'View' co-host Hasselbeck accused of plagiarism

Source: AP

BOSTON (AP) — "The View" co-host Elisabeth Hasselbeck has been accused of plagiarism.

A lawsuit in federal court in Massachusetts alleges that Hasselbeck lifted "word for word" content from a book on celiac disease written by a self-published author on Cape Cod.

Hasselbeck's book, "The G-Free Diet: A Gluten-Free Survival Guide" has appeared over the last month in several best-selling lists.

The lawsuit was filed by author Susan Hassett, who says she sent Hasselbeck a copy of her "Living With Celiac Disease" book as a courtesy after the TV celebrity disclosed she had the illness last year.

Read more: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j_45R86p21PatQFlrBzumh0sx7mQD990HGF00

---

Hassett letter here: http://www.aolcdn.com/tmz_documents/0623_hasselbeck_wm.pdf

can come up with ideas on their own. Now it looks like they can't even manage to paraphrase someone else's ideas.

Sad.

In my last job, many, many, many years ago before my life went to hell, I was hired to ghost-write a book for an egomaniacal CEO of a fledgling little consultancy. I was supposed to take the results and report of a big consulting project her company had done and turn it into a book.

It took me only a very short time of background research -- actually, the first book I read on the subject -- to determine that the results of her consulting project (10 "design ideas" on implementing a corporate B2B system) had been lifted completely from the hottest book around on the subject.

Of course, Ms. EGO patently *refused* meet with me to discuss "her" book until I produced a draft. So I was forced to spend 3 months on a bogus draft, just to get her to answer my questions. She then made the mistake of treating me like dirt in person, instead of just on the phone. So my kid gloves came off. That was a fun meeting. At least, for me. :D

Plagiarism, copywrite infringement, whatever. Not an original idea to be found. Heh!heh! She couldn't figure out why the clients never came back for more. Mebbe because it dawned on them that they'd paid her hundreds of thousands of dollars to reproduce a $20 book that had been published 6 months before she started the study.

I tried to resign, but then Ms EGO had a fit because, well, nobody quits her. I looked around and realized hi-tech wasn't done tanking, so settled in for a long search. Then 9/11 happened and reality hit Ms EGO, and the entire crew of new hires was dumped.

And that, sadly, was my last "good" job.

Anyway, Hasselbeck doesn't strike me as having the "right stuff" to write a book, never mind produce a thought. So ghost writer, probably driven crazy, to drink, to drugs and finally to desperation, seems very possible. Even likely.

:rofl:

Both airheads got caught red handed. Say ladies, please come up with your own thought. Just like Repukes, always stealing something, including money. :spank:

I wish I were sad about this...

:woohoo: :rofl: :party:

"lifted word for word".
EH easily profits from someone's actual time & task of real research.

:)

:dunce:

They like creating lies, but the truth constantly eludes them.

to Hasselbeck from the (original) author!

"The lawsuit was filed by author Susan Hassett, who says she sent Hasselbeck a copy of her "Living With Celiac Disease" book as a courtesy after the TV celebrity disclosed she had the illness last year".

LOL

nor the rest of the charlatan right wingers. Not a bone of talent nor originality... just liars

I hate being critical because I know that VP Biden was hit with it back in 1988. However 20 years since then the technology has been amazingly advanced that it's very easy to scan a book and confirm that there are no plagerized parts in it. And what's even worse - Biden wasn't even trying to profit with his plagerized part; whereas, Hasselbeck was using this to sell a book.

ugh!

especially since her plagiarism was more recent than his was ... and she knew the penalty of said "crime" ... because when Biden was outed as having done it, the "liberal media" made it into worse than murder ...

with the original author?

She could have offered to work on a new edition, write the preface and market it for a cut of the proceeds.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:hi:

when she never had any of her own to begin with?

Just a rethug mouthpiece.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Celiacs produce great gobs of exceedingly foul-smelling diarrhea. Really foul. Her "my shit don't smell" ethos must have led her to paroxysms of denial, until the maddeningly itchy dermatitis herpetiformis on her thighs spread to her face.

Gluten-free cooking:
http://www.readraza.com/cbgfood/cbgindex.htm

Celiacs can in fact be asymptomatic. My husband was diagnosed to his surprise at age 38, and his aunt and uncle were in their 60's.

1 in 133 people in this country have Celiac, and a whopping 95% don't even know it.

And not all of them have dermatitis herpetiformis.

months ago - the worst part for him is changing eating habits he has had for 70 odd years. He found out because he had an unexplained iron-deficiency anemia, his esophagus was bleeding but not dermatitis herpetiformis. He also has had rheumatoid arthritis since his late 20's which helps to complicate things.

I am a newly diagnosed celiac - I never had dermatitis herpetiformis (thankfully). The symptoms I did have were bad enough.

"uhh, yeah, honey. Actually is does stink, a real, real lot. You can take it from me, your house-hubby, who has to clean the toilets every day"

In case that matters.

:shrug:

stops the intestinal issues and the rash.

I guess you were just trying to be funny.

from one gluten-free person to another. i had to retire from my career a bit early, owing to the all-consuming distractions of those symptoms.

it's not funny if you have to 'splain it. methinks folks are far too wrapped up in personal responses to a most unpleasant condition. then again. a shitload of apologists for the accused plagiarist sprang out from under some overturned rocks, and the fun dissolves under the weight of their defensive lines.

ni modo.

did you see my recipes page? if you enjoy mexican food, you'll love some of these dishes.

mvs

I was diagnosed with fibromyalgia a year and a half ago. After reading about celiac I am seriously wondering if that might not be the root of my problems instead. In my searching I found that "gluten intolerance" is considered highly co-morbid with fibromyalgia. Neither my general care practitioner or my rheumatologist ever mentioned gluten or to my knowledge ran blood tests for celiac.

I printed two lists. One of fibro symptoms and one of celiac symptoms. The ones I checked off on each list all appear on the other. How sad is it that the first I learn of this disease is on-line in a discussion about a right-wing hack being accused of plagiarism?

I was put on a series of meds for fibromyalgia and all produced worse side effects than any modicum of relief they provided. In October, I decided not to bother trying the next med and just push through the pain and fatigue. I'm calling tomorrow for the celiac blood tests.

I don't care what someone's politics are, I could never make fun of a medical condition. It's just not amusing.

If you have celiac disease (I hope you don't,) I also hope that the physician can advise you on how to go forward from there.

Here's a question: Have you had a TSH test? If not, please do.

Thinking of you. :hug:

I'm going to ask exactly which tests were run. It's been awhile, but I'm pretty sure they tested for thyroid.

I'm torn. I don't want to have celiac disease, on the other hand it would be nice to know I've got something that actually has a treatment and I might feel some relief after six years.

UNTIL you have your blood test - it is looking for antibodies to wheat. After the test, try laying off wheat products for a week or two to see if your symptoms improve. I am already seeing an improvement after only a few weeks on a wheat free diet.

I confirmed with my doctor's office this morning that I have not been tested for celiac and made an appointment for next Monday. I figure between now and then will give me time to eat through the rest of the gluten in my house. ;)

I have wondered how much time on a gluten-free diet before symptoms subside. I couldn't seem to find that information.

I was three feet away from that diagnosis when we stumbled upon my Celiac. I've never believed in a unified theory around health - I just thought I was falling apart in so many not related ways. It turns out they were actually all related. And nowadays, as long as I haven't had a gluten accident (and I'm uber careful, even in my dreams! Lol) I never take so much as an aspirin for the once relentless joint pain. Nowadays, I run around for the ibuprofen bottle when my period comes but am off the huge coctail of meds I used to take and I don't have to deal with the doctors who were sure it was all in my head. I work around them so I doubt they want to be reminded that they thought I was cookoo when I wanted to be tested for it. I'm about to turn 46, but for the most part, I feel healthier than I did in most of my twentys.

"falling apart in so many not related way" pretty much sums up the story of my life for the last six years.

Who would have thought it? :wow:

Hannity the night before? The Christian one who is opposed to this person and that person because of her dedication to her faith?

...she didn't realize it was a bad idea to regurgitate THESE phrases word for word.

Jesus was so into torture.

The sections cited as evidence of plagiarism don't even really have a passing resemblance. They convey the same information generally, but if you're writing about Celiac disease there's obviously going to be similarities in content. The only direct similarity is the use of the well-worn truism "Rome wasn't built in a day" which isn't exactly a shocking coincidence.

Read the second link (pages are out of order) and make up your own mind, but this looks like a complete BS charge by someone looking for money or with a warped ego.

It's too bad really; I was so ready to believe this. I hate Hasselbeck.

probably got the idea when she received the original book as a gift.

A similar thing happened to me. The moral of the story is - don't send unsolicited gifts to famous people, they'll just copy your ideas.

Plagiarism is defined as: The use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work.

If she can prove she sent the advance copy of her book to her 13 months prior to Hasselbeck's book coming out and that her chapter alignment is the same as Hasselbeck's, I think she has a good case.

There is no case. More than one person can have the same idea for a book, and 13 months is a pretty short time to put one out.

These books share a subject, but the language really isn't similar.

are not striking similarities? Again, I disagree from what I've seen and will wait until all the evidence is out to prove one way or the other.

These are the chapters Hasset compares (Hasset 1st, Hasselbeck 2nd)

1-2
2-3
3-3
4-7
5-12
7-6
7-10
11-11
11-10

That's not almost every chapter or in the same order. And defining the disease and listing its symptoms...who wouldn't do that, or do it early in their book about celiac disease?

Beyond that, there's a list of what you can eat, and how to handle children with the disease. This is very basic stuff, stuff anyone who was going to write a book about CD would think to include.

Obviously, we'll see how it goes, but I think this ends before trial.

I don't think the author has a case. And I too wanted to see Hasselbeck taken down.

But can she prove that Hasselbeck personally received it? :shrug:

from the attorney outlining the grievance. It's sorta similar, but it isn't 'word for word' like they said. And like you, I was hoping for the worst/best - I can't stand her either.

have a weighty intellect, but fair is fair and I would have to agree with you on this one. The plaintiff, who wrote the original book, may very well just be trying to gain her fifteen minutes of fame and some moolah to go along with it. That's just as disgusting as plagiarism and, like plagiarism nowadays, easy to figure out.

i don't think it is bullshit. probably a jury will end up deciding.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F00E3DD1E31F933A25754C0A9639C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

Perhaps someone needs to encourage better spelling.

I noticed in one issue they had '80s and 80's on the same page, but a serious fuck-up like that--in a headline!--is rare in the NYT.

Wow! Hasselbeck's book has a list of "possible symptoms" which has many of the same entries in the other (very bad) writer's book? It's almost like a given disease has certain universal symptoms!

But, yeah, I was looking forward to Hasselbeck being a plagiarist, but the only things they could apparently find were factual information which you would also find on Wiki or WebMD and the use of horribly tired cliches. The supermarket thing has been known for a while--and not restricted to gluten-free diets. Refrigerated/perishable stuff is on the outside where it's easier to set up wiring/plumbing and generally manage; preservative-laden foods are on the inner shelves, where they can be left for years. It's a common piece of advice for eating healthier, period.

Or, "relapse, start again." In other words: fall off the horse/bike, get back on. Earth-shaking.

This is just one of those situations (which happens in music often, as well) where you have two works that are both vapid, uncreative and superficial, so of course they look/sound like each other!

...plagarism were an arrestable crime.

Then did so a second time when she reposted and yanked her posting privileges.

I'm glad she didn't just go away and is instead defending her original material. I also hope she's learned not to send advance copies to RW shills in the future.

with no real case.

The chapter headings being worded almost the same are not similarities? If you say so, but from what I've seen I disagree and will wait until the rest of the evidence is out.

seeing as they all pretty much present the same kinds of information on their particular topics. from what i've seen, if that's their best shot, there is no case. i'm definitely no hasselbeck fan- but this strikes me as the other author being envious of the publicity hasselbeck is able to get for her own book.
it seems to me that if hasselbeck had actually seen the book in question, she may have been more inclined to offer the author some type of deal to co-author her own book on the subject, rather than risk having happen what is happening now.

lots of musicians and writers get TONS of unsolicited manuscripts, songs, etc. and they often don't acknowledge them or even look at them, just to avoid these kinds of issues.

community itself-- which is usually happy to get some help and attention-- as being inaccurate and potentially harmful.

needed in order to link. However you can try googling "celiac icors" and I believe that will take you directly to 1 forum. You could then "search" for "Hasselbeck". Another forum on which I've seen criticism can be accessed by googling "celiac delphi" and similarly searching for the same name. I don't use "celiac.com" so I don't know if there has been any criticism on that site, but if you're interested you can try it.

I never liked her anyway

....:sarcasm:

I bet she denies she stole the content. Typical repuke: get caught with facts staring them in the face and they will deny they did anything wrong.

lifted major lines from another's work... figures, what the hell, she'll get blamed not me! ha

Nation Weeps

i'm no fan of hasselback, but the woman makin g the charges is full of shit. she's probably just envious over the attention that hasselback's book gets due to the bully pulpit of 'the view'.

check out the excerpts from the two books- they don't seem all that similar or 'word-for-word' at all.

It is plagiarism. Here is a webpage from the university where I teach writing. This page offers examples of what is called "mosaic plagiarism" or "patchwork plagiarism," which is the sort of plagiarism Hasselbeck has committed:
http://www.depts.drew.edu/composition/Avoiding_Plagiarism.htm

so- if someone writes, say, a biography of john adams- nobody else is allowed to? :eyes:

most of the information is, frankly, going to be similar. It doesn't look as if she lifted it "word for word" or even stole some of the concepts or informational frameworks, which is another form of plagiarism. As much as I cannot stand Ms. Hasselbeck, I think this woman is just as fake as a real plagiarist.

Plenty of books about gluten-intolerance were written before hers, containing much of the same material.

wants its students and faculty to produce entirely original work.

But it has nothing to do with what a U.S. court is likely to find to be an example of illegal plagiarism.

Than internet users who think everything ought to be free and open source?

Both documents use the phrase "...shop the outer isles of the supermarket..." So Hassett misused the word isle instead of aisle and hasselback repeats the error. good enough proof of plagiarism for me.

you can check for yourself on amazon.com-

http://www.amazon.com/G-Free-Diet-Gluten-Free-Survival-Guide/dp/1599951886/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1245801516&sr=8-9#reader
(go to "search inside this book" and type 'supermarket')

it seems that hassett is being a little disingenuous about her "quote".

btw- hasselback's book is co-authored by peter green, who also has a couple other books out on the topic.

i will also say that that particular excerpt was the only one that gave me any pause, as far as her claim is concerned.

about gluten-free foods and Celiac disease, and both of these women seem to be talking about the same basics that come up over and over. If Hasselbeck plagiarized, then so did Hasset. Lists of forbidden foods, for example, can be found all over the Internet. And not surprisingly, there is a great deal of overlap among these lists!

I agree, the charges are a joke.

university where I teach writing. This page offers examples of what is called "mosaic plagiarism" or "patchwork plagiarism," which is the sort of plagiarism Hasselbeck has committed:
http://www.depts.drew.edu/composition/Avoiding_Plagiarism.htm

If the plaintiff's book were the only source for such info as what foods celiac sufferers can't eat, she might have a case. But her information comes from other sources, just like Hasselbeck's. There is nothing in the grievance letter that leads me to suspect she even read the book, let alone copied it.

10:1 Hasselback had her ghost writer use Hassett's book as a basic outline.

Did you read the letter? Show me any "blatant" plagiarism.

It's really obvious you don't have the slightest clue.

ok then.

book related to gluten and Celiac disease is committing plagiarism -- because the basic facts are well known. It is all a matter of how they are put together.

Hasset could not accuse Hasselbeck of plagiarism unless she accused herself of the same thing -- because she is hardly the first to write this type of book.

The difference in the University setting is that students and faculty are supposed to be producing original work, with their own ideas. A how-to book on a known disease with known risk factors is a different sort of thing. Based on the examples in Hasset's attorney's letter, I can't imagine a court deciding this is an example of illegal plagiarism.

:D

I think the plaintiff is just trying to get an out-of-court settlement hoping that Hasselheadbeck will want to avoid embarrassment. I do think Hasselbeck used Hasset's book as a template.

and paraphrased the book just enough to get away with it.

I've been in the same position where someone clearly copied my idea and even used similar phrases to mine but it wasn't exactly the same and they weren't "passing off" the work so there was nothing I could do about it.

(I made the same mistake of sending my work to a person well-known in that field).

On edit: Although I made sure that everyone in that field knew about it. It kept the plagiarist quiet for a few years!

or anyone else could read, and the basic ideas in them are the same. Hasselbeck probably read some of these at the time she was diagnosed -- she didn't need to read Hasset's work to learn about gluten-intolerance.

They put them straight back in the mail, unopened, so that if they later run a storyline that seems similar to what the sender proposed, they're free of plagiarism charges.

Hasselbeck, if she was even thinking about writing a book, was obligated to return Hassett's unopened. By not returning it, she's left herself open for the lawsuit, IMO.

and before this plagiarism story hit the wires, there was an odd exchange between B. Walters and the other women, about rejecting a script summary from Lindsay Lohan to review, on the advice of "the lawyers," because if she were to read it, then develop her own (reality) tv show later and it was at all similar, blah, blah, blah. It was such an odd comment, even within the context of meeting Lindsay Lohan on an airplane flight, I had to play it back - it was strange. Barbara Walters developing a reality show? Lindsay Lohan asking B.Walters her opinion on a reality tv show? She couldn't read it because?

All about building a record for Elisabeth, I suppose, that she never read the book sent by Ms. Hassett per The View lawyers.

shouldn't even go in the same sentence. (and not because she is a woman)

by her own definition. If Hasselbeck is a plagiarist, then so is Hasset.

Both Hasset and Hasselbeck wrote their books based on commonly known facts about Celiac disease and gluten intolerance.

and/or library records to prove Hasselbeck has read other similar books.

You seem very keen on protecting Hasselbeck. I've been in the position myself of consulting an intellectual property lawyer and it isn't quite as clearcut as you make it out to be.

:sarcasm:

No, I'm just a person with Celiac who has read LOTS of these books, hoping for the magic one that will make this easier. Unfortunately, both Hasselbeck and Hasset are right about one thing -- it's just a long slog, with mistakes and setbacks possible practically every day.

I do appreciate anyone in a position of influence, like Hasselbeck, who can bring more publicity to the disease -- the more publicity, the more people get diagnosed, and the more likely it is that labeling will improve and more places will offer gluten-free products. And I do get sick of DUers who are willing to overlook facts in their eagerness to condemn any conservative of ANYTHING.

It's no surprise to me that any number of people might argue to protect what they believe is their right to lift other peoples' ideas and expressions, and present them as their own.

I write: organic foods are teh awesome
Someone else writes: organic foods are awesome.

Seems okay online, so why is it not okay to do that for 80-300 pages?

I read somewhere that Susan Hassett misspelled the word "aisle" as "isle".

And that Hasselbeck had the same misspelling... "aisle" as "isle".

IF it is true, well... those are the little details that will get you in trouble. :rofl:

:shrug:

Orrrr... maybe not.

you can check it out yourself at amazon.com:

http://www.amazon.com/G-Free-Diet-Gluten-Free-Survival-Guide/dp/1599951886/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1245852765&sr=8-2

scroll down to "check inside this book" and type 'supermarket'.

who can barely walk and chew gum simultaneously. I wouldn't want her as a spokeswoman for our side.

Who'd have thought?

And they do not appear to be "word for word."

She has proven time and time again that she is a lazy thinker. It takes discipline to write a book.

I LOVE IT! :evilgrin:

Mouth pieces like Hasselbeck and Coulter don't have an original thought in their head. Must be because it's too full of bat shit crazy RW talking points.

... isn't the extent to which the similarities in text and book outlines enough to warrant a trial? There has to be case law. Is the "she did it too" defense even valid? I seem to think not. We all frown on people taking advantage of others to get their fifteen minutes of fame, and maybe some cash to boot. But let the RWinger suffer. It could be the subject of her next book.

She's a republican, what else did you expect, someone who is honest about what they do, say or write?

the difference though is very different. Biden was never EVER using his plagerism (which I truly believe was accident - mistakes happen) for profit. Hasselbeck is trying to make a profit off of her case and it was the author of the plagerized parts that GAVE Hasselbeck the book with the information Hasselbeck plagerized.

think much of Elizabeth. She is a Reich Wing(corporate)mouthpiece.

Plagiarism itself has always boggled my mind. If whoever wrote the book wanted to use Susan Hassett's work as source material, there are perfectly academically legitimate ways to do this, it's called bibliography and attribution. As long as it isn't pulled wholesale, it is perfectly legitimate to quote information from source material in the support of your points.

:rofl:

Dreading the karma for enjoying this so dang much. If there's anything worse than O'Reilly, it's a yappier version of O'Reilly, talking over all her View co-hosts.

(Joy Behar announced once on national TV, with Elizabeth present, that calls O'Reilly before View airtime, to ask him what she should say about the "hot" topics of that morning. So, she's used to passing off other's people's stuff as her own.

Twit.