Well, folks, we’ve got ourselves another one. Just when you thought Kamala Harris had run out of ways to mess up her presidential campaign, a new scandal has popped up—and it’s a doozy. Plagiarism. Yes, the kind of thing that took down Joe Biden’s presidential campaign back in 1988. But here we are in 2024, and Kamala is getting a free pass from the mainstream media. Go figure.
Every election cycle, there’s an “October Surprise,” a scandal that threatens to flip the race on its head. And if this was happening to any other candidate, we’d be seeing wall-to-wall coverage. But since it’s Harris, the media is running interference faster than you can say “double standard.” Here’s the real kicker: a plagiarism expert has now weighed in, and it’s worse than we thought.
It turns out Harris lifted multiple paragraphs straight from Wikipedia. Not just from any old source, but from the Wikipedia pages we were all told in high school were unreliable for academic work. But it doesn’t stop there—the information Harris plagiarized even had errors. You can’t make this stuff up, but it seems the media’s determined to act like this is no big deal.
From Fox News:
New York Times’ plagiarism consultant Jonathan Bailey released his ‘full analysis’ of the allegations against Vice President Kamala Harris and found them ‘more serious’ than he initially believed. While Bailey continued to argue the examples were more akin to sloppy work or negligence rather than malice from Harris, he conceded some, specifically two paragraphs copied directly from Wikipedia, were clear examples of plagiarism.
This is serious business. Plagiarism isn’t just “sloppy work” or an accident, as Bailey initially downplayed it to be. It’s a full-blown ethical violation, one that can end careers, especially when you’re a public figure writing for the record. But, of course, since Harris has a (D) next to her name, we’re supposed to chalk it up to negligence and move on. If it was Trump, this would’ve been front-page news for weeks, with every late-night host cracking jokes about it. But Kamala? Crickets.
Bailey admits that this was plagiarism, pure and simple. He specifically points to the two paragraphs Harris copied word-for-word from Wikipedia. And that’s where things get even messier. Wikipedia isn’t just an unreliable source—it’s also notorious for containing errors. And sure enough, one of the sections Harris copied was factually incorrect.
“To be clear, that is plagiarism. It’s compounded by the fact that Wikipedia is typically not seen as a reliable source, and, according to Weber, there was an error in the information,” Bailey wrote.
So, not only did she copy it, but she copied it wrong. You’d think this would be an easy story for journalists to run with. But no, it’s barely getting a mention outside of conservative media outlets. Go figure.
Media Running Cover—Again
Let’s not forget that plagiarism has taken down political candidates before. Joe Biden’s first run for president in 1988 came crashing down when it was revealed that he plagiarized speeches. Plagiarism is no joke—it’s an academic and professional crime that shows a lack of integrity and judgment. But, for Kamala, the mainstream media doesn’t want to touch it with a ten-foot pole.
Instead, they’re brushing it off as if it’s no big deal. The narrative now seems to be, “Oh, it was just a mistake, she didn’t mean it, let’s move on.” If this were a Republican—especially Trump—the media would already have 24/7 news coverage with panelists crying about the death of democracy.
This is why trust in the media continues to plummet. When they’re not outright lying, they’re downplaying scandals that would sink any other politician. It’s like they’re doing everything they can to keep Kamala on life support as she fumbles her way toward Election Day.
The Cover-Up Becomes a Scandal
Of course, it’s not just the plagiarism itself that’s the problem—it’s the cover-up that follows. If the media had just reported this honestly from the start, Harris would have had to answer for it, and maybe the story would’ve blown over. But by brushing it under the rug, they’re only making things worse.
What’s funny (and by funny, I mean infuriating) is how hard they’re working to protect Harris from any real consequences. The fact that the New York Times had to get a plagiarism consultant involved in the first place should have been the end of this story. But no, they’re still trying to minimize it, despite Bailey himself admitting it’s a clear case of plagiarism.
This entire saga shows how the media continues to operate as an arm of the Democratic Party, rather than an independent entity committed to holding politicians accountable. Their bias isn’t just obvious—it’s embarrassing.
In any other election, plagiarism would be a dealbreaker. But in 2024, with Kamala Harris at the top of the ticket and the media working overtime to protect her, who knows what’ll happen? One thing’s for sure: if she loses, she won’t be able to blame Wikipedia for that.
Really love the way you outline stuff. Thanks.
Fantastic post, keep the content coming!