The story does note the lack of follow-up by some media on the Biden plagiarism speech issue, but doesn't state anywhere that Biden was wrong in failing to attribute segments on other occasions. The article focuses only on the speech and not on the article, ''Tortious Acts as a Basis for Jurisdiction in Products Liability Cases,'' which appeared in the May 1965 issue of the Fordham Law Review. Biden had been accused of plagiarizing a part of that article, but was later exonerated. Point being, if Media Matters is going to accuse others of an incomplete record, its own record must be thorough and fair. In addition to these omissions, the logic of the reviewed piece seems to suggest, "If a person acknowledges that s/he attributed someone else's words and ideas on some occasions, but omitted them on others, then this exonerates the plagiarism because the person 'simply forgot.'" Alas, that doesn't play in journalism schools let alone major media. This article would have been more impressive and influential if the writer stopped checking Google and newspaper archives and assembled a thorough fact base, following that up by interviewing reporters and others to ascertain why the speech omission was made in certain reports about Biden. How about interviewing Biden, if Media Matters is going to make an issue of it; perhaps the answer is, doing so will resurrect an old story? Unfortunately, an incomplete report like this also resurrects an old story, prompting journalists like me to dig deeper into charges of plagiarism that date back to Biden's college days. In the end, outlets like Media Matters with well-known political leanings need to be more thorough--perhaps more so than news reporters--to score points with voters when getting their points across to them. This fails to do that and, in doing so, misses a real opportunity to put reporters on the spot.