You know the story: girl writes article, girl publishes article, article is ripped off by a foreign publication, second girl reads foreign publication and gets an idea for a great article. Second girl writes article. Chaos ensues.

If the articles were attractive starlets and the foreign paper were a charming rake who genuinely wanted to love them both, it would be a perfect February vehicle for Matthew McConaughey. If, however, the first girl is Alexandra Wolfe who wrote a story on ambitious parents hiring Mandarin-speaking nannies to help prepare their children for the global economy which was published in New York magazine on April 4, 2005, then that must mean the other girl is Samantha Marshall of Crain's, whose article on ambitious parents hiring Mandarin-speaking nannies to help prepare their children for the global economy appeared today. Ouch.

The two stories feature the same Upper West Side little moppet, Hilton Augusta Rogers, and her nanny, Shirley who speaks Mandarin to her. Both stories feature the same experts, Clifton Greenhouse from the upscale Pavillion Agency, which places nannies and au pairs. The Crain's story says that Shirley has been Hilton's nanny for six months. Which is funny, because the NY Mag article was published in April - ten months ago.

I spoke to Samantha Marshall today, who said she was shocked to learn that New York had run a story. She'd gotten the idea (and the sources) from The China Daily, which cites little Hilton, her parents, Greenhouse and trumpets the Chinese-nanny trend. It also ends with the anecdote that opens the New York story.

Marshall said she'd run a Nexis search and found nothing (because New York's archives aren't in Nexis)*, and nothing had turned up in Google. (In Fishbowl's Google search for "mandarin manhattan nannies" the China Daily story was first and the New York story was fourth.) Marshall also said that she'd interviewed all her sources herself; she'd "had absolutely no idea." Said Marhshall, clearly frustrated: "If I had known that New York had done the story I never would have pitched it."

So, what do we take from this? I'm inclined to believe Marshall -- knowing the story was out there and ripping it off wholesale is both egregious and boneheaded in the extreme -- but it is an instructive lesson. Lifting stories is easy, checking up on them is not (for some examples, check Regret The Error). I guess the moral of the story is to check and check and then check again. Another moral of the story is not to trust Matthew McConaughey in February. That new movie with Sarah Jessica Parker can't be good.

UPDATE: Wow, get me Hilton Augusta Rogers' press agent -- that kid's been all over. Turns out the China Daily story was syndicated from Der Spiegel. New York magazine apparently doesn't need to be in Lexis. Thanks to DaddyGreg for the info. Oh, the temptation to make a "who's your daddy?" joke. But I will refrain.

*To find a story from New York, you have to search either Dialog, WestLaw, or something called "FirstSearch." Or, you know, Google. Screenshot from the trusty FullText Sources Online, that tells you which archives are where after the jump, courtesy of MB Associate Editor and Fishbowl stalwart Aileen Gallagher.

January 31, 2006:
New York families think global, seek Chinese nannies [Crain's]

January 6, 2006:
Chinese nannies are the latest New York trend [China Daily]

April 4, 2005:
Parents are Teaching Their Infants Chinese to Compete in the Global Economy [New York]

Related:
What "Ode On A Grecian Urn" has to do with copyright [PressJournal]

continued...

Oh, what hath Oprah wrought: The Brooklyn Public Library has changed its classification for James Frey's A Million Little Pieces from non-fiction to fiction.

Brooklyn Librarians: Frey's a Fiction Writer [GC]

Related:
The Times is always the last to know* [FBNY]

*Yes, I know that the bestseller stats are compiled two weeks before publication. I understand that actual newspaper pages are laid out somewhat sooner than that.

Beltway corruption posterboy of the day Jack Abramoff wore a snazzy fedora to court to cop his guilty plea on Tuesday, and much was made of the Runyonesque choice of headwear. Salon's Stephen Hirsch has a different - and illuminating take on it, however: Abramoff wasn't playing 30's gangster, he was wearing a Borsalino, the "ne plus ultra of Yeshiva boy caps." Hirsch's unique point of view provides an interesting perspective through which to view Abramoff, though certainly no more flattering than most.

What's in a hat? [Salon]

Related:
Does anyone/anybody still wear a hat? [FBNY]

In a story with unbelievable twists and turns, this may be the most incredible: the Times is planning to keep Judith Miller on? After Bill Keller's mea culpa, Jill Abramson's denials, after "Valerie Flame" and Scooter Libby and WMDS and MoDo and Calame and Miss Run Amok? Honestly, my head hurts from smacking it against my desk in disbelief.

But no, it looks like there actually is a movement afoot to get keep Miller at the NYT. The NYObserver has the scoop: Gabriel Sherman and Anna Schneider-Mayerson report that Miller has retreated and regrouped with a high-profile group of heavy-hitters like her friend and maybe-editor (I'm still confused about whether she actually has a book deal or not) Alice Mayhew, former ambassador to France Felix Rohatyn, Blackstone Group founder Peter Peterson (not to be confused with Fishbowl friend Tom Thomsen, who is a very capable and hard worker if anyone needs, uh, help), Skadden, Arps lawyer-machers Matthew Mallow and the funly-named John Furfaro (watch the Furfaro fly!), and, oh, who's that other one? Ah, yes: Times publisher Arthur "Pinch" Sulzberger Jr.

Apparently, Sulzberger is finding it hard to let go of his old friend and is "pushing for a Miller comeback," according to Arianna, who I suspect has smacked her head on the desk a few times herself.

Arianna says that the tide started to turn with the pro-Judy stance taken by Saturday's editorial, which stood by the paper's support of Miller on the First Amendment issue (love the last line: "[T]he big point Americans need to keep in mind is this: There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq." Ouch, that one definitely merited a few more clunks of the head!). Jay Rosen, blogging on HuffPo, sounded the first alarm bell on this on Saturday, recognizing that this was a step away from all the mea culpas, and itemizing all the unanswered questions it failed to address (NYT, will you throw Jay a bone and give him some info on Judy's security clearance? I mean, we'd all like to know but Jay would really like to know).

It's incredible that after Keller's finger-pointing memo citing her "entanglement," MoDo's "Woman of Mass Destruction," Calame's assertion that Judy ought not return to the paper, and the reportage by her own colleageus of her resistance to assisting with the Times story on the matter, the Times might actually let her stay -- a move which would not be good for newsroom morale (never mind poor Greg Mitchell!)

And yet, it's on the table: so saith the Observer, and Arianna's source too. But coming from Pinch, it shouldn't be that surprising; it won't be the first time he's stood by a toxic person amidst plummeting morale and it won't be the first time he squandered the goodwill of his staff by refusing to listen to them. Arianna herself sourced this truth back to her NYT mole: "Every big decision that comes out of the Times comes directly from the top... It's the larger untold story in all of this -- that he now runs the newsroom." Which means that we can bang away at our heads all we want, Judy's not going anywhere.

By the way, Arianna gave us another sweet tidbit: Sulzberger is a huge Trekkie, and even has a watch inscribed with the Vulcan salutation "Live long and prosper." But it's not Spock he should be hearkening to right now, it's Mr. Sulu. Because when the Enterprise was under attack, they all looked to Sulu to raise the shields and protect their good ship from harm. Sulzberger needs to raise the shields, and fast. Boldly going requires no less.

Next time: The Judith Miller saga explained with reference to Lord of the Rings. One Ring to rule them all, and One Ring to bind them...

Ew. In addition to being a perjurous justice-obstructing war-mongering Cheney-loving Plame-smearing guy named for a Muppet, apparently I. Lewis Scooter Libby is also kinda skeevy. In addition to trying to cajole Maureen Dowd to do tequila shots with him at the 2003 White House Correspondent's Dinner after-party (let's face it, people, today Maureen Dowd IS the news), apparently Scooter has a fairly spicy novel to his credit.

"The Apprentice," Libby's 1996 story of Setsuo, a young virgin apprentice at a remote mountain inn in early 20th-century Japan not only tells the story of his romantic awakening by the beautiful Yukiko, but according to the New Yorker's Lauren Collins, also contains salacious details of coupling, quivering, and deliberating on whether to have sex with a deer (Collins: "the answer, dear reader, is yes.")

The above, by the way, refers to a different animal than this passage:

At age 10 the madam put the child in a cage with a bear trained to couple with young girls so the girls would be frigid and not fall in love with their patrons. They fed her through the bars and aroused the bear with a stick when it seemed to lose interest.

The bottom line: Scooter makes falafels and loofahs look positively pristine. Also, Lauren Collins is my new favorite writer. HILARIOUS.

p.s. Customers who bought this book also bought "The Politics of Truth: Inside the Lies that Led to War and Betrayed My Wife's CIA Identity: A Diplomat's Memoir" by Joseph Wilson. No joke.

Scooter's Sex Shocker [New Yorker]

Leak haiku. Brilliant.

Patrick Fitzgerald:
Sheikh Rahman, Ramzi Youssef
and Scooter Libby?

Two counts perjury
One obstrucion of justice...
Wasn't there a leak??

(Libby's statement as shortened and haiku'ed:)

"I am confident...
at the end of this process
...exonerated."

Joseph Wilson, he
wanted Karl Rove frog-marched out
but Rove hopped away?

Bring back Lewinsky
At least that indictment was
for a good time, right?

(ABC's Down And Dirty courtesy of FishbowlDC).

Bush had his statement at 3:50 pm, and Libby's came in at about 4:30pm.

Said Bush:

Today I accepted the resignation of Scooter Libby. Scooter has worked tirelessly on behalf of the American people and sacrificed much in the service to this country. He served the Vice President and me through extraordinary times in our nation's history.

It was actually very succinct and well done, though as Paul Begala said on CNN: "You can't say "I've got a job to do" and then get on a helicopter and go to Camp David for the weekend" (though as we know by now, Bush can work while on vacation).

Meanwhile, Libby has issued a statement of his own: He thinks he'll be "completely and totally exonerated" for what was essentially what his lawyer called "an honest mistake" (opening the door for his defense against obstruction charges -- remembering differently isn't necessarily remembering wrongly -- or intentionally), and reminds America that "I have spent much of my career working on behalf of the American people," and maintains that he has always conducted himself honorably and truthfully in that endeavor.

If convicted, Libby could face up to 30 years.

Given the above, does anyone else thing Karl Rove's "I'm gonna have a great day and a great weekend!" comment was a little inappropriate?

Patrick Fitzgerald has finally spoken, and done a great job of it at that. Straightforward, decisive, in command of the facts, and refreshingly not in love with the spotlight, he delivered the facts succinctly and always with a view to the justice system and why it was that the leak probe was called in the first place.

This is a non-exhaustive write-up - just a few impressions.

Fitzgerald recounted the chain of events; hearing him go through it, I was surprised at how familiar it was. I guess we've all had ample opporutnity to learn these details. The crux: Scooter Libby, he said, presented as though he was "at the end of the chain" of information about Valerie Plame, hearing about it from Tim Russert who had said it was the word on the journalistic street. But, said Fitzgerald, Libby wasn't at the end of chain, "he was at the beginning...and he lied about it afterwards, under oath, and repeatedly." And so, indictment.

"When a Vice-President's Chief of Staff is charged with perjury and obstructuion of justice, it shows the world that we take the law seriously," he said -- and it shows that it applies to everyone in the land, right up to the highest office.

He said that "the substantial bulk of this gand jury's work is completed" -- its term is expired and it will not be extended. That's interesting, given the Rove-is-still-under-investigation subplot.

What of a leak invesigation that doesn't actually result in a charge? he was asked. Perhaps it's the Chicagoan coming out in him, but Fitz frames his response in terms of baseball.

Look, he says, let's say a pitcher winds up and hurls a fastball at a batter's head, you have to ask, why did the pitcher do it? Was it an accident? Did he do it out of a grudge or did his fingers slip? Did he hit the target or did he aim for the chin and miss? You'd have to look beyond the field, find out what happened in the dugout, see if it might have been retaliation (did the batter trash-talk the pitcher's mama?), or at the end of the day was it just a bad ptch, get over it?

Fitz had to ask these questions -- and meanwhile Scooter was standing up in front, waving his hands so he couldn't see the field. That, said Fitz, is something to be taken very seriously.

Lookit, he says, this wasn't done to Valerie Wilson, it was done to all of us.Why was this inforamtion going out? Why did he tell Judith Miller three times? Wsy did he tell Mr. Cooepr? What are the shades of gray? Down in front, Scooter. Fitz and the American people needed to know.

"What his motives were? I can't tell you," he said."Obstruction keeps us from making the judgments wee need to make... anyone who will go before a grand jury and lie and obstruct the truth has committed a serious crime. It will vindicate the public interest in finding out what happened here." Point being, the obstruction charge is no bridesmaid to a leak charge's blushing bride -- it's just as serious, punishable to the full extent of the law.

Two notes:

So -- we know, at least something. At 2:15 pm EST Patrick Fitzgerald will speak. In the meantime, this whole day has been spent waiting for something we already knew about. Some random points that ought not to go unmentioned:

It's 12:26 pm. Do you know where your indictments are?

According to Wolf Blitzer's super-split-screen Situation Room on CNN, they've apparently moved from the grand jury room to the Magistrate's Office to "present" the indictments. So it shouldn't be long now. As an aside, one of his pundits just said that Valerie Plame isn't the only undercover CIA agent married to some famous DC diplomat. There are a whole BUNCH of people running around DC in scarves and sunglasses! [CNN - Wolf Blitzer]

12:30: President Bush has just arrived at the White House -- no statement. Dana Bash said that it's impossible for the White House officials to mask the tension that's been building for the past few weeks. Bush expected make a statement later. Cheney's travelling; written statement expected. This is assuming that things go as expected.

12:36 pm: This calm before the storm is amazing. The NYT hasn't been updated since 9:57 am. CNN has the same homepage as it's had for hours: Libby crutching out of the White House toward certain doom. Quiet at Wonkette, and Fishbowl DC. Everyone is waiting.

12:39 pm: Whoa! Wonkette says that Libby has resigned. Scoop to Fox. Not on the website yet. Standby for confirmation.

12:42: IT'S OFFICIAL: SCOOTER LIBBY HAS BEEN INDICTED. At least on obstruction of justice, on perjury, and making false statements. Per Wolf.

12:53 pm: Fox's website is still pre-indictment; MSNBC has it up; CNN's got it; the NYT has it but the updated timestamp says 12:02pm. Huh?