Washington Post’s been all over the news and our airwaves since Wednesday, because of their article on Manmohan Singh. Granted it wasn’t a very complimentary one. But they didn’t say anything that our national papers haven’t said before or many times since. But thanks to our government’s nonsensical behavior of demanding and then wrongfully claiming that they’ve received an apology from WP, all the people who might not have read the offending article – have now read it and discussed it threadbare.

Simon Denyer, India Bureau Chief of Washington Post, took to twitter to refute Ambika Soni’s claims that Washington Post had apologised to the government for writing the opinion piece which held an opinion which didn’t suit our government.  The big guns of journalism all rallied behind Washington Post – as they should have – and scoffed at the government’s ludicrous demand for an apology and false claim of receiving one.

Buoyed on by the support, Denyer pointed out that nobody had apologised. And then was kind enough to explain why the government might have mistakenly assumed that they had received an apology.

All’s well that ends well, you’d say? Not really, because a different can of worms opened up by the evening of Wednesday when Sanjay Baru who had been quoted in the same article claimed that he’d never spoken to Denyer and the quote attributed to him was from an interview he’d given to Caravan in 2011. Denyer in the meantime claimed on twitter that he’d actually spoken with Baru. Soon it turned out Ramachandra Guha hadn’t spoken to Denyer either. Even he’d spoken with Caravan in 2011! And his quote had just been lifted from there as well. http://caravanmagazine.in/Story.aspx?Storyid=1103&StoryStyle=FullStory

Of course, since we’ve now been conditioned to thinking that the government simply cries wolf when anything doesn’t go its way, and in light of Ambika Soni’s claims of receiving an apology turning out be part of her overactive imagination, no one believed these claims of plagiarism. Also, how could Denyer or Washington Post have dabbled in plagiarism when Washington Post had gone after Fareed Zakaria hammer and tongs? Could the mighty really have fallen so low?

When the Zakaria controversy had broken, Washington Post had published an article  http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/post/should-fareed-zakaria-be-forgiven-for-plagiarizing/2012/08/13/6651c4ec-e4b5-11e1-9739-eef99c5fb285_blog.html which said, “I’m not sure if Zakaria’s ‘lapse’ means that he ought to be disbarred from the journalistic profession, or whatever it is we do to those who break our ethical codes in the media…But there’s no question that Zakaria knew exactly what he was doing. And why it was wrong”.

Then Washington Post‘s Paul Farhi claimed that Zakaria had plagiarised a quote from another book and used it in his own book, The Post American World. http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/more-questions-raised-about-fareed-zakarias-work/2012/08/13/0939fa48-e598-11e1-8741-940e3f6dbf48_story.html

This claim though was proven to be incorrect.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/08/wapo-levels-false-charge-against-zakaria-132192.html And Washington Post had to write a clarification stating that they’d made a mistake – so what if it was libellous. It’s always nice to kick a man when he’s down.

The clarification which appeared on Farhi’s article simply said: “This article incorrectly states that in his 2008 book, ‘The Post-American World’, Fareed Zakaria failed to cite the source of a quotation taken from another book. In fact, Zakaria did credit the other work, by Clyde V. Prestowitz. Endnotes crediting Prestowitz were contained in hardcover and paperback editions of Zakaria’s book. The Post should have examined copies of the books and should not have published the article. We regret the error and apologize to Fareed Zakaria.”

Now one would think that since Washington Post had gone after Zakaria, even made incorrect counter-allegations on him – they would be just a tad careful about plagiarising themselves. And indeed be so above it all, that they can be self-righteous and cock a snook at these unethical plagiarists. But as we found yesterday, that’s not the case.

Being caught out, Washington Post now carries a “correction” on the said article on Manmohan Singh.  “Correction: An earlier version of this article failed to credit the Caravan, an Indian magazine, for two statements that it originally published in 2011. The assertion by Sanjaya Baru, a former media adviser, that Singh had become an object of ridicule and endured the worst period in his life first appeared in the Caravan, as did an assertion by Ramachandra Guha, a political historian, that Singh was handicapped by his “timidity, complacency and intellectual dishonesty.” While both men told The Post that the assertions could accurately be attributed to them, the article should have credited the Caravan when it used or paraphrased the remarks. The article has been updated.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/indias-silent-prime-minister-becomes-a-tragic-figure/2012/09/04/a88662c4-f396-11e1-adc6-87dfa8eff430_story.html

A public apology to Caravan? Explanations on twitter explaining the mistake? Now that’s asking for too much. All Denyer had to say about it on Twitter, was:

What’s interesting to note is that all the people who were rallying behind Denyer and Washington Post saying that the government was being infantile, have nothing to say about this wonderful little dance with plagiarism which has been indulged in by Washington Post. Which seems way more unethical than the government making irrational demands from the press. Diffidence is fine and dandy as long as you’re not in the wrong.

But it seems sorry seems to be the hardest word for Washington Post.

Image Source: [https://twimg0-a.akamaihd.net/profile_images/1729036737/IMG_0136d.jpg]