

"...considering the hot water former Merc managing ed Phil Busse got himself into in 2001..."

That's an allegation of plagiarism, Aaron. And if you guys are sticking by it, and claiming it isn't one, then Willy Week is dead as an operation to be taken seriously.

Alison's aping of his opening line ("This is a play about a man stuck in a hole," "Floyd Collins is a play about a man trapped in a cave") is outrageous enough to inspire concern all by itself.

Yeah, that's such a brilliant opening line, I can see why she copied it. (rolls eyes.)

Yeah, I read them both about three times and finally after the third time I can kiiiiiiiinda see the similarities. But still, no.

Here's my play-by-play:

• opening line. whatevs. They're similar, sure.
• intro paragraph describes background of Floyd Collins, the real man. This is obviously necessary surely would lead any review.
• the "sounds good on paper" paragraph. Both discuss the cast as sounding awesome, but Ben, with his longer article, also throws in the fact that Stumptown Stages sucks, so he doesn't expect much.
• Ben calls the music "grating and dull", but generally spends a paragraph listing compliments, notably (for this discussion) about Caffal. Alison spends two full paragraphs talking shit about the music and the singing.
• Now Ben gets to his complaints and basically spends two paragraphs dissing the casting.
• Alison finally throws the play a bone and compliments Caffal.
• Ultimately they both diss it hard in conclusion.

But still, yeah, they both liked Caffal, but the content of their complaints (the bulk of each article) weren't even really that similar. Alison railed on the music, Ben railed on the casting. I dunno, I just really am not seeing it.

I think what this boils down to is that we both wrote formulaic, not-terribly-inspired reviews of a show we (or I, at least) didn't want to think about anymore.

Now I've got an anniversary party to go to... Aaron, I heard you might be hitting up the open bar?

I agree that plagiarism is a grievous offence in journalism, and false accusations of plagiarism equally so.

Ben's claims are vicious, spiteful and they are also very, very wrong. Furthermore, Aaron Mesh is idiotic for "being behind Ben 100% over here."

I've read through both articles. In addition I ran both articles through two plagiarism checking programs that are used for academic and professional checking of printed materials. (doccop and copyscape – check them out btw). Both showed ZERO, nada, nothing, No Plagiarism at all.

Ben, you owe the Mercury and Alison an apology.

Hello, I'm a first time commenter and had to put in my two cents.

I work for a firm that has a technical writing department ( I'm just the copy boy). I took both pieces to them over a smoke break, and they both agreed the Wilamette Week is full of shit on this one.

overall, the reviews are quite different. but reading the first few paragraphs, there are enough similarities that i wonder if you read his article to get some basic facts and perhaps copied, pasted, and re-arranged just a couple things?

things that caught my eye:
-first sentences very similar.
-"media circus" combined with "national" celebrity/attention.
-the second real paragraph starts with the entire phrase "Stumptown Stages' production of Floyd Collins" and includes similar information.

your writing is a lot more lively (he *wishes* this were plagiarism), but the first few paragraphs do look like what i occasionally did in college papers: cut, paste, and clean up.

after the first few paragraphs, your story diverges enough that it's clearly all original.

it's dissimilar enough that it could still all be chance, and i don't think anyone should discredit you just based on this. ww definitely should have given you a ringie-ding before accusing you of something so serious. but if there was a bit of cut, paste, and clean-up, this could be a warning about that sort of thing for your future work.

I can totally see the charge of plagiarism there. I mean come on, you both were using the theaters name, the actors names, the name of the title and what it was about, the word the, the word is. You guys used the same punition marks. But if the argument is you rearranged words to "steal" his review, then everything ever written in a plagiarism of everything else. Dumbest accusation ever.

Well, I just commented on the purtrayed villian in said story, and to be honest, I don't agree with him at all. Your piece, and his piece...which may hold similar values of thought, are not alike at all. I pointed out the fact that if "thinking alike is plagurism we're all guilty" and he needs to think again before coming to such a far fetched conclusion of ANY sort. Feel free to view my post at WWeek under the same name as here :)

they make it so hard to like them!

they make it so hard to like them! i WANT to like ww. can't.

So let me make sure I've got this perfectly straight:

1. Ben Waterhouse: "...we saw Floyd Collins on different nights ... and somehow managed to write exactly the same review!"

2. Aaron Mesh: "We're behind Ben 100 percent over here.... [Alison Hallett's review] is, at best, unforgivably derivative and lazy."

Aaron, that may not be an insult of your co-worker's writing prowess per se, but, you know, meow.

Oh, and b!X is perfectly correct: Leveling a career-destroying charge at someone without a stick of evidence to support it is firing-offense-level fuckwittery.

Other than finding a similar way into the story -- the well-worn "[title] is a story about [blithe summary]" -- and both using the equally chestnutty term "media circus" (which I'll bet dimes to donut appeared in the press release for the show), there are no empirical similarities between the pieces whatsoever. Not a shared sentence, nothing that would pass the simplest academic test for plagiarism. Waterhouse's arrogant little grandstand makes him look like a complete jackass. WW should be ashamed to have one of their writers leveling this accusation (or, sorry Aaron, coyly hinting at it) without cause.

Oh God...

[banging head on desk]

Oh Aaron, please please please please God I beg you, stay behind Ben 100 percent on this. Don't let up even for a second. Don't let the overwhelmingly obvious fact that he and his accusation are full of shit stop you from putting all of your credibility on the line. I beg you. Despite the tide of public opinion against you, do NOT let up on this. Please keep fighting. Please. No matter what. I can't imagine a better thing ever happening.

Oh, and Carla? Enjoy your internship.

Oh no! Tribune reviewer uses phrase "media spectacle"! Look out, Ben. It looks like they must have plagiarized you, too.

What on earth is happening at that newspaper? Contrary to some of you, I LIKE WWeek. Too many of you have never suffered in cities with absolute shit for nondaily, non-MSM coverage. Maybe that keeps my expectations low, who knows. But as an institution they play a valuable role in this town.

Which is why I am just addled about this meltdown. It's also so very disappointingly unprofessional, in the most literal sense. This is just weird, this latest.

I was rethinking this, and I think the worse accusation is not that she plagiarized, but that's she's stupid. I mean, really, who would be dumb enough to steal from an article published one week before in the same freaking town? Usually plagiarists (cf. Ambrose, Goodwin) wait years to lift material, hoping that the original author won't be obsessively searching the internet, looking for plagiarists. But for the writer of one alt-weekly to lift something from another alt-weekly in the same town, just days apart, would be incredibly, incredibly stupid.

Maybe they lifted some content from the same press release? Or the same program?

Dave J. hit it on the head.

I wonder if Elizabethan English critics engaged in murderous, mead-fueled tavern brawls because their respective reviews of Hamlet opened with some variation of "The dude just can't make up his mind..."

Elizabethan English critics most certainly did. It's all part of the tradition.

If that fucking little baby thinks for one SECOND that ANYONE would ever want to plagiarize that slop he puts out... He's flattering himself.

I think there's zero merit to the complaint, but there would have been a really simple way to shut this conversation down from the get-go. "I didn't even read the WW review before I wrote mine."

I doubt the WW would let a little fact like that get in the way of their hot breaking story.

That's what I was thinking, deddawg. But the fact is that most critics do read the competition, especially when given a week to do so. You know when the crosstown paper gets to something before you (the newsy-folks call that getting 'scooped'...I saw it in a movie. Newsies, actually.), and you usually check it out so that you can make yours better and hopefully find angles that the other reviewer missed. I mean, a lot of people (GASP!) read both papers. My music section co-horts and I try to read Ezra & Co.'s stuff a lot and I reckon he keeps tabs on our music section as well. And sure, sometimes stories come out looking similar, because you have the same subject matter to draw from. I'd be uncomfortable, though, if one of our music writers put out a story that shared this many similarities (in form and content) to one that came out in the Merc the week before. Does that mean it's plagiarism? No. But working under the assumption that she and her editors read Ben's piece (because no one has said otherwise), why would you want to tell the same town all the same things about the same play? Why run the review at all if the same shit was said a week prior (granted, Alison's review has 20% more snark) and was—in the author's own words—"formulaic" and "not terribly inspired"? Is it because—and I don't mean to insinuate anything here—THE MERCURY EDITORIAL STAFF CANNOT READ?!?!?!?!? THEATER-GATE CONTINUES!!!!

p.s. Seriously, though. I am so fucking bored with all this crosstown navel-gazing. I propose that the winner of the epic wweek/mercury softball game devotes an entire print column to "being [WWeek's/the Merc's] bitches." That's the way the Romans used to settle things! With...softball. And...name-calling.

Nice try on the backpedaling, Casey, but here's what Ben actually said: "Notice any similarities? Like maybe the whole thing?"

That's hardly saying there are similarities in form and content (which, after having read both pieces enough to have them memorized by now, I still don't see).

Face it--Ben made a wild, unfounded, and potentially damaging accusation about Alison, even if he didn't say the word, and WW has yet to apologize for it. In fact, the entire paper is apparently "100%" behind Ben's claims.

It might surprise you, but I don't have a lot of patience for paper rivalries--I think they bore and alienate readers. But if you're tired of "crosstown navel-gazing," you might want to tell your colleagues to keep their reputation-killing claims to themselves, not published on your blog/not-blog.

In the newspaper business, I believe that's what's called a "ka-zing!"

This is pathetic...absolutely pathetic on the part of the aging nerd herd over at Willy Week. Not a good week in journalism for for Zuzman and company...

I love how the WWeek starts shit out-of-fucking-nowhere and then, when you expose them as liars and frauds and generally ill-mannered assholes, they go all "Sigh, cross-town navel gazing is sooo boring". Wait a second, I don't love it. I think it's fucking pathetic.

OK, after reading how they stand by his false accusations 100% I do belive I'm going to have to call in to their department and lodge a HUGE complaint over this. This is absurd at worst and far fetched to say the least. Now I don't have any of my writings published, and I don't spell check what I post for comments but by no means does that mean I don't write. I write songs and poetry all the time and by god, if someone accused me of doing this, I'd be pretty irate. Down right steaming at the pot! This is ludacris and a down right insult to anyone who's ever picked up a pen and paper to write anything!

Casey,
Yes, maybe a "softball game" might settle it for you, but what about the person Ben slandered? Tell Ben to stop hiding in the WW broom closet, and apologize like a man.

I can't speak for Ben, Scott, and I can't backpeddle for him either. I was just commenting along with everybody else. But way to backpeddle from my softball challenge!

If you're against the paper war, though, you must have about as much sway at the Merc as I do at WW! Your distaste for inter-weekly politics doesn't seem to have slowed down the number of WW-bashing Blogtown posts as of late or removed the WW/AARP link from the Merc webpage (I get it, we're old!).

Ben is his own dude, Jezzy. You can email him, though.

I can understand Ben's frustration at seeing his article used as the basis for Merc's piece, as it would appear. The formula used for these pieces seems very similar. That said, this is not something that I as a reader would ever have noticed if it had not been brought to my attention.

I'm sad the word plagiarism ever came up, as it doesn't apply here. More or less this is something that should have been left to the reader to notice and not something to have been posted in a news portal.

There are more important things to discuss. Like what's for dinner! Goodbye topic!

First of all, I think it's down-right unprofessional of Ben to even hint at the idea of plagiarism, and now, that the majority of people agree that there are minor similarities, but nothing even close to plagiarism, in the articles....he is no where to be found! Where is he to back up his words, or better yet, stick is foot in his big mouth and apologize?

Second of all, I've seen the show, and there's not much more you can get from it, other than what they both got from it. A lot of the phrases used in both articles came from the press release from the show, or was in the show itself. Although, I do think both reviews were a little harsh, haha, but either way...in my opinion, and obviously just about everyone else, he owes more than Alison an apology.

Casey, I should have been more clear--I have little patience for paper wars when they're just pissing matches. But I'm all for media criticism when the arguments are sound, and I'm all for pointing out the flaws in local coverage (you, or KATU, or the Oregonian, or the Tribune, etc.), and I'm definitely all for defending our paper against accusations that are widely acknowledged--even by your own loyal readers--to be total bullshit.

But your comment reminds me of the first thing I thought of when I saw Ben's piece--WW has spent the last two weeks getting absolutely hammered, by us and others, and this seemed like a desperate attempt to lash out. Unfortunately for you, it was groundless and poorly executed. I may attack other news outlets in this town, but only when I'm sure I have two legs to stand on, and only when I believe their coverage has done a disservice to the public.

As for the AARP link, get used to the gray hair, dude. I have a hunch it's about to get a lot grayer.

Ok, so I've now met Alison. She doesn't look anything like a plagiarist to me.

Ben doesn't have any reason to lash out and neither do I. WW's theater/music coverage isn't what gets bashed at WW. The target has largely been WW's investigative reporting (an easier target, as—respectfully—your paper does very little of it). And while I'm 100% behind different media outlets keeping checks and balances on one another, the Merc's criticisms often have more to do with branding itself as young and cool than they do with actual outrage or concern for the public interest. Shit, I'm a fan of your paper. In the news department, enjoy seeing you, Matt and Co. go after the things you believe in. I just don't think you really believe that WW is so inconsolably out of step with your own paper's ideology that it warrants the cynical put-downs we get so often. I think that's some dude from Seattle trying to bolster his circulation numbers.

Again, I'm sorry to attatch this to this particular post. I don't believe the two issues are related. This is my own frustration and I only speak for myself. We should get some beers soon. Email me or somethin.

i'm indifferent to this whole thing, but find it hilarious that the WillyWeek staffers seem to post more on the Mercury board than their own site.

"Ben doesn't have any reason to lash out and neither do I. WW's theater/music coverage isn't what gets bashed at WW. The target has largely been WW's investigative reporting (an easier target, as—respectfully—your paper does very little of it)."

I think that's a dig at Merc, and a way of saying that you believe WW's prime (and more important) mission is investigative reporting.

Which makes it all the more pit-of-stomach churn-inducing to have your theoretical specialty smacked around like a pinata at party for spastic children raised on Royal Jelly, I would think--and thus heightening the tendency for petty defensiveness.

But that's just a theory. :)

I dumped WW in 2004 when a lot of their articles started to turn fluffy, yet dull. Went to the merc because at least I can laugh at the fluff with them.

I kept reading the WWeek.com site for a while, until this latest redesign, and then I deleted the bookmark. The new site design is horrible, there are articles/text spewed all over the page, it's quite difficult to find anything under a particular department/interest.

Oh well.

My opinion on this is WW is way out of line. My father was a critic in L.A. for a firm reviewing journal, and he'd have me pour over each review growing up, and after having done this hundreds of times, both of these reviews are typical anter about plays. Has anyone linked to other reviews with similar prose? Shouldn't be hard to find...

I think that's some dude from Seattle trying to bolster his circulation numbers.

Who in god's name are you talking about? I know exactly one person in Seattle, who I've spoken with maybe three times. Everything I post is something I believe needs to be pointed out, not delivered as a command from up above. But that you would assume that certainly says something about how WW functions.

And ditto, TJ.

But that you would assume that certainly says something about how WW functions.

*dingdingding*

Now that we know WW is mostly concerned about the first half of the review being the basis for the red flag being raised, it might be interesting to note that the three phrases most similar in the first paragraphs of the reviews--"Floyd Collins", "in 1925" and "media circus"--bring up 243 hits on Google. Hell, even Marty Hughley of the O is in that search result; how come no one's accusing him of copying Ben? Point is, there aren't many different ways to write a 300-word review.

Sigh...what a load of Butt Monkeys. I saw nothing in Alison's Post that ripped off Ben's at all, in fact it seems clear that WW is angling for some attention. Shame on you, WW, you should know better than that.

I saw the play too, and I agree with both of them on several key issues. Does that mean that if I review it in my personal blog and it sounds similar that I'm a plagiarist? Whom did I plagiarize then, Alison or Ben? Some yay-hoo from the Tribune? A review is an opinion, and since when is an opinion copyrighted or protected?

Play nice, WW: Portland is a small sandbox, and when you poop in it, it ruins things for all of us.

This is all bullshit. The WW fucked up and copped. But the Merc is a piece of shit paper. Don't forget that you stole the idea that a local writer pitched to you when you first started...About reviewing the Grey hound bus station in the theatre section...Remember? Yeah fuck the Merc. As far as I'm concerned, you still owe her the money. Get fucked.

Here's the link to the article from 2001 that you gave to Justin "scoop" Sanders.

http://www.portlandmercury.com/portland/Content?oid=24207&category=22143

ben, can you spell N A R C I S S I S I T I C ?
the world actually does not revolve around you.
on top of which, your writing is not good enough to steal.
get some counseling.

The rundown:

The WWeek website sucks.

WWeek produces (though not perfectly) superior journalism to The Mercury, or even The Oregonian.

The Mercury is edgier/funnier/more contemporary than WWeek.

Ben shouldn't bitch like that, certainly not in public. Bad form. Allison shouldn't have responded. Is anyone the bigger person here?

Las Vegas
[url=http://condosforrent-las-newyears-vegas.gebook.org/] condosforrent las newyears vegas [/url]