From a Philip Webster story on The Times website:
It has also emerged that Mr Brown has spent £39 billion in his first seven weeks at No 10.
Sadly, this sentence was hit by a printing error and some text was lost from it. But I can reveal now what The Times really meant to publish was:
The Guardian has done the research and showed that Mr Brown has spent £39 billion in his first even weeks at No 10 but, you know, we just can’t bring outselves to mention that the story was put together by another newspaper or give any credit to that (non-existent, you understand) other newspaper for doing the research that we’ve just used in this sentence, so we’ll just pretend the story sort of oozed out from the ether without anyone from The Guardian having anything to do with it. PS Did we mention that we’re not going to mention it was The Guardian’s story? Good.
PS Best not to tell anyone from The Times to look here.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
A perpetual pirouette of prevarication?
Michael Meadowcroft: A Liberal of Intellectual Rigour and Uncommon Integrity
Debt-ridden graduates claim they are seen as cash cows
Why non-fiction books need their indexes
Changes in status: Local Elections wrap up
David Raw
Jenny Barnes
Tom Bailey
Gill Travers
Alison Howarth
4 Comments
I don’t get it. It’s standarrd practice across the board between papers that the following day strois exclusive to one often get metnioned in the other with prhases like “it has emerged”
Also part of the Guardian figures are wrong anyway, because some of the annoucnements were reannouncements with a bit of dodgy double counting.
From what I remember, The Guardian – for example – is rather more generous when the roles are reveresed. But also why should this be standard practice and accepted? Imagine how you’d feel if I kept on lifting stories from your blog but without credit or link … 🙂
See, the real question from this comment thread is not about crediting stories, but more whether Dizzy was deliberately aping the Graun’s spelling style or whether he really is that bad at proof-reading comments…
@Mark: Teh Graun is charitable trust and probably figures its readers are unlikely to go read the other papers anyway, no real competitors for their market anyway. The Times isn’t in that position and needs to watch market share a bit more because people jump ship to Torygraph, Mail and Indy at times, ergo it doesn’t credit. Plus, y’know, Murdoch=git, it’s probably NewsInt policy or summat.
I suck at proof reading and type too fast