because nobody uses teh Googles

Parry goes on to note many, many more examples... including some from Fischer’s coverage of the Toronto Film Festival, which similarly lifted copy from the festival guide.

One really has to wonder how any writer believes he can ever get away with stuff like this, when it’s so damn easy to just Google unique phrases and find out who reused ’em. The mind boggles.

Then again, as Parry notes, Fischer has been getting away with this kind of thing -- has even been rewarded for it -- for a long time:

In a case of the world coming full circle, a film reviewer who has made a name for himself being quoted in movie marketing materials is accused of plagiarizing large chunks of his film reviews - from movie marketing materials.

Fischer has figured prominently, for instance, in Erik Childress’ hilarious Criticwatch column at eFilmCritic.

But as much as I’d like to feel a sense of glee at someone so stupid -- or so arrogant -- getting caught out at his own game, I can’t. Because this is what happens when someone like Fischer does what he does: all critics who publish online get besmirched, which is simply bizarre -- what, no print journalist has ever committed plagiarism? Quoted in Parry’s article is Brooks Addicott, associate director of media relations at the Sundance Institute:

Addicott says industry plagiarism is more rife than many realize, especially with the explosion of bloggers joinging the ranks of mainstream media outlets.

"We've seen some people do that, take the press notes and just print them as part of their work. Generally online bloggers tend to do that because they feel like those are the official descriptions and they can go with them. We'd obviously prefer they didn't. If you're going to review a film, you should probably see it and come up with your own take on it."

“Generally online bloggers tend to do that”? *grrrr*

This has been your WTF Thought for the Day.