Ingrid Schlueter, whom Janet Mefferd dubs her "part-time assistant producer," has resigned in the aftermath the Driscoll plagiarism kerfuffle. From what I've read, Schlueter is a long-time critic of Driscoll. But this raise an awkward question: who actually dug up the incriminating material on Driscoll–Mefferd or Schleuter? Mefferd accuses Driscoll of taking credit for someone else's research, but was she herself taking the credit for someone else's research?
Of course, that does nothing to exonerate Driscoll. But it raises the question of whether Mefferd is guilty of the same offense she indicts Driscoll for. I wonder if Driscoll's critics and Mefferd's supporters will now measure her by the same yardstick. I'm not holding my breath. Do we have consistent standards? Or do we have rubbery standards that expand or contract according to our agenda?
Any actual evidence that Ingrid Schlueter was not properly credited for the work she did at the JM show?
ReplyDeleteThat question cuts both ways. Any actual evidence that she *was* credited? Did JM ever quote her? Did JM ever attribute the research to her?
DeleteIsn't the burden of proof with the one making the accusation (or proposing that their might be impropriety)? Or do you, Steve, torture kittens much? Where's the evidence that you don't? Hmmmm?
ReplyDeleteNo one side has the burden of proof. There's no presumption that she either did or didn't credit Schlueter.
DeleteBut thanks for illustrating my point about the team-player mentality.
You're wrong. Imagine if our justice system were based on neither the accuser nor the accused having the sole burden of proof. One could be sent to prison on mere allegations, without evidence of wrongdoing. All that would be needed for conviction would be lack of sufficient proof from the defense that the accused didn't do it.
Deletei) First of all, I didn't accuse her. I raised the question. Nice to see you misrepresent what I said. Don't let ethics get in the way of your moral crusade.
Deleteii) You then reach for the absurd comparison to the criminal justice system. There's a reason we have the presumption of innocence where there's that much at stake. Thanks for illustrating the weakness of your position.
Steve, perhaps I could have been clearer. Perhaps I caused you to misunderstand my point. I was talking about accusations OR questions about guilt. When you raised the question, as to whether Mefferd MIGHT be guilty of wrongdoing, don't you think you ought to have brought forth the evidence that caused a reasonable person such as you are to raise that question? All you brought was the question. No reasoning or evidence for it. In the same vein, I could ask you, "Have you ever robbed a bank? If so, doesn't that make you, as someone who promotes godly behavior, a hypocrite? Can't bring forth any evidence that you are innocent of this charge? I wonder why!"
DeleteThat's a question, too. It's not an accusation. Do I have the burden of providing evidence that supports the appropriateness of asking such a question? Yes, of course. Likewise, out of common decency and fairness, you ought to provide evidence that justifies your raising of "the question of whether Mefferd is guilty of the same offense she indicts Driscoll for."
Do you have the burden of providing evidence that you did not rob a bank? By the reasoning you use in the post and in the responses you wrote above; yes, of course.
So, Steve, did you ever rob a bank? If your answer is no, then provide some evidence to clear your name.
There's no presumption that actor John Goodman secretly ran the 3-minute mile. There's no presumption that Joe Biden solved the Riemann hypothesis on the back of an envelop at a cocktail party. There's no presumption that MSNBC pundit Ed Schultz beat Magnus Carlsen in a chess match at a backyard BBQ. There's no presumption that Brock Lesnar wears Chanel no. 5 perfume. As a rule, you can't just stipulate a factual state of affairs. That's not a priori. There's no factual presumption that MJ credited Schlueter as her source of information. Likewise, there's no factual presumption to the contrary. Given that Schlueter was MJ's employee, given that Schlueter resigned in the wake of the Driscoll kerfuffle, given that Schlueter is a long-time critic of Driscoll, it's plausible to suggest that MJ got her information from Schlueter. Assuming that's the case, since MJ has accused Driscoll of plagiarism, it's reasonable to ask if MJ credited Schlueter. There's nothing "indecent" or "unfair" about posing that question. To the contrary, that's eminently fair. That's holding MJ to the same standards as Driscoll.
DeleteI didn't accuse MJ of anything. But if you insist on framing the issue that way, whether or not an accusation is plausible is person-variable. It depends on the nature of the accusation in relation to the character of the accused (as well as the character of the accuser). Some allegations are antecedently implausible while other allegations are antecedently plausible, depending on who and what we're talking about. There's no general, fact-free principle.
DeleteSteve,
DeleteThe bottom line is that Mefferd brought evidence with her question. You brought none.
The bottom line is that one purpose of questions is to solicit evidence. Is that an alien concept to you?
DeleteTo my knowledge, Schlueter's involvement in the Driscoll kerfuffle only came up after she resigned. So was MF publicly crediting her before then?
The problem is precisely the lack of evidence that MF made that attribution. Her silence. You're demanding evidence for a nonevent. Evidence of something that never happened. Your demand is nonsensical.
Steve said, "There's no presumption that Brock Lesnar wears Chanel no. 5 perfume."
DeleteNice grab, Steve. Do you tune in WWE on occasion?
Radio's a different medium with different expectations. No one expects Rush Limbaugh to say, "As my staffer XYZ found by googling this morning..." everytime he starts a bit.
ReplyDeleteDaniel,
DeleteThe documentation was published on her website which therefore moved beyond a broadcast.