President called victim of deadly Trump Tower fire a "crazy Jew"

[Miles Archer]

President called victim of deadly Trump Tower fire a ‘crazy Jew’



https://www.rawstory.com/2018/04/president-called-victim-deadly-trump-tower-fire-crazy-jew-report/

The tenant who died in Saturday’s Trump Tower fire was not a favorite of the president, who called him a “crazy Jew,” the New York Daily News reports.

Art dealer Todd Brassner, a friend of Andy Warhol, who lived in the building for two decades, was killed in a blaze on Saturday. Trump Tower does not have sprinklers on its residential floors because the president lobbied to avoid having to install them.

Art dealer Patrick Goldsmith, a friend of Brassner, told the Daily News that he was visiting the building in 1996 and was caught staring at Trump’s tiny hands. According to his story, Trump asked a doorman who he was visiting.

“Oh, that crazy Jew?” Trump asked, in Goldsmith’s telling.

[Ferrets are Cool]

1. Didn't mind taking his money, did you asshole?

FUCK YOU TO HELL

[Wellstone ruled]

2. Keep digging Donnie,

What a crass POS.

[YOHABLO]

3. I hope all the tenants move out. Of course no one will move in.

[oberliner]

4. Raw Story steals content from the NY Daily News

Here's the actual article, with the actual reporter credited:

https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/trump-tower-fire-victim-called-crazy-jew-prez-friend-article-1.3922739

[sharedvalues]

7. The Daily News is a good pub. Mort Zuckerman is a good man.

And a good American.

[Liberty Belle]

8. Not stolen, Raw Story credits New York Daily News as the source.

But thanks for providing the link to the full story.

In today's era of "fake news" claims it's important to be accurate in how we describe news sites, and Raw Story in the past sometimes has broken some significant stories, though it's not been the same since changing editors from the old days.

There is nothing wrong with sharing news with readers that originated in another source, as long as you only use a limited amount, credit the source, and paraphrase where possible.

[oberliner]

9. No, it is stolen. Raw Story lists its own writer, "MARTIN CIZMAR" in the byline

The story was not written by that person. Claiming that it was is stealing someone else's reporting and claiming it for your own.

The actual reporter who should be credited is Esha Ray.

[dpibel]

11. Just not true

Aren't you the person who goes around demanding punctilious accuracy in the name of not making us all look bad?

Meta though it may be, Raw Story published a story--a capsule summary, if you will--about a Daily News story. That story about a story was written by Martin Cizmar.

There is no possible way for a reader to be confused about the source of the information. Each fact from the Daily News story is credited to the Daily News. As an example: "Art dealer Patrick Goldsmith, a friend of Brassner, told the Daily News..." The first graf of the Raw Story story contains a link to the Daily News story.

An actually plagiarized (and plagiarism is what you are claiming) story would recite the information from the Daily News without citing the source. That is not the case here.

Perhaps this analogy will help your confusion:

Let's say I make a post on DU with subject line "Raw Story accused of plagiarism." My post reads, "Prolific DU poster Oberliner recently accused Raw Story of stealing content from the Daily News. Oberliner claims that a Raw Story story about a Daily News story amounted to stealing someone else's reporting and claiming it for your own."

No one, except perhaps you, would claim that I had stolen your opinion.

[oberliner]

12. Yes, it is

I did not say it was plagiarized - I said it was stolen.

This is not a capsule summary. Everything is taken verbatim from the NY Daily News story.

A reporter at the NY Daily News does great reporting - and Raw Story tries to direct hits to its website with said reporting, and credits its own writer in the byline.

A writer from the NY Daily News got this scoop. That writer should get the credit - and that newspaper should get the web traffic.

Crap like this is the reason so many newspapers are having such a hard time staying afloat.

[dpibel]

13. Further help

plagiarism
[pley-juh-riz-uh m, -jee-uh-riz-]

noun
1. an act or instance of using or closely imitating the language and thoughts of another author without authorization and the representation of that author's work as one's own, as by not crediting the original author:

This differs from your claim how?

Not that you are correct, since the Raw Story story links to the full Daily News article (hence providing the Daily News with clicks for those, like me, who wanted to read the full report), and makes no claim that it includes a single word of original reporting by Raw Story. The only thing the Raw Story story doesn't do is give the byline of the Daily News reporter. But that is not standard in articles that draw on news sources. It's sufficient to cite (and, when online, link to) the original publication.

At this point, it is clear that you know what you know, and I'll not be changing your mind. Just wanted to do some clarification for those who might be misled by your claims.

[oberliner]

14. Not plagiarism - just stealing

Not plagiarism - they are crediting The NY Daily News. Just stealing - they are getting the web hits and the eyeballs on their ads instead of the NY Daily News getting said hits and page views.

Here's my attempt at an analogy:

"I read this really interesting article in the NY Daily News, but don't buy the newspaper, just give me 50 cents instead and I will summarize it for you."

[dpibel]

15. Wrong again

So you are withdrawing your original claim in post 9? "The story was not written by that person. Claiming that it was is stealing someone else's reporting and claiming it for your own."

That is pretty much definitionally an accusation of plagiarism. But you now acknowledge that it's not the case. Raw Story properly credits the source of the information.

Here's the problem with your current assertion:

I don't read Raw Story. I don't read the Daily News. Absent a posting on DU, neither of them would get a web hit from me nor views of whatever of their ads might get past my ad blocker.

But, thanks to a DU posting of a Raw Story blurb, the Daily News got a click from me that it would otherwise have never gotten.

Explain, please, how that damages the Daily News.

A more accurate treatment of your effort at analogy would be for you to say, "I just read an interesting story in the Daily News. Here are the high points. If you want the details, you'll have to read the Daily News."

Clearly, you do not spend much time reading aggregators like AlterNet, Common Dreams, Truthout, or Talking Points Memo. It appears that if you did, you would be perfectly shocked at the widespread perfidy.

[Kingofalldems]

16. Agree 100%.

I also see an attempt to divert attention from the actual story which is in essence Trump is responsible for the man's death. Good posts, thanks.

[JI7]

5. scumfilth

[BobTheSubgenius]

6. F me.

Hit rock bottom? No problem. We have diamond drills, excavators, dynamite. We have nowhere near stopped digging.

[Gothmog]

10. Trump is an asshole