The Mail made it even easier than usual for this writer to spot they’d ‘ripped off’ his work
Times science writer Tom Whipple was reading a story in the Daily Mail about nuclear fusion – something he knows a bit about – when he spotted something familiar in it.
Really familiar.
This is what he had to say about it.
Normally, when the Mail @MailOnline rip off your stories, it’s pretty obvious it’s a cut and paste job. It’s not normally this obvious.
And this is the story he saw on the Mail Online website.
Yes, we think we can spot the bit he’s talking about Isn’t that what they call a ‘joint by-line’? We’re sure they were just using it for background info …
I mean, honestly…
— Tom Whipple (@whippletom) November 5, 2018
genuine q – what happens here? is there any formal mechanism for censure or do they just quietly do an edit and that's all?
— Imran Khan (@imrankhan) November 5, 2018
I think our lawyers collect the most egregious examples, and then go asking for money in bulk. But it's a real hassle.
— Tom Whipple (@whippletom) November 5, 2018
Maybe if the article in question was less derivative and negative it would've been harder to get away with!
— Andrew (@amateurscotsman) November 5, 2018
A) it wasn’t derivative
B) it wasn’t negative
C) that’s not a sequitur— Tom Whipple (@whippletom) November 5, 2018
And then it happened again.
wow! This Tom Whipple who is beset by rising costs and delays is popping up everywhere. https://t.co/H1BkIsPeGt
— Tom Whipple (@whippletom) November 5, 2018
Which all reminded someone of this Metro classic.
My favourite Metro story ever pic.twitter.com/mi4Yeu7B4s
— Matt Hill (@gethill) November 6, 2018
