Gus Gould - Similarities in Column

[j_tig]

That isn't exactly correct. The original article as published in the Sun Herald does not contain that line you just mentioned. It was added in later editions published after complaints were recieved, either Gould didn't aknowledge the source in the first place, or the Herald left out that line intentionaly so readers would think it was his own work, either way Media Watch are quite right to point out the flaw.

yes they are, but however they should also point out thtat this was changed in the later editions

 

[Razor]

Maybe he could have given the original source

The original source was an email. The site Mediawatch mentioned wasn't the original source. The original source was an anonymous email, which that site mentioned. I got this on email recently - it's a nostalgia fest for an Australian childhood. is what appears on the Greasy Spoon site before the article.

That isn't exactly correct. The original article as published in the Sun Herald does not contain that line you just mentioned

It's in the paper I have, purchased at 9:15am. And there's only one print in QLD. So the version I have was the first and only one that was printed up here.

Whether Gould says it's his own work or not shouldn't matter. If you had a school assignment that was plagiarised and you said, "oh I got it off this internet site", should that mean you don't get penalised for it?

But this isn't a school assignment. Read Bennett's articles. He often says "I was talking to a guy on the bus who said...". So are you sayin Bennett shouldn't print that either?

And even if it was a school assignment, it would be given a passmark as the reference was given. And the way it was intertwined into his article was okay.

 

[Green Machine]

I read that dribble from Gould in the Sun Herald, and he never said “I flogged this dribble off the internet”

 

[Razor]

I read that dribble from Gould in the Sun Herald, and he never said “I flogged this dribble off the internet”

No he didn't say "I flogged this dribble off the internet". No one said he did. He said "I recieved an email several years ago. I'll share a part of it with you". And the amount of the article that was the email was less than 50% of the article.

 

[Green Machine]

No he didn't say "I flogged this dribble off the internet". No one said he did. He said "I recieved an email several years ago. I'll share a part of it with you". And the amount of the article that was the email was less than 50% of the article.

He probably should have said, “In the days before things were plagiarise off the internet, life was simple and kids didn’t sit around looking at the internet and were outside kicking a footy around" (and then add on the rest of his plagiarised dribble). If you believe the e-mail bit, you’ll believe in the one about the three bears as well,

 

[Razor]

He probably should have said, “In the days before things were plagiarise off the internet, life was simple and kids didn’t sit around looking at the internet and were outside kicking a footy around" (and then add on the rest of his plagiarised dribble). If you believe the e-mail bit, you’ll believe in the one about the three bears as well,

I have the paper. It is in the paper. I've recieved that email about 100 times the past 3 years.

 

[Green Machine]

I have the paper. It is in the paper. I've recieved that email about 100 times the past 3 years.

Did you send it to Gus. I got about half way through the article and felt like sitting in a dentist chair with drill on,

 

[Razor]

Did you send it to Gus. I got about half way through the article and felt like sitting in a dentist chair with drill on,

No I didn't send it to him

It's one of the most popular emails going around.

Even the site that Media Watch mentions (Greasy Spoon) has at the top of the article "I got this on email recently" from the user (David) who posted it.

 

[Green Machine]

Tell ya what Razer, I think I have last week’s Sun Herald in the Yellow Recycling Bin. I think last week was Green Waste collection in my area. When I get home tonight, I’ll dig around between all the dead marine beer bottles and fish it out and give it another read. Most of them chain e-mails I receive, I usually just delete them if I don’t see something funny in them. I’m sure if someone sent me an e-mail on how wonderful life was back when the Christian Bros and Scout Leaders were running amuck, I would have just deleted it,

 

[Razor]

I usually just delete them if I don’t see something funny in them.

It's not meant to be funny

 

[Green Machine]

It's not meant to be funny

You’re Right. Dribble like that is tragic

 

[Razor]

Well the copy I had delivered to my door last sunday does not contain that line stating "it reminds me of an email I recieved...", and it does not have the adapted text in quotation marks either.

There is no point in arguing with this and there was *edited* that the majority of the article was taken from an email, most likely from the editors rather than from Gould himself.

Where was the clear intention? It was in the version I have, which would have been printed before anybody in Australia would have had their copy. A printing error does NOT quantify as "clear intention"

Probably a printing error in NSW. The QLD edition is printed at the News Ltd printing press up here (exactly the same as elsewhere except for "QLD Edition" in the top right-corner of thee front page")

You said it. There's no point in arguing this. A printing error on several copies does not mean "clear intention"

 

[Joes Milk Bar]

Well the copy I had delivered to my door last sunday does not contain that line stating "it reminds me of an email I recieved...", and it does not have the adapted text in quotation marks either.

There is no point in arguing with this

same here now can someone shut razor up

 

[Razor]

You’re Right. Dribble like that is tragic

You're a disgrace you know that?

You do know the person who originally wrote that had a son murdered while walking home from work in Melbourne?

 

[Razor]

Well the copy I had delivered to my door last sunday does not contain that line stating "it reminds me of an email I recieved...", and it does not have the adapted text in quotation marks either.

same here now can someone shut razor up

Since when is 524 words from 1076 a majority? It's less than half the article. The other 552 words are Goulds own.

No one has said that the initial print run in NSW omitted it.

But it is called a "printing error"

Calling it "clear intention to mislead" is highly defamatory and could get this site sued by both the Herald and Gould. I enjoy posting here. But if the site gets sued, then the forum will close down, for the same reason most club forums have shut down. Also saying he didn't write the majority of the article when he wrote more than half(and the other 48% he had to go through and select the most appropriate selections from the article) is also defamatory and is another case that the site could get into trouble.

Same as if you posted something in here, and I said you didn't write most of that. You could sue both the site and me.

 

[Razor]

Double Post

 

[Eels Dude]

Where was the clear intention? It was in the version I have, which would have been printed before anybody in Australia would have had their copy. A printing error does quantify as "clear intention"

Probably a printing error in NSW. The QLD edition is printed at the News Ltd printing press up here (exactly the same as elsewhere except for "QLD Edition" in the top right-corner of thee front page")

You said it. There's no point in arguing this. A printing error on several copies does not mean "clear intention"

Doesn't the fact that there are two different versions of the article in circulation tell you anything? A missing line and missing quotations marks does not occur from a printing error, it occurs from an error in the editing of the article.

It must be a coincidence that the one line missing from early copies of the article happened to be the one line where Gould aknowledged his source?

In hindsight my use of the term 'clear intention' is probably a little unfair, it was more of a careless overlooking of rules regarding plagiarism.

 

[Razor]

Doesn't the fact that there are two different versions of the article in circulation tell you anything? A missing line and missing quotations marks does not occur from a printing error, it occurs from an error in the editing of the article.

It must be a coincidence that the one line missing from early copies of the article happened to be the one line where Gould aknowledged his source?

A printing error can also mean the wrong version being printed.

Gould could have written it. The sub-editor omitted the line. It was fixed up. But the sub-editor's version was submitted to the printers in NSW, not the final version.

That is a "Printing error", not "clear intention to mislead". The fact the the correct version was sent to the QLD printers makes that perfectly clear even if nothing else does(which the other things should anyway)

 

[El Diablo]

2GB said last week that it was a sub editor, not Gould.

Hadley spotted the article and had recalled receiving the email and obviously the SMH contacted him about it after hearing him talk about it on air.

 

[Game_Breaker]

Most of the article is the e-mail. He's not supposed to get paid to copy and paste