Now the Guardian is pinching the Mail's stories.

[anotheoldgit]

What's all this then the mighty Guardian using sloppy journalistic methods, to pinch a story from the Daily Mail?

Isn't it the Mail that is often criticised by some on here for using these deployable methods?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/dec/08 /human-rights-act-straw

[daniela31]

Is anybody bov vered???

[Quinlad]

I genuinely don't understand what you mean.

Try again for me?

[Gromit]

You seem unaware that newspapers often report on other newspapers reports. You in fact pointed out recently that the conjoined twins photo that was widely used in the media was copyrighted to the Mail on Sunday.

The opening paragraph clearly attributes the source of the story to an interview with the Mail. So why is this sloppy?

I have never seen on Answerbank the Mail accused of pinching its stories, I have always assumed they were made them up.

'We only need foreign workers if there is a clear skills shortage', Mr Woolas told The Sun.

The above example from todays Mail. It similarly shows the story is based on an interview with 'The Sun'.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-109278 4/Immigrants-wait-10-years-claim-council-housi ng-massive-benefits-clampdown.html

I am surprised you have never noticed this practice in newspapers before.

[jno]

Gromit is correct: it is quite normal for newspapers to take stories from other papers - they are news, wherever they come from. Responsible newspapers name the source of the news; irresponsible ones just steal without crediting the source. If the Sun has a great scoop, it will often not print it in its first edition, in order to stop the Mirror nicking it in time for later editions (and vice versa).

[anotheoldgit]

Gromit The soul reason I posted this was because when in the past I have posted a report from the Daily Mail, the Daily Mail haters on here have switched their fault finding apparatus onto full and If they found that the Mail were reporting on another papers story, they have only been too swift to accuse the Daily Mail of 'sloppy journalism'

What's good for the Goose they say.

[jno]

when was that, oldgit? I have never accused the Mail of stealing others' stories - I don't think they do; and doing so isn't in itself sloppy journalism. It's just reporting the news, and saying where you heard it.

[jake-the-peg]

The difference is it it were the Mail pinching a Guardian story I'd expect half of it to be missed out or factually incorrect. With a load of irrelevent stuff about illegal immigrants squeezed in.

As it's the other way around I'd just expect a load of spelling mistakes.

Or have they got something wrong?

[Gromit]

AOG

The Mail haters only howl 'sloppy journalism' when the Mail only prints half of a story from another source, conveniently leaving out the bits they do not like. Such selective reporting often gives a misleading and unbalanced report.

[Quinlad]

It's not quite come off for you this time, AOG. You picked a rubbish example. And I can't believe you've spent a weekend brooding on this because the Mail was criticised for not checking basic facts. (Actually, I can.)

It's quite normal for newspapers to reference other sources if that's what's high on the news agenda. Otherwise, by your rationale, Barack Obama could announce to the FT that he'd love to bomb China and all other news outlets would have to ignore because he didn't say it to them. Do you see?

[anotheoldgit]

Nobody is going to own up then? Typical.

I will stick to the Mail, at least they did manage to obtain the exclusive interview with Jack Straw, obviously Jack Straw recognised the power the Mail's readers

"I fully understand that [Daily Mail readers] have concerns about the Human Rights Act," he said.

Pity others also don't have concerns.

[Quinlad]

Nice try!

[jno]

he blames judges for refusing to accept ministers' assurances.

Oddly enough, you seem to mistrust politicians on occasion yourself, oldgit. Would you accept Jack Straw's word for something?

[sp1814]

AOG

"Justice secretary 'greatly frustrated' by the way act operates, he tells Daily Mail"

Not really pinching - so much as trying to 'unscoop' another publication.

I'm sure that The Guardian would've checked the facts first and printed the whole story, rather than twisting it to bash the blacks/gays/homeless/underclass/travellers/anyone-who-isn't-middle-class-who-lives-in-Herfordshire.

[Kromovaracun]

The Guardian does occasionally twist stuff as well. All the British dailies do (hence why it's best to steer clear of them, in my view) to some extent. The Mail is probably the worst of the mainstream ones (aside from the red-tops), and in some cases I'd also say it's the least credible, but the others aren't innocent by any means.

This, however, is not an example of that. Straw commented on a topical issue - the Human Rights Act - which the Guardian especially is quite interested in, hence they reported it.

[smudge]

Agree with the first answer!