In the long tradition of journalism's reckoning with its own standards, Ross Barkan — a prolific columnist who had contributed nearly 250 pieces to New York Magazine — has stepped back from his work following an independent review that found improper attribution across 67 of his columns. The magazine severed ties and began correcting its archives, while Barkan, who initially dismissed the accusations, ultimately offered a more contrite apology, attributing the lapses to the pressures of high-volume writing rather than deliberate intent. It is a familiar human story: ambition and output outpaci
Ex-New York Magazine writer takes break after plagiarism scandal involving 67 columns
I never intended to crib from anyone's work. I promise all of you that.
Mark
What made this particular case so damaging compared to other attribution mistakes that slip through?
Mimi
The scale. Sixty-seven columns isn't a handful of careless errors—it's a pattern. And it happened across multiple publications, which suggested it wasn't a one-time lapse but a systemic approach to sourcing.
Mark
Did Barkan claim he didn't know he was doing it?
Mimi
He said the mistakes were unintentional, that the pressure of writing multiple columns a week led him to cut corners on citations. But that's almost harder to defend—it suggests he wasn't paying attention to the basic mechanics of attribution.
Mark
How did this unravel so quickly?
Mimi
One reporter noticed. Then another looked closer. Once the first domino fell, the pattern became visible. New York Magazine had to act or lose credibility itself.
Mark
What's the difference between what he said in May and what he said this week?
Mimi
In May, he was defensive—called it ridiculous. By Wednesday, after the investigation confirmed everything, he was apologizing directly to other journalists. The evidence had caught up with him.
Mark
Does stepping away actually fix anything?
Mimi
It's a pause, not a fix. The real test is whether he comes back with a fundamentally different approach to his work, or whether this was just damage control.
Mark
What happens to his role at The Metropolitan Review?
Mimi
That's the open question. He hasn't said. The publication hasn't said. But it's hard to imagine readers trusting his editorial judgment after this.
Der Puls
- What began as a single reporter noticing borrowed language in a Ben Shapiro column quietly unraveled into a 67-column attribution failure — a scale that made the word 'oversight' difficult to sustain.
- Barkan's initial dismissal of the accusations as 'ridiculous' only deepened the wound when New York Magazine's own investigation confirmed the pattern and cut ties entirely.
- NPR and Washington Post journalists identified specific instances of unattributed phrasing, transforming a private editorial dispute into a public reckoning with professional standards.
- Barkan has since shifted from defiance to contrition, apologizing on X and attributing the lapses to the grind of writing multiple columns weekly — a defense that acknowledges the failure without fully accounting for it.
- His role as editor-in-chief of The Metropolitan Review remains unresolved, leaving the full shape of the fallout still forming.
In the long tradition of journalism's reckoning with its own standards, Ross Barkan — a prolific columnist who had contributed nearly 250 pieces to New York Magazine — has stepped back from his work following an independent review that found improper attribution across 67 of his columns. The magazine severed ties and began correcting its archives, while Barkan, who initially dismissed the accusations, ultimately offered a more contrite apology, attributing the lapses to the pressures of high-volume writing rather than deliberate intent. It is a familiar human story: ambition and output outpacing the discipline that gives them meaning.
Ross Barkan, who had written nearly 250 columns for New York Magazine, announced Wednesday that he would step away from his work to "self-reflect" after a plagiarism scandal ended his relationship with the publication. An independent editorial review found that he had failed to properly attribute sources across 67 columns, prompting the magazine to sever ties and update its archives accordingly.
The trouble began in May when Washington Post reporter Drew Harwell noticed that language from one of his stories about Ben Shapiro and The Daily Wire had appeared in a Barkan column without credit. After Harwell raised the issue publicly, New York Magazine added an editor's note — but the scrutiny had already widened. NPR correspondent Bobby Allyn identified additional instances of unattributed phrasing drawn from The Intercept and Compact Magazine.
Barkan initially pushed back, calling the accusations "ridiculous." But the magazine's investigation concluded otherwise, finding that he had not adhered to its editorial standards on attribution, sourcing, and language. He later acknowledged that across nearly 250 pieces, there were moments he should have been more careful — and on Wednesday, his tone deepened into fuller apology. "I'm sorry. I truly am sorry," he wrote on X, insisting the lapses were unintentional and the product of writing under pressure, not deliberate borrowing.
His position as editor-in-chief of The Metropolitan Review remains unclear, and the publication has not commented on his future there. What the record now shows is a career defined by prolific output — and a reckoning with the standards that output was meant to uphold.
Ross Barkan, a prolific columnist who had written nearly 250 pieces for New York Magazine, announced Wednesday that he would step back from his work to "self-reflect" following a plagiarism scandal that cost him his position at the publication. The decision came after New York Magazine completed an independent editorial review and determined that Barkan had failed to properly attribute sources across 67 of his columns—a finding that prompted the magazine to sever ties with him and systematically update its archives.
The controversy began in May when Washington Post reporter Drew Harwell noticed that language and reporting details from one of his stories about conservative commentator Ben Shapiro and The Daily Wire had appeared in a Barkan column without proper attribution. After Harwell raised the issue publicly, New York Magazine added an editor's note crediting The Washington Post, though Harwell himself expressed uncertainty about what had transpired. The initial discovery opened the door to further scrutiny. NPR correspondent Bobby Allyn subsequently identified additional instances where Barkan appeared to have used similar phrasing and descriptions from articles published in The Intercept and Compact Magazine without adequate citation.
When the allegations first surfaced, Barkan pushed back, dismissing the accusations as "ridiculous." But the magazine's investigation told a different story. New York Magazine announced that it would end its relationship with Barkan after finding that he "did not adhere" to its editorial standards regarding proper attribution of language, information, and sourcing. The publication committed to updating all 67 affected columns in its archives and noting that corrections had been made.
In his statement to Fox News Digital at the time the relationship ended, Barkan acknowledged that "in the course of nearly 250 pieces, there were times I should have been more careful with citation." He apologized for the errors and pledged to improve his practices going forward. But on Wednesday, after the full scope of the problem became public, his tone shifted toward deeper contrition. "Let me first begin by saying I'm sorry. I truly am sorry for the mistakes I made," he wrote on X. He insisted that none of the lapses were deliberate, attributing them instead to the pressure of writing multiple columns each week and failing to use citations "as aggressively" as he should have or to paraphrase adequately. "I never intended to crib from anyone's work," he stated, and he specifically apologized to the journalists whose work he had not properly credited.
Barkan's status at The Metropolitan Review, where he serves as editor-in-chief, remains unresolved. He has not clarified whether he intends to remain in that role as he takes time away. The publication has not responded to requests for comment about his future there. What is clear is that the scandal has marked a significant rupture in a career built on regular, high-volume output—and that Barkan's promise to do better will be measured against a record that now includes dozens of documented failures to meet basic journalistic standards.
Bemerkenswerte Zitate
In the course of writing many columns a week, I did not use citations as aggressively as I should have and did not paraphrase well enough.— Ross Barkan, in statement on X
After an independent editorial review, New York found that Ross Barkan did not adhere to our editorial standards, and we have updated 67 columns that did not include proper attribution.— New York Magazine, in statement to Semafor
Möchten Sie die ganze Geschichte?
Das Original lesen bei Fox News ↗
Media & Entertainment