He told Karen Davila, “Why should I quote a blogger?”
Exclusive by Raïssa Robles
Two commenters named alana lillium Vincent D. Bautista and Miguel Syjuco have found other instances of copying made by Senator Vicente Sotto in his speech yesterday August 15. My thanks to their quick eyes.
Alana Vincent noted that Senator Sotto copied a passage from the blog thetruthofcontraceptives
Miguel also found what Alana Vincent did. Plus, he found two other blogs from which Senator Sotto had copied portions word for word. These are talkingsense by Marlon C. Ramirez and feministsfor choice.
This morning, when Senator Sotto was asked by ABS-CBNNews anchor Karen Davila whether he had copied from the blog thehealthyeconomist.com in his August 13 speech, he had replied:
Pareho kaming pinagkunan. I’m quoting Natasha Campbell McBride. Why should I quote a blogger?
He’s right you know.
He did not quote from a blogger. He quoted from FOUR FIVE bloggers.
CORRECTION AND UPDATE as of 4:01 PM, August 16, 2012
First, Alana has just sent word that the credit for finding the blog should not go to her but to Vincent D. Bautista. She merely wrote about Vincent’s finding.
Second, Sen. Sotto copied from FIVE bloggers.
A commenter named Diego has found another blog from which Sen. Sotto copied the following passage in red:
While Sanger claimed she merely wanted to pay her respects and give a personal tribute to Gandhi, she coveted nothing less than his endorsement of the widespread use of artificial birth control methods. Gandhi firmly stood by his belief that the spiritual bonds of marriage are strengthened by sexual abstinence. He thus completely rejected Sanger’s plea for contraception as a tool to control population growth, fearing it would lead to an increase in non-procreative sex, which he viewed as immoral lust.
Diego correctly pointed out that the passage came from the blog of New York University. The words in red are those that Sen. Sotto’s speech lifted:
While Sanger claimed she mainly wanted to pay her respects and give a personal tribute to Gandhi, she coveted nothing less than his endorsement of birth control. Gandhi promoted the spiritual bonds of marriage, which, he argued, were strengthened by continence. He reluctantly agreed to consider sanctioning the safe period or rhythm method, but rejected Sanger’s plea for contraception to control population growth, fearing it would lead to an increase in non-procreative sex, which he viewed as immoral lust.
This is what Alana Vincent and Miguel found out.
I don’t know who the four bloggers are. [Update: Now there are FIVE bloggers from whom Sen. Sotto copied.] Perhaps somebody can give me more details. But the fact is, Sen. Sotto did not acknowledge in his speech that he lifted from their blogs, although he used the same exact words they did. Thus, he gave the impression that he wrote everything and all those thoughts and careful crafting of words came from him.
UPDATE as of 4:30 PM, August 16, 2012
The blogger of the healthyhomeeconomist found out pretty quickly that a Philippine senator lifted from her website. Here’s what she post 13 hours ago. Thanks @peanut and @pimplepopper on Twitter for giving me the heads up on this:
Sen. Sotto is probably going to say, why quibble over a few words – 345 words to be exact. [Those are what alana Vincent and Miguel have found so far. There may be more.] The 345 words are a mere 7% of his 4,760-word speech.
That’s not much.
But we’re not speaking of volume here, but of thought. And intellectual honesty.
Could I be wrong?
Well, don’t take my word for it. Look at the similarities yourself.
Below, I have listed FIVE INSTANCES of his copying word for word, as noted by Miguel and Alana Vincent.
Some supporters of the senator would probably say they find nothing wrong in such copying. It’s done all the time. Words aren’t covered by copyright.
If you notice, though, what Senator Sotto did is the same thing that CNN’s Fareed Zakaria was recently accused of. Zakaria had the decency to apologize and he was suspended by CNN and Time magazine. You can read more about Zakaria’s case here.
Perhaps Senator Sotto did not mean to copy and paste. Perhaps an aide did this for him. Or perhaps someone else fed it to him and he trusted the source completely. Or perhaps one of the bloggers was even his friend.
However, all those copied words became Senator Sotto’s very own when they were officially entered into Senate records.
Below are the instances of copying. I have highlighted the words that he lifted in red.
ONE – From Sen. Sotto’s speech:
Sanger was so intent on reducing family size that she seemed to not stop even at abortion. Many believe that under the right circumstances, Sanger would have condoned infanticide. Indeed she wrote in her book Woman and the New Race: “The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”
This comes from the woman who formed the philosophical base for IPPF.
Copied from Talking Sense by Marlon C. Ramirez:
Breaking Up the Family
Since Margaret Sanger began spreading her ideas about recreational sex and contraception (with babies optional) divorce rates have climbed steadily. When she began her work in 1915, it was standard for married couples to work through their times of difficulty, rather than leave each other. But as her message of hedonism and promiscuity penetrated deeper into society, more and more marriages broke up. Sanger was so intent on reducing family size that she seemed to not stop even at abortion. Many believe that, under the right circumstances, Sanger would have condoned infanticide. Indeed, she wrote in her book Woman And the New Race: “The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.” This comes from the woman who formed the philosophical base for Planned Parenthood.
TWO – From Senator Sotto’s speech:
You can also see that her interest in birth control was not just due to some humane concern for health of women (which birth control doesn’t help anyway), but was driven in part by her desire to encourage women to engage in sex without having children.
But there was even a darker side to Margaret Sanger: a side that IPPF people try to cover up or explain away. That was her belief in “eugenics.” Eugenics is defined as “the application of the laws of hereditary to physical and mental improvement, especially of the human race.”
To Sanger this meant the systematic elimination (through birth control, including abortion) of all those people she and her cohorts considered to be of “dysgenic stock” in order to create a race of superior intellectuals. Ito na rin po yung tinatawag na eugenics–if you are weak, useless, uneducated and poor, you have no right in this world. Sa medaling salita, ang gusto mangyari ng konsepto na eugenics ay ang magkaroon ng birth control para ang matitira na lamang sa mundo ay ang lahing na superior at intelektwal.
Copied from Talking Sense by Marlon C. Ramirez:
But there was another side of Margaret Sanger; a side that Planned Parenthood people try to cover up or explain away. That was her belief in eugenics. Eugenics is defined as “the application of the laws of heredity to physical and mental improvement, especially of the human race.” To Sanger this meant the systematic elimination (through birth control, including abortion) of all those people she and her cohorts considered to be of “dysgenic stock” in order to create a race of superior intellectuals.
THREE – From Senator Sotto’s speech:
Sanger also attempted to unduly influence Mahatma Gandhi to adhere to her distorted principles. Fortunately, Sanger’s attempts to do so proved futile. The two activists met in December of 1936 when Sanger traveled to India to speak with Gandhi about birth control, population and the plight of women in India. At that time, Sanger staunchly advocated the global use of artificial contraceptives and, in order to make the acceptance of such contraceptives easier to the Indian populace, sought to make Gandhi an ally. While Sanger claimed she merely wanted to pay her respects and give a personal tribute to Gandhi, she coveted nothing less than his endorsement of the widespread use of artificial birth control methods. Gandhi firmly stood by his belief that the spiritual bonds of marriage are strengthened by sexual abstinence. He thus completely rejected Sanger’s plea for contraception as a tool to control population growth, fearing it would lead to an increase in non-procreative sex, which he viewed as immoral lust.
Copied from feministsforchoice.com:
I recently read an article about the correspondence and meeting between two of the most independent thinkers of the 20th Century, Margaret Sanger and Mahatma Gandhi. The two activists met in 1936 when Sanger traveled to India to speak with Gandhi about birth control. By that time Sanger was advocating internationally for artificial contraceptives and sought to make Gandhi an ally.
FOUR – From Senator Sotto’s speech:
Despite the fact that the movement was gaining popularity in a society with a serious poverty crisis, Gandhi was an outspoken critic of artificial birth control. His general attitude was that
“Persons who use contraceptives will never learn the value of self-restraint. They will not need it. Self-indulgence with contraceptives may prevent the coming of children but will sap the vitality of both men and women, perhaps more of men than of women. It is unmanly to refuse battle with the devil.”
Copied from feministsforchoice.com:
Despite the fact that the movement was gaining popularity in a society with a serious poverty crisis, Gandhi was an outspoken critic of artificial birth control. His general attitude was that
“Persons who use contraceptives will never learn the value of self-restraint. They will not need it. Self-indulgence with contraceptives may prevent the coming of children but will sap the vitality of both men and women, perhaps more of men than of women. It is unmanly to refuse battle with the devil.”
FIVE – From Senator Sotto’s speech:
In fact, in a study undertaken by Raymond Pearl, a John Hopkins professor and noted authority on this matter, wrote: “Those who practice contraception as part of their sex life, by their own admission, resort to criminally induced abortions about three times as often proportionately as do their comparable non-contraceptor contemporaries.”
Also in a report prepared for the Royal Commission on Population in Great Britain found that the incidence of induced abortion as a percentage of all pregnancies was nine times higher for women using contraceptives than for women not using birth control.
Copied from thetruthofcontraceptives.blogspot.ca
-In 1939, Raymond Pearl, a Johns Hopkins professor and noted authority, wrote: “Those who practice contraception as part of their sex life, by their own admission, resort to criminally induced abortions about three times as often proportionately as do their comparable non-contraceptor contemporaries.”
-In Great Britain, in 1949, a report prepared for the Royal Commission on Population found that the incidence of induced abortion as a percentage of all pregnancies was nine times higher for women using contraceptives than for women not using birth control.
_______________________________________
Related Stories
Senator Sotto endorsed family planning two years after the death of his son
Did Sen. Sotto just lie on national TV?
Part 2 of Sen. Sotto’s anti-RH speech
Sen. Vicente Sotto’s speech against RH
copya gaya style XD
Aside from plagiarism. Sotto cited this debunked source:
(Source: Cardiovascular Birth Defects and Antenatal Exposure to Female Sex Hormones by Olli P. Heinonen, M.D., M.SC., Dennis Slone, M.D., Richard R. Monson, M.D., Ernest B. Hook, M.D., and Samuel Shapiro, M.B., F.R.C.P.)
This study has been debunked:
http://www.ieonline.com/cgi-bin/xFer/cg7t458r/quosa/3371641.pdf
We believe that the data examined from the relevant groups clearly show that there was no statistically significant association betweenexposure to female sex hormones in the critical organogenic period of pregnancy and cardiac malformations in the offspring.
http://www.glowm.com/resources/glowm/cd/pages/v6/v6c037.html?SESSID=qv78t1mrbh4bjt60gdjpk18fh3
The conclusions of Heinomen and associates10,11 were questioned. Wiseman and Dodds-Smith12 reevaluated original data from the US Collaborative Perinatal Project and found several shortcomings. Wiseman and Dodd-Smith12 concluded that no significant association between hormone use and cardiac anomalies existed in the US Collaborative Perinatal Project data.
there isn’t a part of his speeches that isn’t an outright lie, based on ancient data or dubious references, or cherry-picked from otherwise respected sources… plagiarism is just one of his many sins…
magsosorry na ata.
hindi. Sabi niya – so sue me.
I agree to what others posted here. Instead of denying it before sana they (him/staff/writer) admitted it na lang that they plagiarized para tapos ang usapan. Napahaba pa yung issue and embarrassment nila. I’ve been reading several articles about this issue in news sites and blogs today. One thing I noticed sa lahat is laging may Joanne Velasco and Heart Mercado na nagcomment [READ: DEFEND] about Sen.Sotto. They’ve been commenting sa ibang bloggers. I have no idea who they are hindi naman siguro trolls. I just find it weird.
Crowd control most probably, or members of the so-called intelligence pool headed by Villacorta.
Now this has got to be the most , well written dissection of a current issue worthy of reading over and over. I am not much of a blogger, maybe not even one iota of a good one, but I do read them. Sotto has been known to write such beautiful songs, but what he really earned from was the rip-offs. But it was all for fun. And he never apologized for it. But the idea that his research staff, headed by none other than a lawyer, had the gall to dismiss the blog(s) as mere resource materialscame off as tacky. Tto have used these passages without even giving credit where due, just smacks of arrogance. It’s simple arrogance. If he thinks he is right in contesting the RH Bill, the logical thing would be to write the speech himself, the research staff could have supplied him with facts, and he could have told them in his own words.
With the plagiarize sections by SOTTO or also by his “stuffs” in RED color, he is now a RED HERRING! in the Senate. We all know what this means.
To think he was against piracy, no?
Ito ay nagpapakita lamang na hindi nang-gagaling sa puso no Tito Sotto ang kanyang mga sinasabi at ang kanyang damdamin ay hindi para talaga sa taong bayan kundi pa-pogi points lang at para sabihin ng mga nakikinig or nanunuod sa speech niya na siya ay talagang nagmamalasakit para sa mga kababaihan.
Tama yung isang nag comment na balik na lang si Tito Sen sa Eat Bulaga.
Mayroon isang matandang lalaki (RIP) nag sabi na “Pag ang isang lalaki ay mayroon MAKAPAL ‘o BALBON NA BIGOTE, parang NAKA BANG-NGA (sic) NG ISANG DAGA !”
{maybe trimming moustaches more looks better…Errol Flynn, Clark Gable, atbpa}
Tama ka…@xander…PA POGI lang…with or without the bigote.
“nagmamalasakit para sa mga kababaihan”,
pinagmalasakitan din kaya niya si pepsi paloma?
I am very disappointed of Senator Vic Sotto. He disgust me when he was being interviewed by Karen Davila. PAIYAK -IYAK pa.
After all this findings about him, did a copy cat (plagiarism) on his part delivering a speech made an impression that he did his own research and keep denying that he got the findings from the Blogs and keep saying why would I quotes from the Blogs, blogs lang yon and it happen that we got the same information from the same Doctor. LIAR!!CHEATER!!
I don’t know what Sarah Pope will do to him. maybe sue him for COPYRIGHTING.. We can wait and see what will happen.
But for now the honorable thing for him to do is to RESIGN. NAKAKAHIYA !! He don’t deserve to be a spokeperson of anti RH bill plus I have problem with him to stay as Senator, he should go back to show business FULL TIME.
Those actors in the Senate are USELESS anyway, they use their charisma to the VOTERS to be ELECTED.
Voters, we have been had, Next Time let us give Him our bad!
Yun pa iyak-iyak ay strategy lang yun…TO GET THE SINCERE ATTENTION of fools from the audience.
Ilang senadors lumapit, tapping his shoulders to show sympathy for his FAKE CRYING? They’ve been HAD ! It was only SOTTO in show biz…na dali niya sila! Kaka hiya…sa lahat.
Arayyyy kooooo…I’m feeling something itchhhhyyy crawwwwlllinnnng inside me! HAY BUHAY! …ligo muna ako!
Sabi ng chief of staff ni Sotto, public domain daw ang blog at yung sinulat nila, katha ng trabahador sa opisina at Sen Sotto hindi siya nagmamarunong.
Hindi nga nagdunung-dunungan, nagnakaw lang gawat kaisipan ng mga iba ng walang pakundangan!
Mabuti pa sa kaniya yung ugali ng nangangalap ng basura sa bangketa ng bahay, bago halungkatin ang basura sa harap ng bahay mo, nakikiusap muna kung pahihintulutan. Mga taong may modo at moralidad kahit maralita.
Si Tito Sotto, nasabing senador at anak ng doktor walang respeto sa pagaari ng ibang tao. Sa lugar namin ang tawag dun, kawatan!
Ok. Is this a good thing I’m being credited with exposing Sotto for a what he is?
Yes. Is that you Vincent?
Take a bow.
But I would suggest you don’t apply for a job at the Senate just now.
I echo what has been pointed out by many. This is Tito Sotto’s pattern. Evidently seen, as well, during the case of Pamela (allegedly raped by diplomat). He blurted out things without thinking, without proper research. it was at the verge of causing international problem. Now, International scandal na talaga!!! Tsk tsk tsk …
Then, I thought it was just carelessness…but it’s more than that. This is his character …this is who Tito Sotto is.
irremediable! a big BAD One! More grave recklessness….and critically careless!
It’s always a pleasure to hear from someone with exesetipr.
Aside from plagiarism. Sotto cited this debunked source:
(Source: Cardiovascular Birth Defects and Antenatal Exposure to Female Sex Hormones by Olli P. Heinonen, M.D., M.SC., Dennis Slone, M.D., Richard R. Monson, M.D., Ernest B. Hook, M.D., and Samuel Shapiro, M.B., F.R.C.P.)
This study has been debunked:
http://www.ieonline.com/cgi-bin/xFer/cg7t458r/quosa/3371641.pdf
We believe that the data examined from the relevant groups clearly show that there was no statistically significant association betweenexposure to female sex hormones in the critical organogenic period of pregnancy and cardiac malformations in the offspring.
http://www.glowm.com/resources/glowm/cd/pages/v6/v6c037.html?SESSID=qv78t1mrbh4bjt60gdjpk18fh3
The conclusions of Heinomen and associates10,11 were questioned. Wiseman and Dodds-Smith12 reevaluated original data from the US Collaborative Perinatal Project and found several shortcomings. Wiseman and Dodd-Smith12 concluded that no significant association between hormone use and cardiac anomalies existed in the US Collaborative Perinatal Project data.
there isn’t a part of his speeches that isn’t an outright lie, based on ancient data or dubious references, or cherry-picked from otherwise respected sources… plagiarism is just one of his many sins…
magsosorry na ata.
hindi. Sabi niya – so sue me.
I agree to what others posted here. Instead of denying it before sana they (him/staff/writer) admitted it na lang that they plagiarized para tapos ang usapan. Napahaba pa yung issue and embarrassment nila. I’ve been reading several articles about this issue in news sites and blogs today. One thing I noticed sa lahat is laging may Joanne Velasco and Heart Mercado na nagcomment [READ: DEFEND] about Sen.Sotto. They’ve been commenting sa ibang bloggers. I have no idea who they are hindi naman siguro trolls. I just find it weird.
Crowd control most probably, or members of the so-called intelligence pool headed by Villacorta.
Now this has got to be the most , well written dissection of a current issue worthy of reading over and over. I am not much of a blogger, maybe not even one iota of a good one, but I do read them. Sotto has been known to write such beautiful songs, but what he really earned from was the rip-offs. But it was all for fun. And he never apologized for it. But the idea that his research staff, headed by none other than a lawyer, had the gall to dismiss the blog(s) as mere resource materialscame off as tacky. Tto have used these passages without even giving credit where due, just smacks of arrogance. It’s simple arrogance. If he thinks he is right in contesting the RH Bill, the logical thing would be to write the speech himself, the research staff could have supplied him with facts, and he could have told them in his own words.
With the plagiarize sections by SOTTO or also by his “stuffs” in RED color, he is now a RED HERRING! in the Senate. We all know what this means.
To think he was against piracy, no?
Ito ay nagpapakita lamang na hindi nang-gagaling sa puso no Tito Sotto ang kanyang mga sinasabi at ang kanyang damdamin ay hindi para talaga sa taong bayan kundi pa-pogi points lang at para sabihin ng mga nakikinig or nanunuod sa speech niya na siya ay talagang nagmamalasakit para sa mga kababaihan.
Tama yung isang nag comment na balik na lang si Tito Sen sa Eat Bulaga.
Mayroon isang matandang lalaki (RIP) nag sabi na “Pag ang isang lalaki ay mayroon MAKAPAL ‘o BALBON NA BIGOTE, parang NAKA BANG-NGA (sic) NG ISANG DAGA !”
{maybe trimming moustaches more looks better…Errol Flynn, Clark Gable, atbpa}
Tama ka…@xander…PA POGI lang…with or without the bigote.
“nagmamalasakit para sa mga kababaihan”,
pinagmalasakitan din kaya niya si pepsi paloma?
I am very disappointed of Senator Vic Sotto. He disgust me when he was being interviewed by Karen Davila. PAIYAK -IYAK pa.
After all this findings about him, did a copy cat (plagiarism) on his part delivering a speech made an impression that he did his own research and keep denying that he got the findings from the Blogs and keep saying why would I quotes from the Blogs, blogs lang yon and it happen that we got the same information from the same Doctor. LIAR!!CHEATER!!
I don’t know what Sarah Pope will do to him. maybe sue him for COPYRIGHTING.. We can wait and see what will happen.
But for now the honorable thing for him to do is to RESIGN. NAKAKAHIYA !! He don’t deserve to be a spokeperson of anti RH bill plus I have problem with him to stay as Senator, he should go back to show business FULL TIME.
Those actors in the Senate are USELESS anyway, they use their charisma to the VOTERS to be ELECTED.
Voters, we have been had, Next Time let us give Him our bad!
Yun pa iyak-iyak ay strategy lang yun…TO GET THE SINCERE ATTENTION of fools from the audience.
Ilang senadors lumapit, tapping his shoulders to show sympathy for his FAKE CRYING? They’ve been HAD ! It was only SOTTO in show biz…na dali niya sila! Kaka hiya…sa lahat.
Arayyyy kooooo…I’m feeling something itchhhhyyy crawwwwlllinnnng inside me! HAY BUHAY! …ligo muna ako!
Sabi ng chief of staff ni Sotto, public domain daw ang blog at yung sinulat nila, katha ng trabahador sa opisina at Sen Sotto hindi siya nagmamarunong.
Hindi nga nagdunung-dunungan, nagnakaw lang gawat kaisipan ng mga iba ng walang pakundangan!
Mabuti pa sa kaniya yung ugali ng nangangalap ng basura sa bangketa ng bahay, bago halungkatin ang basura sa harap ng bahay mo, nakikiusap muna kung pahihintulutan. Mga taong may modo at moralidad kahit maralita.
Si Tito Sotto, nasabing senador at anak ng doktor walang respeto sa pagaari ng ibang tao. Sa lugar namin ang tawag dun, kawatan!
Ok. Is this a good thing I’m being credited with exposing Sotto for a what he is?
Yes. Is that you Vincent?
Take a bow.
But I would suggest you don’t apply for a job at the Senate just now.
I echo what has been pointed out by many. This is Tito Sotto’s pattern. Evidently seen, as well, during the case of Pamela (allegedly raped by diplomat). He blurted out things without thinking, without proper research. it was at the verge of causing international problem. Now, International scandal na talaga!!! Tsk tsk tsk …
Then, I thought it was just carelessness…but it’s more than that. This is his character …this is who Tito Sotto is.
irremediable! a big BAD One! More grave recklessness….and critically careless!
It’s always a pleasure to hear from someone with exesetipr.