If you cannot distinguish between art and plagiarism, you should not be writing about the arts.
Today's New York Times has an article by Motoko Rich about some borrowed lyrics in Bob Dylan's new album. Has Motoko ever listened to any of Bob Dylan's previous recordings, of which there are over 40 years worth? Or perhaps they have never listened to any music before? Because Dylan has been using lines from old songs and other sources since his first songwriting credit. How is this news?
Mr.(?) Rich cites two people who have a problem with these borrowed lyrics: (1) an anonymous commetator from the internet, and (2) a New Mexican middle school Spanish teacher who is "a casual fan of Mr. Dylan." What the hell? Since when do two random people count as sources for a news story. This is not even lazy journalism, as that would mean calling it journalism at all. How does this person get a job writing for the NYT Arts section?
He may as well have written a story called "The Beatles: Not Really as Popular as Jesus." I'm sure he could have found two randomly selected people to back him up.
Don't go read the story. This writer should not be afforded the interest.
