Sotto is at it again. This time, using Robert Kennedy’s speech as his own. He says he did not plagiarize because he translated the speech into the language of Tagalog. However, just because you use another public official’s speech and think because you translated it, doesn’t mean it is not plagiarism, because it still is.
So what is with all of this plagiarism? Especially from a so-called public official? How can he take someone else’s speech, translate it into another language and then call it his own without giving the credit to the original author? What is wrong with this world when one public official plagiarizes not once, but twice within months of each other and doesn’t give one ounce of an apology or acts as though he did nothing wrong?
Why can’t he write his own work for his speeches? Why can’t he at least quote a passage from the speech from Mr. Kennedy? It doesn’t make any sense to me that someone can do this not once, but twice and still think he is doing nothing wrong. Does he actually not understand that this is plagiarism? Does he not understand the consequences of his acts? Seriously people, if you are going to use someone else’s work, cite them and give them credit. Quote them for goodness sakes but don’t steal from them and say it is your own!Information No Comments
The chief of staff of Senator Sotto from Manila, Philippines has finally admitted that he copied parts
of a bloggers blog for his speech. A Philippines blogger who runs a blog called “The Healthy Home
Economist” has had some of her content plagiarized by the chief of staff, “Tito” Sotto the Third.
He and his lawyer have semi-apologized to the blogger saying they were semi apologetic that they did
not give her credit in the speech. Semi-apologetic? How about apologizing or not doing it at all? They
are also saying that part of the blog was used because it was too hard to paraphrase! They say that parts
of the blog they had used were also from a book and if the blogger wants credit, the books author needs
to have credit also.
Although there was a semi-apology, the blogger replied to them saying she didn’t like that they used a
part of her blog and it was indeed plagiarism. She also stated that his lame comment did not make her
feel better or satisfy her and although she used a book as research for her blog, she wrote the blog in
her own words and Sotto copied her words from her blog.