Earlier this week journalist Chris Rufo revealed that Kamala Harris plagiarized giant sections of her book on crime, after famed Austrian "plagiarism hunter" Dr. Stefan Weber found that "Kamala Harris plagiarized at least a dozen sections of her criminal-justice book."
In response, the New York Times bent over backwards (and forwards) to downplay their preferred candidate's cut-n-pastery - first casting it as 'conservative activist seizes on passages' from Harris' book, then totally lying about Rufo's reporting - which Rufo quickly debunked.
As part of their propaganda, the Times wheeled out plagiarism expert Jonathan Bailey, who said "his initial reaction to Mr. Rufo’s claims was that the errors were not serious, given the size of the document."
Except, the Times concealed the extent of the claims from Bailey - who writes in his Plagiarism Today blog: "At the time, I was unaware of a full dossier with additional allegations, which led some to accuse the New York Times of withholding that information from me. However, the article clearly stated that it was my “initial reaction” to those allegations, not a complete analysis.