Here's one passage, outlined by Romenesko, from the NYT:
Many of these devices transmit a signal, and all of them emit electromagnetic waves, which, in theory, could interfere with the plane’s electronics. At the same time, older planes might not have the best shielding against the latest generation of devices, some engineers said.
And here's how it appeared, under Liz Thomas' byline, in the Mail:
Most personal devices transmit a signal and all of them emit electromagnetic waves which, in theory, could interfere with the plane’s electronics. At the same time, older planes might not have the best protection against the latest generation of devices.
There's more. NYT:
Safety experts suspect that electronic interference has played a role in some accidents, though that is difficult to prove. One crash in which cellphone interference with airplane navigation was cited as a possible factor involved a charter in Christchurch, New Zealand, in 2003. Eight people died when the plane flew into the ground short of the runway.Mail:
The pilot had called home, and the call remained connected for the last three minutes of the flight. In the final report, the New Zealand Transport Accident Investigation Commission stated, “The pilot’s own cellphone might have caused erroneous indications” on a navigational aid.
Safety experts suspect that electronic interference has played a role in some accidents, although it is difficult to prove.
One crash in which mobile phone interference with a plane's navigation was cited as a possible factor involved a 2003 flight in Christchurch, New Zealand.
Eight people died when the plane flew into the ground short of the runway.
The pilot had phoned home, and the call remained connected for the last three minutes of the flight.
In the final report, the New Zealand Transport Accident Investigation Commission stated, 'The pilot’s own cellphone might have caused erroneous indications' on a navigational aid.
NYT:
Since 2000, there have been at least 10 voluntary reports filed by pilots in the United States with the Aviation Safety Reporting System, administered by NASA. In 2007, one pilot recounted an instance when the navigational equipment on his Boeing 737 had failed after takeoff. A flight attendant told a passenger to turn off a hand-held GPS device and the problem on the flight deck went away.
Mail:
Since 2000, there have been at least 10 voluntary reports filed by pilots in the U.S. with the Aviation Safety Reporting System, administered by NASA.
In 2007, one pilot recounted an instance when the navigational equipment on his Boeing 737 had failed after takeoff.
A flight attendant told a passenger to turn off a hand-held GPS device and the problem on the flight deck went away.
NYT:
At American Airlines, people dialed cellphones from out-of-service planes parked at various airports. “They found no interaction with the aircraft instruments on any aircraft type,” said Tim Smith, a spokesman for American.
As a result, the airline like most others, decided to permit the use of phones at the gate before departure and after landing.
Mail:
At American Airlines, people dialed cellphones from out-of-service planes parked at various airports.
'They found no interaction with the aircraft instruments on any aircraft type,' said Tim Smith, a spokesman for American Airlines.
As a result the airline, like most others, decided to allow permit the use of phones at the gate before departure and after landing.
The use of 'dialed' and 'cellphones' in the latter section certainly imply a strong American influence.
And it's not as if this is the first time that questions have been raised about the Mail's 'coincidental overlaps' with other material.
(Hat-tip to Kevin Marsh)
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.
ReplyDeleteInteresting 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?
ReplyDeleteDoesn't this happen all the time when papers/media outlets just parrot a story from AP/equivalent?
ReplyDeleteI 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.
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.
ReplyDeleteFor 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.
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.
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.
ReplyDeleteThe 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.
They seem to think that changing a few words makes it not plagiarism. It doesn't.
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.
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!
ReplyDeletedaily mail, SHAME ON YOU!!!
ReplyDeleteI 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.
ReplyDeleteWhen 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.
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.
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.