tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2092552783161885712.post1454010275117545361..comments2024-03-13T15:35:30.839+00:00Comments on Tabloid Watch: Mail accused of plagiarism (again)MacGuffinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16894506410560858668noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2092552783161885712.post-39093680797200625412011-01-23T13:07:09.340+00:002011-01-23T13:07:09.340+00:00I only read the Mail on-line so don't know muc...I only read the Mail on-line so don't know much about what gets in the printed copy but they clearly do like to borrow stories from many different sources.<br /><br />When they take a story from another national daily they usually say which paper they got the story from but when the story is from a foreign paper or a local paper they often don't bother to acknowledge the source.<br /><br />Obviously if I was a journalist who wrote the orginial story and another paper stole it I would be fairly annoyed. But I think the more worry aspect is the lack of care taken in checking the facts in some of the stories they lift from elsewhere. This week the Mail ran the story about parents being turned away from a playgroup for being British. The Mail got the paper from the Cambridge News, alter a few facts to make it look like the playgroup was mostly funded by the council, stuck a bit at the end about the playgroup which look like it had come from a google search and the story was then published. Surely some basic checks should have been made by the Mail before printed a stor that had been written by a journalist from another paper.<br /><br />Potentially it would be quite easy for the BNP or some other extreme group to get a made up story in a local paper knowing that it would be picked up and printed by the Mail.Crispin Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00422241837149899082noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2092552783161885712.post-24989655724830149342011-01-21T18:58:47.707+00:002011-01-21T18:58:47.707+00:00daily mail, SHAME ON YOU!!!daily mail, SHAME ON YOU!!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2092552783161885712.post-24932709603244669742011-01-21T13:43:08.463+00:002011-01-21T13:43:08.463+00:00I love the way the final sentence quoted includes ...I love the way the final sentence quoted includes "allow permit" as if the plagiarist got halfway through substituting synonyms and then just couldn't be arsed even with that little effort!Elegirnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2092552783161885712.post-31782239310168361132011-01-21T13:42:54.269+00:002011-01-21T13:42:54.269+00:00I'm having a look on Google, by date. All of t...I'm having a look on Google, by date. All of the repeat stories I've checked so far, up to the publication date of the Mail story, make it clear that they are republishing the NYT story. The NYT masthead logo is present and Christine Negroni's byline is present.<br /><br />The Daily Mail seem to think that sticking "according to an investigation by the New York Times" somewhere near the top is boilerplate enough. It isn't.<br /><br />They seem to think that changing a few words makes it not plagiarism. It doesn't.<br /><br />They seem to think that they can then remove the original writer's byline and put the story originally under Liz Thomas' byline, and now under the generic shame byline of "Daily Mail Reporter". Sure they *can*, but it only makes it worse.badhedgehognoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2092552783161885712.post-52715579170336812852011-01-21T10:46:57.240+00:002011-01-21T10:46:57.240+00:00You're right in that copy from the likes of AP...You're right in that copy from the likes of AP is reproduced pretty much verbatim, but generally a newspaper has a specific style to indicate that it's using agency copy, and doesn't apply a named byline to it.<br /><br />For example, you may see something with a byline of "Associated Press" or more likely "Daily Mail Reporter" - which appears a lot in the Mail - "Times Correspondent" and similar terms. All of these are usually the indication that something is from the wires.<br /><br />Putting a real name on an article should mean that it has been written by that person; it certainly shouldn't be used to re-name syndicated copy, or to hide the true origin of material, which would seem to be the case here.Nigel Whitfieldhttp://www.nigelwhitfield.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2092552783161885712.post-14427316503854972472011-01-21T10:26:22.429+00:002011-01-21T10:26:22.429+00:00Doesn't this happen all the time when papers/m...Doesn't this happen all the time when papers/media outlets just parrot a story from AP/equivalent?<br /><br />I was interviewed by an AP journalist a few years ago, it was interesting to see his words repeated almost verbatim across the world: BBC, Sky News, the Mail and various other papers had just lazily copy and pasted.xerodehttp://xerode.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2092552783161885712.post-82602629404302713552011-01-21T09:38:31.773+00:002011-01-21T09:38:31.773+00:00Interesting that the Mail version removes the word...Interesting that the Mail version removes the word "engineers" from the first passage. Is this because the Mail's middle class readers perceive engineers as grubby men in boiler suits (probably trade unionists) and this would undermine the credibility of the article?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2092552783161885712.post-66653520194953527262011-01-21T08:56:25.172+00:002011-01-21T08:56:25.172+00:00I'm not sure what the rules are about online p...I'm not sure what the rules are about online plaigiarism, but quite often you'll see the same story in different papers, word-for-word. I don't see as how the Mail is any more guilty than anyone else in this regard.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com