Media reaction to the Ron Borges suspension for plagiarism (the full impact of that phrase still hasn’t really hit me yet) has been varied.
Some like Butch Stearns on FOX25 last night, feel that Borges did not plagiarize the article from Tacoma. Stearns claimed that he read both columns and while admitting that there was some of the same information, he didn’t think it was plagiarism. I’m with Jessica Heslam on this one. Give me a break, Butch.
Dennis & Callahan this morning were pretty good in addressing the subject. Gerry Callahan noted that plagiarism is taken much more seriously within the industry than it is in the public realm. He said that the people who work with Borges will never view him the same.
Glenn Ordway yesterday afternoon, before the suspension was announced, talked about how he enjoys Borges’ contrarian stance on things. He says Borges has a clear agenda against Bill Belichick and the Patriots. He said that every Monday we know what Borges is going to write and what his stance is going to be.
My question to that is, how is that considered good journalism?
Others, like Dale Arnold say that they always would look forward to seeing how Borges could turn a positive into a negative. He found it amusing and entertaining.
While it might be somewhat intriguing to see how Borges could possibly twist things regardless of the situation…again, how is that considered good journalism.
Keep in mind that Borges is a reporter…not a columnist.
A few old and new Borges links: