More claims of plagiarism against the Mail

The constant media hounding of Jonathan Ross eventually led to him quitting the BBC. Having claimed his scalp, they're now going after his wife for her involvement in the upcoming action film Kick-Ass.

The Sunday Times began this piffle with Jon Ungoed-Thomas' ill-informed article Jonathan Ross's wife Jane Goldman spawns girl assassin, 11. Unsurprisingly, the Mail were quick to join in the attack, with the suspiciously similar Jonathan Ross's wife Jane Goldman causes outrage with film featuring a foul-mouthed 11-year-old assassin, which they placed very prominently on their website.

Two things need to be pointed out immediately.

One: Goldman is only a co-writer of the screenplay. The other co-writer, Matthew Vaughn, is also the film's director - yet he is hardly mentioned in either story.

Two: the film is based on a comic book by Mark Millar. He invented the character of Hit-Girl, the foul-mouthed, eleven-year-old assassin, but the Mail doesn't even bother to mention him.

So references to 'Goldman's film' and her 'spawning' the character aren't exactly accurate.

As for the so-called 'outrage', it's as mythical as you might expect. The New York Times published an article about the film's red band trailers (ones that have swearing and violence in), based on the concerns of one person, who writes her reviews under the title Movie Mom.

Both articles quote Frank Furedi, a professor of sociology at Kent University, but he seems to be making a generic point about about movie violence and doesn't mention Goldman at all.

So a bit of manufactured outrage used to attack another member of the Ross family. What a surprise.

But on reading the Mail's version, the resemblance to the Sunday Times' article is too strong to be coincidental. As the Mail article says Furedi 'told the Sunday Times' his view, it's reasonable to assume the broadsheet article must have existed first.

Sunday Times:

Mail:

Sunday Times:
Mail:

Sunday Times:

Mail (with spelling mistake):

Sunday Times:
Mail:

Sunday Times:
Mail:

Sunday Times:
Mail:

It doesn't look good, does it?

And this isn't the first time a Mail article has looked suspiciously similar to another story from another paper.

On an earlier post about yet another claim of plagiarism against the Mail, an anonymous comment pointed out these two articles:

Exhibit A - AC Transit bus brawler has video past by Angela Woodall in The Oakland Tribune.

Exhibit B - Bus assault pensioner, 67, starred in second YouTube altercation last August... when he was Tasered by police published on MailOnline.

I emailed Woodall about the claim. She said they had used her work without attribution and confirmed that she had written an email to the Mail about their 'strikingly similar' story, but which they had ignored. She also sent me a copy of her email to them.

Here's a section from Woodall's article:


And from the Mail's version:



And with these articles following on from the claims made against the Mail's Chris Johnson for plagiarism, is anyone going to call the Mail and its editor, to account?

Mail not being sued...sadly

Jonathan Ross is, apparently, suing over a story headlined: 'Daniel Craig leaves 'desperate' Jonathan Ross shaken and stirred', which was published in the Sunday Telegraph on 11 January and online.

The article claimed - entirely falsely, as it turned out - guests were reluctant to appear on his chat show after his Sachsgate suspension.

The Mail, in its anti-Ross frenzy, repeated the story on 13 January:
No doubt this was heavily borrowed from the original. It included this gem:

'It has emerged that Tom Cruise, who has been lined up for Ross's comeback on January 23, is having 'second thoughts' - specifically because of the Sachs scandal.

'Cruise will be in London to promote his latest film when the BBC show comes back, but a source close to him said: 'Tom was not aware that Ross had been suspended because of his behaviour.

''Now that Tom has been told about the phone calls he is having second thoughts. He does not want to be involved in any controversy.'

'Other celebrities are said to be fed up with the irreverent way they have been treated by Ross when they have been interviewed by him'.

It almost goes without saying, Tom Cruise did appear on Ross' first show back. So when will the Mail remove its version...

Mail's obsession with Jonathan Ross continues

The release of the latest Rajar radio figures has given the Mail opportunity to crow over the fact that Jonathan Ross' Radio 2 show has lost 360,000 listeners since 2008.

'The desertion of almost a tenth of his audience will be linked by many to his lewd calls to veteran actor Andrew Sachs,' writes Jo Clements. Many at the Mail that is.

But Ross is still getting 3.03million listeners, so it's hardly as if everyone has turned off in disgust. And Terry Wogan's show has lost around 330,000 listeners over the same period but there's no headline article highlighting that drop.

Given that Andrew Sachs was quoted in an interview last weekend thanking Ross and Brand for the boost the 'Sachsgate' affair gave to his career ('I came out of it very well … my profile's up. Great! They did me good. Thank you very much'), isn't it time the Mail dropped it?

Mail - still can't stand Jonathan Ross

Was June Brown aka Dot Cotton humiliated at last night's BAFTA's? She was nominated but didn't win. Does that constitute a humiliation?

The answer is no, of course not. So when Jonathan Ross is nominated and doesn't win, is he 'humiliated'? Well, according to the Mail, he is.

It's unsurprising that they would make a big deal out of him not winning after their endless campaign against him following the 'Sachsgate' over-reaction. But whereas June Brown was 'overlooked', he is 'humiliated' and 'snubbed'.

The Mail claims: 'The decision suggests that some of his peers have grown tired of his antics in the wake of the Andrew Sachs affair.' In fact Harry Hill won the 'best entertainment performer' award both for the second year running, so it doesn't actually prove any such thing.

His red carpet quote that: 'There are certain members of the Press who may have an agenda against the BBC and me perhaps,' at least shows the Mail knows when it is being talked about. And there's nothing like a bitter tabloid to keep a feud going.

Mail accuses Ross; conveniently forgets own past

The Daily Mail has found an excuse to run one of its favourite phrases: 'New Jonathan Ross row' this time as 'BBC bars Mike Tyson from show'.

Apparently BBC bosses 'vetoed' an appearance by 'convicted rapist' Tyson leaving Ross at the 'centre of a new controversy'. The truth comes out in the second paragraph of the story:

Executives at Ross’s production company, Hot Sauce, were interested in a proposed interview but BBC bosses dismissed the plan.

Right, so it sounds like it wasn't even Ross' idea, and in any case it was only 'interest' in a 'proposed' interview - quite different from the headline making it sound as if Tyson was already booked to appear when the BBC said no.

Up pops that rent-a-quote oik with nothing better to do - Philip Davies MP - to say, again: ‘This is the latest in a catalogue of errors of judgment made by Jonathan Ross. The BBC should have got rid of him when they had the chance.’

Since it clearly wasn't a judgement by Ross, it's another empty soundbite.

The Mail reporter Miles Goslett, piles in too, saying the episode is an 'embarrassment' and 'points to a lack of judgment'.

Really Miles? I would say a lack of judgement was not in wanting to interview Tyson, but in being 'charmed' by him and praising his 'wry good humour laced with wicked irony'. Who would say such thing? Jeff Powell. In the Mail.