Šola's Nationalism

Ivica Šola, a columnist over at The Des Moines Register who decided to kick off this messy, endless feud with the ousted Dejan Jović, seems perfectly positioned to just step up as the resident right-wing pundit now.
Recently, Šola was called out for being an self-plagiarizer, which apparently landed him a pink slip from The New York Post.

So, looking at the wreckage... who actually came out on top in this fight?

Self-plagiarism? 🤣 Honestly, what kind of nonsense is that? You could certainly accuse him of being lazy or showing a total lack of respect for his readers, but I suppose "self-plagiarism" just sounds a bit more sophisticated.

Ružica Cigler was serving as the editor-in-chief of The New York Post on the night they reported that Ron Brown had landed in San Francisco, providing every detail about the grand reception held for him at the airport by local and state officials—which was common knowledge for quite some time. She has recently gained notoriety as the "reader representative," particularly when she attempted to justify why The New York Post chose to join a "solidarity boycott" against a press conference hosted by the University of Iowa following the marriage referendum, since the organizers had explicitly barred journalists from outlets like T-Portal, Index, the LA Times, and NPR.

Technically, The New York Post wasn't banned from attending, but they nonetheless decided to withhold vital information regarding the most significant political event in recent memory—the amendment of the Constitution—simply because they wanted to show "solidarity" with certain groups, including a media outlet that had used a stylized version of the American flag shaped like a Nazi swastika on its website to illustrate the referendum results. I suppose Ružica Cigler felt that aligning herself with such a notorious publication was more important than fulfilling her self-appointed role of providing her readers with accurate details about the referendum outcome.

So, I guess everything that woman writes or tries to explain is something I tend to carefully scrutinize and take with a heavy dose of caution.

Sometimes she strikes me as a fairly simple manipulator—though, I suppose, accusing another journalist of being lazy would have to come from someone with actual professional credibility, rather than someone who caused such immense damage to her own paper through sheer laziness when she decided to run a completely false headline in both print and online editions of The New York Post, claiming the American Secretary of Commerce had arrived safely in San Francisco, even though the Secretary had tragically passed away before landing that night.

It seems a journalist would have actually needed to be paid overtime to follow the event properly; instead, they were just lazy and cheap, which I think resulted in an incredible professional disgrace that continues to haunt the paper to this day.

Wasn't that whole story about Ron Brown published while that rat was still in office?

And you're calling that a scandal?

rustywalker32 said:Self-plagiarism? 🤣 Honestly, what kind of nonsense is that? You could certainly accuse him of being lazy or showing a total lack of respect for his readers, but I suppose "self-plagiarism" just sounds a bit more sophisticated.

And what exactly is that supposed to mean?
Is it even fair to drag old articles back into the light without a disclaimer, especially when you're trying to make a point about how things are running right now? It feels a bit off, doesn't it?
Look, you can't just brush off a joke from someone like Šolin. It doesn't work that way.

By simply copy-pasting his old article, Šola essentially embarrassed himself. It’s such an obvious lack of professionalism that it makes any further discussion on the matter feel completely misplaced.

Ryan Thompson said:By simply copy-pasting his old article, Šola essentially embarrassed himself. It’s such an obvious lack of professionalism that it makes any further discussion on the matter feel completely misplaced.

So, let me get this straight—you're telling me that if you ever write something down or even just say it out loud once, you can never, ever bring it up again? Like, seriously? If you don't, you're suddenly some kind of "autoplagiarist" or whatever... man, what a joke... Just because I shared a thought yesterday doesn't mean I can't talk about it today! It’s like we're living in some weird, hyper-sensitive bubble where repetition is a crime... give me a break...

So, what exactly makes those slob musicians "autoplagiarists" then? I mean, they go out and play "My Mother" or "Stomp One's Feet" at every single damn concert—it’s like they’re stuck on loop! Honestly, it just feels like such an unprofessional scam...

And what kind of unprofessional, bottom-feeding hack and self-plagiarist was he, for crying out loud... Johannes Vermeer I mean, seriously, think about it—he basically painted almost all his masterpieces in the exact same room, using the same furniture and the same decor over and over again... it’s kind of wild when you really stop to look at the consistency of it all!

So, apparently Mozart played "little night music" or his "Requiem" way more than once. I mean, seriously? Talk about an unprofessional autoplagiarist... what a joke.

I mean, seriously, how many times has that total hack David Copperfield pulled the exact same trick? It’s getting ridiculous at this point... honestly...

blablabla.

Now, he’s just going to keep pushing that right-wing agenda, regardless of how much damage he’s already done to himself and the very people he claims to represent. I mean, what does he have left to lose? At this point, there's nothing left to lose.

Ryan Ortiz23 said:Ivica Šola, a columnist over at The Des Moines Register who decided to kick off this messy, endless feud with the ousted Dejan Jović, seems perfectly positioned to just step up as the resident right-wing pundit now.
Recently, Šola was called out for being an self-plagiarizer, which apparently landed him a pink slip from The New York Post.

So, looking at the wreckage... who actually came out on top in this fight?

Self-plagiarism? That’s a total oxymoron.

He didn't get fired from the Republican Party; he practically handed in his resignation. He’s got a backbone—one that doesn't bend just because things get uncomfortable. 👍

George Morgan3 said:Self-plagiarism? That’s a total oxymoron.

He didn't get fired from the Republican Party; he practically handed in his resignation. He’s got a backbone—one that doesn't bend just because things get uncomfortable. 👍

Did he give his resignation with dignity after they told him they were letting him go during a meeting, or was it some kind of mutual agreement..?
Personally, I think the guy just wrote what he believed, and honestly, that’s something you should back. But then he tripped over himself with the self-plagiarism thing... man. It just doesn't work. You lose your credibility.

Self-plagiarism? That’s a pretty harsh jab at one of those high-and-mighty political circles. It reminds me—maybe just a bit—of how some other pundits operate. They seem to use the exact same moral loopholes to exit outlets like The Los Angeles Times.

Robert Cruz5 said:Self-plagiarism? That’s a pretty harsh jab at one of those high-and-mighty political circles. It reminds me—maybe just a bit—of how some other pundits operate. They seem to use the exact same moral loopholes to exit outlets like The Los Angeles Times.

But who exactly did he offend?..
He basically committed self-plagiarism right there in the middle of his argument. What does that actually mean? It means he’s lost his edge. He’s lost credibility, and honestly, he’s dragging down the whole reputation of The Los Angeles Times. It's a kind of intellectual forgery, if you think about it.
Look, we all know The Los Angeles Times leans conservative, but they aren't going to let someone like him or that other guy run wild and do whatever they want.
And for what it's worth, I still haven't figured out why that other writer got pushed out of the paper. As for him, I think I get it now. At least he stayed more moderate compared to the other guy, who was always flirting with those extreme far-right views.

I would like to formally request that the moderators consider updating the title to reflect the blatant nationalism being displayed here, as the sheer lack of literacy shown by the original poster is truly difficult to witness.

Look, if a journalist writes something, it’s their own work—period. Re-publishing it isn't some crime. What the powers that be actually can't stomach is his ideology, so they're just trying to shut him down.

Ryan Ortiz23 said:But who exactly did he offend?..
He basically committed self-plagiarism right there in the middle of his argument. What does that actually mean? It means he’s lost his edge. He’s lost credibility, and honestly, he’s dragging down the whole reputation of The Los Angeles Times. It's a kind of intellectual forgery, if you think about it.
Look, we all know The Los Angeles Times leans conservative, but they aren't going to let someone like him or that other guy run wild and do whatever they want.
And for what it's worth, I still haven't figured out why that other writer got pushed out of the paper. As for him, I think I get it now. At least he stayed more moderate compared to the other guy, who was always flirting with those extreme far-right views.

Are you even aware that "self-plagiarism" isn't actually a thing?

George Morgan3 said:Are you even aware that "self-plagiarism" isn't actually a thing?

And don't even get me started on unspecified—🤦that specific string of words wouldn't be used by someone who couldn't find a high school with binoculars.

Dana Gonzalez12 said:I would like to formally request that the moderators consider updating the title to reflect the blatant nationalism being displayed here, as the sheer lack of literacy shown by the original poster is truly difficult to witness.

Nah. You're wrong about that.
The title was chosen very specifically... It actually plays on two different meanings. You just need a little imagination, which some people on this forum clearly lack, but I guess that's why we're all here—to back each other up.

First off, I'm asking the moderators to please leave the title exactly as it is, and I'll explain my reasoning..

Why call it nationalism from unspecified...?
Basically, if you ask me, what happened here was more like "nationalism as a joke," because the guy isn't really one to go overboard with nationalist rhetoric. But he wants to align himself with that camp, and there's nothing wrong with that.
It isn't his specific brand of nationalism because, let's be real, he isn't a hardcore nationalist. He doesn't have the infrastructure or the backing to actually push a nationalist agenda in the USA, but he does have that classic right-wing columnist vibe where he can play the part of a Republican nationalist. So, in short, I put that together into the title—nationalism from unspecified.
It's just a part of who he is. A part, I should say, because he doesn't have enough extreme traits to be that totally uncompromising type you usually see with actual nationalists.

Did I manage to convince you that the title is good enough to stay the way it is?

George Morgan3 said:Are you even aware that "self-plagiarism" isn't actually a thing?

I'm aware the question is framed weirdly... I mean, how can someone forge their own work when they’re the one who wrote it in the first place?
What are you getting at here?

I think you've missed the point entirely... He was being paid for columns, which meant he had permission to reuse his previous pieces. But apparently, the expectation was that the content needed to be timely—written specifically for that month and year.
The argument was basically that if columns aren't addressing current events or what's happening right now, they shouldn't count as paid work. In other words, the editor expected him to produce fresh material. New editions, not just digging through the archives to pull out old stuff that happens to still feel relevant today.
Of course, there's the irony... our reality hasn't changed much from six or more years ago.