Yoink! (but was it BreakingNews.ie, RTÉ.ie News or both?)
Tuesday, October 23rd, 2007The big sports story in Ireland at this very moment is that of Steven Staunton and his future (or otherwise) as manager of the Republic of Ireland soccer team. The story is so important that it seems as though Irish media organisations will beg, borrow or steal to give it coverage; quite literally.
Here is RTÉ.ie’s story, listed as being published just after 6pm today and, as usually, unattributed to any individual or agency.
Here is BreakingNews.ie’s story, listed as being published just after 5:30pm today and, again, unattributed.
To read the two stories’ opening paragraphs they could not be any more distant in terms of angle - but read further through them and suddenly it’s a case of deja vu.
RTÉ.ie’s opening paragraph is:
David O’Leary is sure to figure among the bookmakers’ favourites for the job if Steve Staunton’s 21-month reign as manager of the Republic of Ireland is ended this week - and, possibly, later today.
While BreakingNews.ie’s 17th paragrah is:
David O’Leary is sure to figure among the bookmakers’ favourites for the job if Staunton’s 21-month reign is ended
Bar the addition/subtraction of “as manager of the Republic of Ireland” the two are identical and from the 17th article of BreakingNews.ie’s piece the similarities just continue, as you can see for yourself. There are a few attempts by one side or another to spice things up a little, as this example shows:
BreakingNews.ie says:
What will rankle with Staunton is the notion that he alone should carry the can.
While RTÉ.ie says:
What may rankle with Staunton is the notion that he alone should carry the rap.
It must be said, however, that ‘may’ instead of ‘will’ is some shrewd journalism by RTÉ.ie News - after all, to say something will definitely rankle Staunton is to make an assumption based on no facts whatsoever; to say it may rankle him is merely honest speculation.
It’s impossible to say who published first - the time stamps mean little as the articles could easily have been updated over the course of the last hour or two, as tends to happen with online copy. There’s also every chance that the similarities come as a result of wire copy but there’s absolutely no attribution to the AP or anyone else.
Be it one, the other, or both; a news outlet is publishing copy that it did not originally write without making this point clear and without crediting the original writer (or copy source).
Maybe someone from either outlet can clarify…
Blogs elsewhere
