Russia Today Plagiarizes Moon of Alabama – Which Is The “Russian Propaganda Outlet”?

December 6, 2016

UPDATED below

This site, Moon of Alabama, gets defamed and falsely accused of being a "Russian propaganda outlet". One would assume that any such outlet would get its leads and orders from Russia or its media. We now find that it is the other way round. An official Russian state outlet is stealing content from us.

On November 28 RT Deutsch, the German TV and web edition of the Russian state financed global news outlet Russia Today, published an opinion piece by one Rainer Rupp. That piece is in its core idea and wide parts a rip-off and translated copy of a piece I wrote and published on Moon of Alabama on November 25.

After a complain Moon of Alabama is now mentioned as a source for specifically one small sentence in the RT Deutsch piece. But the whole idea that is the main theme of the piece if based on the MoA piece. Core paragraphs are nearly verbal (translated) copies. Their original authorship is not in any way marked or mentioned.

The content was simply stolen, including the links I provided, and published under the name of some author I do not even know.

When I, the original author, contacted RT Deutsch I first received no replies at all and only after insisting a promise to check the issue from the Director and editor in chief of RT Deutsch. A week later nothing has happened. Neither was I contacted back nor was a sufficient link or explanation added to the stolen content.

On November 30 the Director of RT Deutsch, Ivan Rodionov tweeted this promotion for a piece published at the RT site:

bigger

His tweet promoted a piece on his RT Deutsch website headlined: Putins "Witz" war todernst – und entlarvt die Halbbildung unserer "intellektuellen Eliten". (Translated: Putin's joke was dead serious – and exposes the superficial knowledge of our "intellectual elites".)

bigger

The piece is authored by one Rainer Rupp and was published as opinion piece at "deutsch.rt.com" on November 28 at 17:00 local time.

The original piece by me was published here on November 25 under the headline: Putin Tutors Euklidean Geometry – Pundits Say "All Greek To Me".

The gist: The "western" media made an "Imperial Putin wants to extend Russia's border" scandal out of a mathematical lecture Putin had given a pupil on public TV:

Putin asked a pupil: "Where do Russia's borders end?" The answer "nowhere" is the (only) mathematically and geographically correct one. The geographic area characterized by a border is limited. The circumferential (border) line is, by mathematical definition, not "limited" in the sense that it has no beginning and no end (it has a length though).

The RT Deutsch is widely based, even verbatim, on the Moon of Alabama piece but MoA is openly referred only in relation to one sentence:

Wie das Onlineportal Moon of Alabama darlegte, stürzten sich vor allem BBC, Newsweek, Daily Mail und Express gierig auf die vermeintliche Skandalisierungsvorlage.

(Translated: "As the online portal Moon of Alabama states, BBC, Newsweek, Daily Mail and Express are avidly jumping onto the assumed scandal." The links underlying "BBC" etc are in taken from my original.)

UPDATE (Dec 7 12:00am CET):

The above reference to MoA was only added after(!) my first complain to RT Deutsch director Ivan Rodinov. There is no editorial note attached to the piece to note or clarify the modification.

Here is a screenshot of a part of the RT Deutsch piece as saved on December 1 2016, 14:37 CET. There was no mentioning of Moon of Alabama in there at all:

bigger

Here is a screenshot of the current version of that same part. Moon of Alabama is now mentioned but only in a very limited sense:

bigger

End-Update

The additionally sneaked in mentioning of Moon of Alabama in the RT Deutsch piece is limited in its meaning to that one proposition it is attached to. But the author goes on to widely copy, with nearly verbatim translations, from the MoA piece. He is even using the links I provided in the original. It is not discernible to the reader that this content is from MoA and not the named author's original thought. Here is the core of the RT Deutsch piece:

Grundsätzlich lautet die Definition einer Grenze:

Ein Band oder eine Linie um oder entlang der Kante von etwas.

Ein Land, und zwar jedes Land, wird von einem Rand oder einer Linie rund um sein Territorium begrenzt. Diese Linie, die z.B. ein Kreis, ein Oval oder vielförmig sein kann, ist auch als "Grenze" bekannt. Aber ist diese Umfangslinie begrenzt? Wo beginnt die Umfangslinie eines Kreises und wo endet sie? Eine Umfangslinie hat per Definition keinen Anfang und kein Ende! Das ist aber genau das, was Putin gesagt hat: Russlands Grenze – also die Umfangslinie – endet nirgendwo.

My original:

The basic definition of a border is:

A part that forms the outer edge of something.

A country, any country, is defined by a limited area (or areas) with an area characterized by an outer edge and a circumferential line known as "a border". Does the circumferential line of, ideally, a circle have a limit? Does it have a beginning or an end? This is exactly what Putin asked the kid.

That paragraph – the explaining core of the piece – was translated sentence by sentence, nearly word one to one. It even repeated the link from the original to the English(!) definition of "border" in the German version.

The paragraph following the above about the "müde Publikum" (transl: "tired audience") in the copy is also obviously taken from the next paragraph about the "tired evening audience" in the original piece. And so on …

It is evident that the RT Deutsch piece – its central idea and core paragraphs – was copied from my piece. It is obvious plagiarism. The only mentioning of Moon of Alabama is as a source to one specific sentence that is not relevant to the core idea. That is in no way enough. Rapp and RT Deutsch are selling a content as their original intellectual creation even as the core idea and sentences of that content are direct copies from my piece.

On December 1, when I first noted the copy, I publicly challenged RT Deutsch director Rodionov on Twitter to at least provide a more explicit link to my original piece. There was no response from Rodionov.

I then requested a statement from Rodionov via (private) Direct Message and offered to send a bill for providing that content to RT Deutsch. Later that day, December 1, Rodninov responded that he would "check the issue". A reference to MoA was silently added in relation to one single sentence of the piece.

Late on Friday, December 2, I gave Rodionov notice that I would write and eventually publish this piece. I have since heard neither from Rodionov nor from anyone else at RT.

This is not the first time Russia Today (ab)uses content from Moon of Alabama. On September 20 I wrote about the U.S. air attack on Syrian soldiers in Deir Ezzor and how this would possibly lead to "Salafist principality". Two days later RT English published a piece by author Pepe Escobar about the same issue that very heavily borrowed from my piece. Escobar explicitly writes that central ideas of his piece originate from my Moon of Alabama piece. Thanks, but it is still my content and without it that Escobar piece would have had nothing. (Esobar has copied from me for his pieces on several occasions. He mentioned MoA as his source in only some of these.)

But even if mentioned as source I am not happy with RT Deutsch or RT English publishing pieces that are essentially based on stuff I have created, researched and written for this site. Russia Today is financed by the Russian Federation. They have a not-so-small budget. If they publish and pay authors that take their essential stuff from me I also expect to get paid. I today make zero money from these writings but put a lot of effort into them. This site depends on charity from the readers to keep the equipment and this site running (and for more).

If the original stuff is so good why not contact me directly, publish (modified) content from MoA when it is timely and fresh and pay me for it instead of people who just copy or even plagiarize it days later?

The defamation and censorship organization ProPornOT.com, strongly promoted by the Washington Post, has listed Moon of Alabama as a "Russian propaganda outlet". It repeated that claim on Twitter:

Neither this site nor its proprietor and main author have ever received anything from Russia or any associated organization. What gets written at this site is based on personal research, values and opinion independent of any country. (For the record: In my view Russia under Putin is way too capitalistic and urgently needs to go back to a more socialist position.) We have no resources to fight the defamation by ProPornOT and the Washington Post. (A big thank you to Yves at Naked Capitalism and to Truth Dig for exemplary taking up that burden.)

It is quite ironic – and sad – then that this financially defenseless site gets defamed as "Russian propaganda outlet" while a legitimate Russian state propaganda organization, Russia Today, is stealing our content without proper attribution and without any compensation.

Posted by b on December 6, 2016 at 19:26 UTC | Permalink

Comments

Sorry to hear that. Every MoA reader should complain to RT and nearest Russian official.
Thanks for excellent reporting!

Posted by: ProPeace | Dec 7 2016 23:36 utc | 101

I stopped posting comments on RT after it started behaving like HuffPo, which I believe is a portal dedicated to collecting of people’s identity for easy snooping.

Posted by: Steve | Dec 8 2016 9:49 utc | 102

Ref: plagiarism is the new normality
I agree 100% even if I don’t support. No media can exist today without: the internet + adds via Twitter/FB. This means that they need a huge broadband in terms of human hardwork behind it. To reach out ppl behind the anglo-saxon audience, they also need to go for the other major world languages, statistically speaking, i.e. Spanish, Arabic, French.
If they produced only tv channels (what RT is better at than written contents), they would be drown in the number of cable/satellite. So they need a web presence, and that includes written contents. How do you produce written contents 24/7, in an age of high-frequency news? The MSM plagiarize unverified contents from the social media, and the alternative media plagiarize whatever they find valuable in MSM and social media.
Either we need one initial content of quality and good translators to have multilingual versions, or we need an alternative web without bots and their FB/Twitter channels marketing it. Word of mouth could be enough.

Posted by: Mina | Dec 8 2016 9:51 utc | 103

From an article posted 7 December by Prof Giancarlo Elia Valori …
The current phase of conflict in Syria

Hence a few weeks ago a high-level Egyptian delegation had arrived in Syria to discuss the operations that the Egyptian forces should carry out under the Russian and Syrian command.
Some sources maintain that Egyptian aircrafts and helicopters are already deployed in the Hama base.
And it is worth recalling that Egypt has independent access to Syria by sea.
The two “Mistral” ships that France had built for Russia and that it could not sell to it, were later sold to Egypt.
Ironically, those two ships – not sold to Russia due to the current restrictions on trade with this country – will go to Syria to fight in favour of Russia and Assad, thanks to the EU stupidity and the inability of whole Europe to think strategically.
Each of the two French “command and power projection” frigates can accommodate a battalion of 900 soldiers with all their equipment.
Hence a situation would materialize in which a brigade – protected by the Russian air force – is fully autonomous and can operate freely on Syrian territory, being also equipped with Russian attack helicopters.
Therefore the Egyptian forces would be the real “game changer” in the Syrian war, because even the Hezbollah brigades and the Iranian “volunteers” need the Syrian support and logistics.
Hence Egypt can carry out its operations in Syria on its own, in close coordination with Russia and Bashar al-Assad’s forces.
Therefore the Egyptian forces would be the real “game changer” in the Syrian war, because even the Hezbollah brigades and the Iranian “volunteers” need the Syrian support and logistics.
Hence Egypt can carry out its operations in Syria on its own, in close coordination with Russia and Bashar al-Assad’s forces.
Numerically the Iranian situation in Syria is as follows: 4,000 Iraqi units and 4,000 Shiite units sent directly from the Shiite republic, coordinated by 400 Pasdaran operational units in Iran.
Hezbollah has also sent 2,000 units of its special forces, namely “Ridwan” units, from the Lebanon.
In this particular situation, the 4,000 Egyptian units would be a significant increase of military and operational efficacy.
Obviously no one could prevent Egypt from taking part in the Syrian war, considering that forces and soldiers pass through the Suez Canal.
This is a real blackmail even for the countries which fund and support the jihad, since anyway their oil passes through the Egyptian waterway.
Hence this new complexion of anti-jihadist forces would allow a fast and powerful attack on Raqqa, which would be final and would close the game in Syria, except for some jihad “remnants” in the South.

… the same ground b covered 10 days previously, on 27 November …

A few weeks ago a high level Egyptian military delegation came to Syria to discuss their taking part in the campaign under Syrian and Russian command. It is claimed that Egyptian air planes and helicopters relocated to an airport in the Syrian Hama governate. Egypt has a large ground army and open sea access towards Syria. I can and likely will provide serious ground troop elements.
France had build two Mistral-class amphibious assault ship for Russia but, as part of sanctions over Ukraine, was not allowed to deliver them to Russia. They were, in the end, sold to Egypt. There they were equipped with Russian helicopters and electronics. It is rumored that they operate with Russian officers on board.
Each ship can deliver a full battalion, some 400-900 men and all their equipment, to the beach. With both Egyptian ships doing two rounds each from Suez to Latakia a full infantry brigade with all its ground support elements could be delivered to Syria within days. The Russian helicopters on board of the Mistrals would be the supporting air element. The Russian fleet in the eastern Mediterranean would cover the moves.
This would be a fully organized, brigade size military unit able to fight battles on its own in a coherent way. Such a unit is much more valuable that the mostly irregular Shia forces the Iranians hired to help in Syria. Those need logistic and command support from the Syrian army. The Egyptians can, given a task, run on their own. For geopolitical reasons (aka the Suez canal) neither the U.S. nor Turkey would dare to touch them.
There are currently some 4,000 Iraqi and some 4,000 Iran hired Shia forces in Syria. 400 Iranian IRCG officers are there to advise and command those. Hizbullah has send some 2,000 of its special forces Ridwan units. Russia has in addition to its air and air defense elements special forces and command elements on the ground. The Egyptian force with some 4,000 soldiers would not be huge addition but it would be a good united fighting element. The political support which such a unit symbolizes is certainly of equal if not more value.
France, which feverish supports the Jihadis in Syria, would be completely embarrassed by such a move. The whole world would laugh over its sanction move against Russia when the “Egyptian” Mistrals come in support of the Syrian government under Russian command.
If such an Egyptian move happens a Syrian government campaign towards Raqqa is suddenly not only possible but even likely. The Egyptian army has some experience fighting Jihadis in the Sinai. It is not overly shy of taking casualties and it hates the Islamists. It can easily reinforce its own units on the ground with whatever number is needed. If Egypt is serious with this, ISIS in Raqqa is toast and all U.S. plans for a “Salafist principality” in east-Syria and west-Iraq will be in shambles.

It seems clear to me that the former – published yesterday – is informed by the latter – published 10 days ago. No mention of b. But is it plagiarism? We all get our news from somewhere. Right?
But there are several interbraided steams of information here, interwoven in nearly the exact same way. This is the juxtaposition of the very same facts in the very same order drawing the very same conclusions.
There are many sites that repost other sites’ stuff. Information clearing house is where I saw this. But that is clearly attributed. No one there is trying to claim authorship.
But it looks as though Prof Giancarlo Elia Valori is hawking secondhand wares.
There seem to be a whole series of ‘analysts’ and sites who’ve made a cottage industry out repackaging other’s work and reselling it. While b is playin’ real good for free.
The key is to follow the source. b is the source here, there is no need and it makes no sense to wait to read the real McCoy a week or two later, repackaged under someone else’s byline. The cover group can never touch the original artist’s recording.
I have no illusion that my 20 euros is going to make a difference to b financially, but it is my homage, my thanks for nurturing the interest and for giving away the results, for being an amateur in a world of street-walking professionals, like the Prof, and the empty bylines at RT. The individual needs to be recognized, and thanks rendered, not so much to ensure the future, as to recognize the past. It didn’t have to be this way. b made in happen. I am grateful and delighted to be able to reach back and to say thanks, b. For doin’ what you do … and for having done it over the past decade. You’re incomparable. Billmon was a flash in the pan. You’re the real thing. There’s no one else like you.

Posted by: jfl | Dec 8 2016 11:15 utc | 104

Let me plagiarize mischimischi:
I think you need to put a legal disclaimer first of all, and copyright as well.
And congratulations for your outstanding in-depth insights!

Posted by: Enrique Ferro | Dec 8 2016 12:56 utc | 105

When the controlled opposition Left became irrelevant even to Leftists, the Masonic International Intelligence Establishment created RT as a replacement, made to work hand in glove with so called alternative media.
B, I frequent this site because you are smart and reliable. This does not mean you are pure. A cynic might say you are waving your arms furiosly to distract us from the lay of the holographic land in digital unreality. Most of what you write about is generated exactly the same way RT generated their plagiarized report. You are too smart not to know.

Posted by: C I eh? | Dec 8 2016 18:33 utc | 106

Back to Main