Councilman Shrugs Off Plagiarism Charge, But Authors He Copied Fume
Derek Reeve defends writings that lifted the words of journalists and columnists. Academic experts question Reeve's fitness and integrity as a college instructor.
Photos
Most writers agree that imitation is flattering. But they still want credit—even when the "imitation" appears in a blog.
City Councilman Derek Reeve, facing criticism for writing blog posts that heavily copied the words of other authors, offers a different view. Writing in today's Orange County Register, he acknowledged "carelessly" using "previously published material" while blogging for San Juan Capistrano Patch. But he dismissed accusations of plagiarism, saying blogs are informal musings "in which the standards of communication are relaxed."
Reeve didn't directly address instances in which he similarly lifted the copyrighted words of journalists and other authors for City Council staff reports and a press release he wrote.
- Related: Did City Councilman Plagiarize?
Reeve, an attorney who teaches political science at two Orange County colleges, said the standards he applies in his legal and scholarly writings, in which he takes "pains to add footnotes to identify the origin of ideas," shouldn't be applied to his online words.
Academic experts and several of the authors whose work he copied disagreed.
Other Writers Criticize Reeve
According to those whose words he lifted, Reeve's actions were plagiarism and theft, plain and simple. But one writer acknowledged that bloggers often face less scrutiny for copyright infringement.
"There seems to be an idea that there should be a lesser standard for work on the Internet than work that appears in print," said Richard F. LaMountain, a guest columnist for the Oregonian and one of the writers Reeve copied. "With the increasing relevance and credibility of blogs, I think the standards really should be ... closer."
LaMountain said Reeve's blogs unquestionably bear more than a passing resemblance to his own words, but said he doesn’t intend to take any action against the councilman for duplications such as this:
REEVE:
If mandated for employers, it would deny those jobs to unauthorized alien applicants and confine them instead to citizens and legal residents. This would shrink our oversupply of labor, raise wages for lower-skilled jobs, and make those jobs more attractive to Americans.
If mandated for U.S. employers, it would deny those jobs to illegal-immigrant applicants and confine them instead to citizens and legal residents. This would shrink America's oversupply of labor, raise wages for lower-skilled jobs, and make those jobs more attractive to Americans …
"Some of the sentences are verbatim," LaMountain said.
Reeve didn't respond to a request for comment for this story.
Reeve similarly copied from a June 2010 opinion piece by former ABC reporter and commentator John Stossel. Richard Newcombe, the founder of Creators Syndicate, which sells Stossel's writings to newspapers and others, had sharp words for Reeve.
"It’s obvious he agrees with Stossel, he likes Stossel ... therefore he should show him the courtesy of attribution," Newcombe said. "If he’s going to try to plagiarize people, he should certainly not pick someone as widely read and known as John Stossel."
When Reeve copied Stossel's words without attributing them, he plagiarized, Newcombe said. "I think plagiarism is horrible, it’s theft," he added. But Newcombe also didn't seem inclined to take any legal action.
Questions About Academic Integrity
Thomas Bartlett, a reporter for The Chronicle of Higher Education who has written extensively about professors who plagiarize, said the standards for attribution vary in different industries, but the same general rules apply: "Verbatim writing needs to be in quotes, attributed to the person, period."
The two colleges where Reeve teaches political science, Concordia University and Saddleback, declined to comment on the matter. A Saddleback spokeswoman suggested it would be inappropriate for the school to say anything because Reeve produced his blogs outside the academic forum.
It's not unprecedented for colleges to discipline instructors for off-campus plagiarism. In 2004, a committee at the University of New Hampshire penalized a professor for "scholarly misconduct" over a column published in Manchester's The Union Leader.
Gregory F. Scholtz, a director at the American Association of University Professors, said disciplinary decisions are often made by a faculty committee that weighs whether a teacher's work outside the classroom has any bearing on his professional competence.
Saddleback's code of conduct requires faculty to "exhibit intellectual honesty and integrity in all scholarly endeavors."
Although Reeve's work on Patch arguably occurred outside that realm, Scholtz said it still raises questions about his intellectual honesty. Scholtz referred to the association's statement on professional ethics, which says professors, "guided by a deep conviction of the worth and dignity of the advancement of knowledge ... practice intellectual honesty. Although the professors may follow subsidiary interests, these interests must never seriously hamper or compromise their freedom of inquiry."
Reeve didn't respond to Patch's request for copies of his academic and legal writings, including a USC dissertation listed on his resume. USC, where he earned his bachelor's and juris doctorate degrees, said it had no record of any dissertations by Reeve on file at its law library. (Dissertations are not a graduation requirement, and Reeve's might have been written for independent study, the school said). Reeve is also a doctoral candidate at Claremont University.
Roy Bauer, a philosophy instructor at Irvine Valley College who has taken jabs at Reeve's politics as a city councilman, is now blasting Reeve for the blog posts.
Bauer's blog, Dissent the Blog ... Life Among Neanderthals, questioned Reeve's integrity and fitness for teaching. If Reeve "repeatedly represents others' writings as his own ... [he] cannot be trusted to argue honestly; he certainly cannot be trusted to instill academic honesty in his students."
Perplexed
8:40 pm on Tuesday, October 4, 2011
It took Reeve over 7 days to come up with this? Basically a denial of any wrong doing, based on erroneous assumptions of the definition of plagiarism? I don't buy it. I don't believe anyone could be as stupid as he is claiming to be. He knows full well the seriousness of his actions, but would like to convince us it was merely a silly little blog post, not a real article written on actual paper. What arrogance, what gall, to think he could convince the people of San Juan Capistrano that everything he did is okay. I hope he resigns soon, as he should.
Jenna Chandler
12:31 pm on Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Hi Rick, the lack of a link was simply an oversight on my part. It's been added to the story. Thanks for pointing it out.
Josh Francis
2:11 pm on Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Mr. Lyons, The Register did give Reeve's side of the story but you have to remember Patch did ask him for comment but he refused. Every journalist is faced with that problem.
Carole Matson
7:33 am on Wednesday, October 5, 2011
He is truely someone who will not take responsbility for his actions! He seems to
believe he's above the law. I believe the counsil members should censure him.
Maybe that will get his attention. By the way....who is Rick Lyons and was he
at the meeting? hummmmm
CE
8:57 am on Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Resign? Forget it. He's having the time of his life.
Every time (except over the plagiarism thing) he gets negative media attention, he posts giddily about it on Facebook and his 17 supporters make outraged comments. This is exactly what he wants.
Reeve is in hog heaven. Just don't start asking what the hog's name is.
Squonk
9:35 am on Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Very solid reporting. Glad you followed up with those who were plagairized. This is simply a matter of ethics. If a councilman were caught stealing a loaf of bread, the law and order supporters would be outraged. But steal the words of another? He thinks those rules should be "relaxed" when writing for an online news organization. This is a black and white issue. Stealing is stealing and my only disappointment is that no one from whom he stole wishes to hold him accountable.
marcopolo
4:45 pm on Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Rick....he was STEALING from published works and posting them on his blog...regardless, it's wrong...it wouldn't have been hard for Reeves to simply accredit his source. Just like this -- "Blah Blah Blah" - The Oregonian. Pretty easy, and by not taking this easy step...he stole.
Matt Gaffney
10:15 am on Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Well said CE.
John Perry
10:48 am on Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Jenna
It seems amazing that you continue to pursue this trivial matter. Is there more to this story then you have disclosed? Are you being pressed by your liberal editor who works for the Huffington Post or just a bunch of disgruntled locals who would like to get rid of the only conservative council member?
Lets get on to more pressing issues such as why the City Council has been lying to the public for years about the GWRP not being owned by the city but being leased from the SJBA. Water rate payers will have spent millions in building and operating the GWRP only to see the entire operation returned to SJBA at the end of the lease period.
Roy Rivenburg
12:11 pm on Wednesday, October 5, 2011
John, did you think the press was being trivial when it covered Joe Biden's plagiarism?
Roy Rivenburg
2:03 pm on Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Rick, for the record, extensive, verbatim copying of other writers' work appeared in three blog submissions (two of which weren't published), two City Council staff reports and one council press release.
Roy Rivenburg
3:50 pm on Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Think about it, Rick: If Ms. Chandler (and it's Ms., not Mrs. -- she isn't married) or Patch were biased against Councilman Reeve and his views, why would we have given him a blog in the first place?
As for the link oversight, if our goal was to keep readers in the dark about Reeve's explanation for lifting copyrighted work verbatim, why would we even mention his Register commentary, let alone quote from it in this story? Patch (and other news organizations) have repeatedly asked Councilman Reeve for comment on the plagiarism issue. He has declined. It appears he didn't want to present his side in a forum that would allow reporters to ask follow-up questions.
Carole Matson
7:37 pm on Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Hey Lyons...do you see the irony in your last post...oh here it is..and I'm giving you the credit for it...no plagiarism here. your words: " I keep having the weird feeling that you are like the big brother who is defending his little sister for a mistake she has made. It is so unusual for a Senior Group Editor such as yourself to keep defending it's reporters/editors unless a mistake has been made."
You keep pointing fingers...everywhere...always "trying to get the last word"...responding to the least of comments...Ms. or Mrs....you always have "your" answer. Are you big brother, defending, little brother for his BIG mistakes?
There were NO mistakes made by Patch...period! Stop trying to make something where there is nothing. Stick to the subject. Plagiarism...did you really read Reeve's comments in the Register...sound like "not"....and his moral, ethical malfunctions. By trying to put the blame elsewhere, you are belittling yourself.
But...all in all...you do keep me entertained...THANKS!
Roy Rivenburg
7:47 pm on Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Rick, I don't defend mistakes. I correct them. But none were made in Patch's coverage of this topic.
What I am doing as moderator of this discussion is responding to the incorrect statements you continue to make.
Josh Francis
7:54 pm on Wednesday, October 5, 2011
I don't think Jenna omitted a link on purpose that being said i can't say for certain but Jenna and the Patch were informed about the comments Reeve made about them prior to the column to gather their response for an article I wrote http://www.ocregister.com/news/reeve-320510-allevato-patch.html She may have (this is a theory not fact) written "Writing in today's Orange County Register" prior to a link existing. It was a mistake but seemingly an honest one, The Register is not offended.
Roy Rivenburg
8:09 pm on Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Josh, that is exactly what happened. The story was written before your link existed. And we forgot about it when putting the story online. Simple oversight, and we fixed it as soon as Mr. Lyons pointed it out.
Roy Rivenburg
8:14 pm on Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Rick, it isn't odd at all for me to moderate discussions. It's part of my job, and it allows our reporters to get out and cover stories.
Josh Francis
8:48 pm on Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Again not linking to something does not mean you omit the works existence it simply means Jenna and the Patch slightly inconvenienced its readers (ಠ_ಠ shame on you Patch:) Readers could have still found the column without a link so I don't think it was Jenna's intention to omit the link, if that were true she wouldn't have mentioned the column at all but now I sound like I work for Patch so I'll stop defending Patch for its injustice against humanity. If I wasn't aware of the column and I saw their story I would have had to make 4 clicks instead of one to see the column so shame on you Patch for the minor inconvenience.
Roy Rivenburg
10:10 pm on Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Rick, you can believe what you want, but here are the facts: Long before Councilman Reeve posted his commentary on the Register, we had a second story ready to go with reaction from academic experts and the writers whose work Mr. Reeve copied in multiple blog posts, two City Council staff reports and at least one press release.
Then we heard Mr. Reeve had submitted a commentary to the Register responding to our first plagiarism story. So, rather than publish our new story -- in which every source criticized the councilman and he continued to offer no comment -- we held it so we could include some semblance of his defense from the Register. Pretty biased of us, huh? We waited so we could present his side.
As Register writer Josh Francis previously noted, the Register was kind enough to give us an advance copy of Mr. Reeve's comments about Patch's first story. We rewrote our new story to include Mr. Reeve's defense and then waited. We posted our new story at 2:45 p.m., half an hour after Mr. Reeve's commentary went live. The reason our story didn't contain a link to Councilman Reeve's commentary is because it was finished hours earlier, before such a link even existed, and we forgot to plug it in later.
rick lyons
4:16 am on Thursday, October 6, 2011
Josh Francis, thank you for providing the link to the latest OC Register story. Whether you agree or disagree, it appears both sides of the story were told better.
Carole Matson
11:40 am on Thursday, October 6, 2011
Roy, we all agree (except for Lyons and Perry) that the Patch did an excellent
job on all of your reporting. To continue to try and change their minds is really
just beating your head against a wall. They are too far into their stories to back up
now. Thank you for your excellence in reporting.
Roy Rivenburg
12:08 pm on Thursday, October 6, 2011
Thanks, Carole. I don't expect to change Rick Lyons' mind. But I did want to clarify, for any reader who thinks Patch might be biased against Councilman Reeve, that we made every effort to get his side and be fair.
After the first time we found extensive lifted content in one of his blog submissions, we reminded him that his posts needed to be original, not copied from other sources. He insisted that particular post was almost entirely his (in fact, the opposite was true) and then his next submission was almost two-thirds lifted verbatim from other authors.
At that point, we did a story.
Carole Matson
3:05 pm on Thursday, October 6, 2011
Hey Lyons...your last post to Mr. Rivenburg states that "you just want to get the other side of the story". Please for all of our sakes, tell us what "you" think Reeve's side of the story is? He didn't Plagiarize? did you read the article that was referred to in these posts? Or for that matter, you like to "Google things"...Google Plagiarism. He didn't upset the Muslim neighbors? Please do explain. And, please reread the Register article, I believe you might be missing the point.
As for the Patch getting lots of publicity from these articles...if you review back, you
pretty much are the reason for all the posts...when you stop posting, all goes quiet.
I guess, thanks for helping the Patch! I'm giving you the opportunity to really explain why you're posting so much about this and give us a really good reason that Reeve did what he did? Explain?
Carole Matson
6:33 pm on Thursday, October 6, 2011
What happened to the "free speech" that you profess for Reeve? Typical, double standard. There is no
disrespect when referring to you as Lyons. That's your name. And I will continue
to refer to you as such, Lyons.
Josh Francis
9:21 pm on Thursday, October 6, 2011
This thread keeps getting better.
http://pineappleope.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/jackson_popcorn.gif
Eric Groos
11:18 am on Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Thank you Jenna keep up the great work.
shelly
11:29 am on Wednesday, October 5, 2011
John Perry,
I am wondering if you would consider this trivial if it were another City Council member. It is very unethical to plagarize. It is lying to the public who read what you pretended were your words when plagarize. It may not be illegal but it is extremely unethical. As a professor of law how can his students or anyone find him credible when he claims other's words as his own. It is stealing.
shelly
6:34 pm on Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Mr Lyons,
I read the OC Register. Here is his response, "Reeve said in his guest column: "I was invited to blog on the Patch and carelessly submitted previously published material. This involved one informal published blog that Patch made into three without my consent. This was a blog worthy of Facebook, not a formal article, yet now the editor has the chutzpa to compare this to a student's thesis, which is like comparing apples to gorillas." OC Register, Josh Francis, Oc. 5, 2011
He plagarized. He did not cite his sources which is easy to do. He wrote the one blog or whatever he claims it was as if they were his words and they were not. He chose to write it and be "published" on the blog He did not cite any sources or put quotation marks around anything. It is dishonest, unethical, and plagarism. Admit it and apologize is what he should do.
shelly
2:26 pm on Thursday, October 6, 2011
Mr.Lyons,
If you write something anywhere and claim it as your own it is called plagarism. Derek Reeves wrote statements in a blog and pretended they were his own statements when in fact he lifted them from other articles. In a letter, in an essay, in an article, in a blog or comment section it is plagarism and it is unethical.
Patrick
11:31 am on Wednesday, October 5, 2011
John and Eric should examine their own ethical base like"real americans." From what planet and spaceship did they arrive? When you have no answer, then you change the subject--typical right wing--and attack the messenger, laughably transparent and juvenile. Silly, silly, silly.
Carole Matson
11:41 am on Wednesday, October 5, 2011
I am a hard core conservative..PLEASE don't say that Reeve and his ilk are
"typical right wing!!!" That is an insult to those who believe in what being a
Republican REALLY means! Most of us who are appalled at Reeve's recent antics
are Republicans and conservatives; WE are not hateful or liars.
Steve Behmerwohld
12:47 pm on Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Mr Lyons, we missed you at Council last night. Please let us know when your debut will be.
Perplexed
1:25 pm on Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Here's an interesting and timely article, written for high school students, warning them of the potential consequences of digital plagiarism.
http://www.petersons.com/college-search/plagiarism-effect-college-prep.aspx
Surely these standards should apply equally to a person who is a San Juan City Councilmember and college professor.
Carole Matson
3:13 pm on Wednesday, October 5, 2011
thanks...great article. Lyons, Perry and most importantly, Reeve should read it.
I hope that Patch uses the software to check on any other plagiarized work of Reeve's.
Matt Gaffney
2:11 pm on Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Boy how did anyone sling it around before the internet? When I was a little boy in Capo most gossip was exchanged at the Poat Office.
Matt Gaffney
2:43 pm on Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Thanks Rick. I've gotten spoiled by spell check. It pays to proofread any submission. All my old Maryknoll Nuns at Old Mission School must be rolling in their graves.
Steve Behmerwohld
2:31 pm on Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Mr Lyons, I am also at most Council meetings (to the bitter end), I address Council often and am introduced as a Commissioner at each meeting, so I'm guessing you know who I am. Do you ever speak at Council meetings? I don't recall ever hearing your name at a meeting. Is there a chance that we know each other already, but in real life, you go by another name and speak often at meetings? This is beginning to seem like the old TV quiz show, "What's My Line?".
Steve Behmerwohld
3:16 pm on Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Rick L., it's hard to believe you spend so much time blogging, yet you consider speaking at a Council Meeting directly to your elected Officials and fellow Citizens to be a "waste of time".
You seem to be fairly aligned the my friends at Common Sense. I believe they all know who I am. Next meeting, PLEASE have one of them introduce us. If you don't know them and attend as meetings as you say, you must know Jonathan Voltzke of the Capistrano Dispatch or MS Jenna Chandler of Patch. Either will be happy to point me out. PS @ Matt G. re John P. , THANK YOU
Carole Matson
3:29 pm on Wednesday, October 5, 2011
I have not found anyone who knows who Rick Lyons is. Some believe he is Mr. Reeve in disguise. Who else would so adamently stand up for someones moral and ethical deficiencies as well as some that are illegal.
Roy Rivenburg
3:58 pm on Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Folks, some of the comments are getting way off-topic and have been deleted. Let's steer clear of personal attacks, private medical histories and rendezvous possibilities at council meetings. A number of you apparently want to meet Mr. Lyons. Fine, look for him at the next council meeting, not here. We're not match.com.
Carole Matson
4:05 pm on Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Mr lyons used this forum to state that he knows my voter personal info and my personal medical information. Off topic or not, its fair for me to require that he
let me know how he received that information. I notice that you deleted even his
mention of it. This is a serious offense and I want to get to the bottom of it. It does
have to do with Reeve and how everything transpired. If you remove this from the posts, then be kind enough to give me Lyons personal email so I can find out how he was able to get my confidential information!
Whistlin'Pete
5:01 pm on Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Read Reeve's response...basically sounds like he admits that he stole the info, posted it as his own, and is now trying to change to the topic. I'm glad Patch did not directly link to his article as it is simply him dodging the issue. Plus...it's pretty petty that Reeves would refuse to give a comment to Patch but ran off to the register to give his side of the story when they didn't even initially run a story about his PLAGIARISM.
marcopolo
5:05 pm on Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Seriously. Why can't he just come to Patch, like a honest man, and admit wrongdoing? All he needs to say is "I should have accredited my sources, I am sorry."
Stealing someone's words and calling it free speech is like stealing a TV then saying there are free TVs up for grabs at Best Buy.
It's still, and always will be, stealing.
Carole Matson
5:31 pm on Wednesday, October 5, 2011
I agree. I posted on his facebook, basically the same thing. Just apologize for
your actions, take responsibility for them...whether you meant wrong doing or not..
and ask for the Lord's forgiveness...for his family's sake.......he immediately took my
post down..no response...again!
Roy Rivenburg
7:59 pm on Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Rick, you are again misstating facts. Patch repeatedly asked Councilman Reeve to comment for our stories on this topic, even delaying publication of our original story at his request so he could prepare a promised response that he never delivered.
It is absolutely untrue that he had to run to another news organization for the opportunity to present his side. Indeed, when Register news columnist Frank Mickadeit requested an interview to get Reeve's side, he too got no response.
Josh Francis
8:19 pm on Wednesday, October 5, 2011
I did write an article on this matter however it never ran :( because Frank Mickadeit ran a commentary on the plagiarism concerns. However I will admit I wasn't aware of the plagiarism until I read Jenna's article which I did not see as soon as it was posted unfortunately but now I frequent Patch because the comment debates are so interesting :)
Roy Rivenburg
8:31 pm on Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Rick, as a reporter, I have always advised sources to explain their side on any story, if only because not commenting looks bad, as if they have something to hide. Any crisis public-relations person would give the same advice. But it's still their choice. So, no, I'm not "bothered" that Councilman Reeve chose to say nothing to Patch and chose not to release copies of his dissertation and other writings to see if they contain verbatim lifted passages. That's his right.
What's untrue is your suggestion that Mr. Reeve had to go to the Register because Patch refused to give him a chance to comment or explain his side of the story. THAT is patently false.
laconic
8:58 pm on Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Carole, I've heard of a couple of different instances in which people have posted comments on Derek Reeve's Facebook page that were not supportive of his point of view, only to have the posts deleted, and the people who posted the comments blocked from posting in the future. So much for Freedom of Speech, eh?
marcopolo
4:43 pm on Friday, October 7, 2011
He didn't run to a newspaper that would hear his side of the story...he REFUSED to give his side of the story to Ms. Chandler and then ran to another paper, a competitor, just to spite the Patch for outing his theft.
Carole Matson
6:45 pm on Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Here are Reeve's comments from his "guest column" on the Register: "Reeve said in his guest column: "I was invited to blog on the Patch and carelessly submitted previously published material. This involved one informal published blog that Patch made into three without my consent. This was a blog worthy of Facebook, not a formal article, yet now the editor has the chutzpa to compare this to a student's thesis, which is like comparing apples to gorillas."
Mr. Lyons, how in any way can that be "his side of the story"? How can you accuse
the Patch of not including this information in their article? It's nothing...notta, nil.
There is really no explanation for his plagiarism...period! Now, please review all of the information, you should no longer stand up for this seemingly liar, cheat and narcisis. What Mr. Reeve's needs to do, is apologize, repent and move on!
Roy Rivenburg
1:35 pm on Thursday, October 6, 2011
Even if Rick Lyons' wildest theories were true, it doesn't change the essential facts of the story.
Fact: Councilman Reeve extensively copied the words of other writers -- verbatim and without attribution -- in multiple blog submissions, two city council staff reports and one press release. The last of those blog submissions came after Patch specifically reminded Mr. Reeve that his posts must be original, not copied from other sources.
Fact: Copyright infringement is just as illegal in an unpaid blog as it is in the New York Times.
Fact: Councilman Reeve stated, in a commentary written for the OC Register, that he was far more rigorous about attribution in his academic and legal writings than in blogs. He has not released any of these non-blog articles or academic papers for inspection by the media. On a related note, USC said it had no record of the dissertation Mr. Reeve lists on his biography. The school says it's possible Mr. Reeve wrote a dissertation for independent study, since dissertations aren't required for its law degree. Mr. Reeve hasn't commented on this matter.
Readers can raise questions about motives or debate the significance of this story, but those facts remain.
Roy Rivenburg
4:21 pm on Thursday, October 6, 2011
Rick, see my previous post. You can try to blame the messenger and cast aspersions all you want, but it won't make anything we reported inaccurate.
marcopolo
4:50 pm on Friday, October 7, 2011
Rick I'm confused as to how you can still be saying Patch did not offer Reeve's side of the story...THEY BEGGED HIM FOR A RESPONSE, they were DYING to give his side of the story...but Reeve's refused, so you can stop blaming the Patch and blame Reeve for WITHHOLDING his side of the story from the Patch.
John Perry
8:04 pm on Thursday, October 6, 2011
Roy Rivenburg
It is obvious that you are carring the water for the Huffington Post, a liberal rag, that no sane person would devote a minute reading. This has gone on far too long, you need to give it up. The Register covered the matter and nothing you say really matters. You are biased toward conseratives and anything you write will be discounted. We don't need your kind in San Juan so why not peddle your trash in San Fransisco where they might agree with your progressive viewpoints.
Roy Rivenburg
8:22 pm on Thursday, October 6, 2011
I'm having an identity crisis, John. At the L.A. Times, some readers and bloggers said I was a right-winger. Now, I'm carrying water for HuffPost? Either way, the facts of this story are indisputable.
Josh Francis
10:28 pm on Thursday, October 6, 2011
You may be a libertarian Roy :-]
Note: The Patch is one of the few news sites that lists the political party of their journalists which is risky but a good idea I think.
Now it is true (and I might be stereotyping here) that most or a higher number of journalists are left-leaning in IDEOLOGY but not in their WRITING. You can't judge a journalist by one writing. So unless we had multiple 90 comment articles on every one of Jenna's articles questioning her objectivity you can't say she or Roy are "Liberal" or "Conservative" in their writing/editing. Journalists like judges (but way underpaid ;) swear an oath to objectivity that we don't break unless we are an opinion writer or a bad apple, the second a journalist becomes Liberal, Conservative, Communist, or Socialist, Etc. in their writing the rest of the journalism community shuns them....which is a bad thing because (no offense Patch) but a journalist's dream isn't to stay at a local paper/news website paper thingy (WHAT ARE YOU PATCH!), and only with a good record of objectivity can a writer make it to; Breaking news reporter for the NY Times or Investigative Reporter for the LA Times or Editor in Chief of the OC Register (as I intend to become ;)
This is a good conversation hopefully we can see these on the Register after our new comment thing takes off.
John Perry
8:30 pm on Thursday, October 6, 2011
Roy
This is getting boring. You are a hack writing for a throwaway bolg that no serious reader takes seriously. Do me a favor and cancell my subscription so I won't have to read your dribble.
laconic
8:59 pm on Thursday, October 6, 2011
If this is, as you contend, a throwaway blog that no serious reader takes seriously, then why do you keep appearing here, John Perry? You and the others of your your ilk are looking increasingly ridiculous trying to defend the actions of Derek Reeve.
Roy Rivenburg
9:12 pm on Thursday, October 6, 2011
I'm trying to figure out how you can throw away a blog? And if you can use it to wrap a fish or line a birdcage.
laconic
9:28 pm on Thursday, October 6, 2011
Interesting too, that some of these people who are belittling blogs are most likely spending more time reading here than they do on printed pieces.
Whistlin'Pete
5:01 pm on Friday, October 7, 2011
I'm just flabbergasted at some of the stupidity I see in these (and other stories') comments...
Reeve could have explained himself a million times to the Patch as they tried multiple times to get a statement from him.
This has nothing to do with political stance, and is simply a moral issue. I Rick Lyons painted a beautiful piece of art, and I took it and placed it in my own gallery and claimed it to be my own...that would be wrong.
There is a KNOWN thing called "Intellectual Property."
Anytime an investigative piece like this ousts a political figure of some wrongdoing, there will always be lap-dogs who come rushing to the aid of their candidate -- placing blame everywhere except where it belongs.
Reeve was wrong. Plain and simple. Doesn't matter if he's conservation, liberal, atheist, a satanist, libertarian, gay, straight, mammal, reptile, amphibian...Stealing is wrong.
And finally, just because the Patch broke the story on (conservative) Mr. Reeve's theft...does not make the Patch liberal propaganda but rather a positive example of smart and investigative journalism at the hyper-local level.
Carole Matson
6:58 pm on Friday, October 7, 2011
Whistlin' Pete...you are right on...however, we have ALL tried to get this point across
to Lyons and Perry. They are just closed minded, retiree's with nothing better to do
than disagree with the majority wherever possible. I will no longer try to "change their minds"..I implore all of you, like me...just let them be...their judgement will be with our Lord in Heaven. We cannot change their minds, no matter how hard we try to present the truth of the Reeve story to them. Set in their ways, time on their hands and a false expectation of what Conservative/Christian means. I pray that
others do not think the rest of us are of the same beliefs.