Workings of Victorian Press: Same story in multiple papers

[JeffHamm]

Hi all,

We often find the same story reported in multiple papers. By same story, I mean nearly verbatim copies, not just two stories covering the same incident but clearly written by different reporters.

It got me thinking about how little I know about the workings of the Victorian press. I could think of three broad reasons why this may happen:
1) the Central News Agency, or some such thing, would send out a standard story that multiple papers would publish if they had no reporter present to write their own copy
2) there were reporters who worked independently of any given paper and who sold their story to multiple papers
3) papers would effectively plagiarize each other and just reprint a story obtained from another paper

Given how we often have to rely upon the press for some information, and given how the press at the time can be demonstrated to have some facts wrong, we often have to rely on cross-validation of the information. Things commonly stated in more newspapers are taken as more reliable than things that only appear in one, for example. And if there are contradictions, we often go with the idea that the minority reports are erroneous.

However, when the exact same story is represented in multiple newspapers, that can only be viewed as a single presentation (it doesn't matter how many times I copy and paste this post, if I make a typo, I still just made one typo no matter how many times I duplicate the text).

While I'm sure we all know that, what I realize I don't know is how we come to have those repeated stories in the first place?

Can anyone share their knowledge of how the Victorian press operated with regards to this? It's bugging me that I don't know such things about the workings of a source of information that we so often have to resort to, for good or for ill.

Thanks.

- Jeff

[Kattrup]

Hi Jeff

I don't have a detailed knowledge of Victorian press practice, so I cannot really add much factually. It's my understanding that 1) would be the norm, 2) uncommon if we're talking about daily reports but fairly common for independent "writers" or feature journalists submitting longer background articles to publications for instance in both the UK and the US and 3) happened but usually with a byline of "The Times reports that etc."

I just wanted to add that the topic of newspapers as a historical source is a mostly unresolved mess in the field of historical methodology, for some of the reasons you mention - lack of correct attribution, imprecision, blatant copying etc.

Plural independent accounts of the same matter do reinforce their version, but one should not solely on that basis discount minority reports.

Other things to consider:
- the newspaper's trustworthiness overall, editorial oversight, sensationalism, bias. E.g. The Star vs. The Times.
- proximity to events - temporally - earlier sources are more reliable than later (this may seem paradoxical in a developing investigation where time estimates can be adjusted as the new evidence comes into play - but it isn't, it just means our best sources are the ones closest in time to the question we're attempting to examine, which is another matter. I.e. memoires are less reliable than contemporary reports) - and geographically - The London Times knows more about events in London than the Auckland Times. (Of course, large papers in other cities had their own reporters who'd then be geographically close).
- understanding of the genre or type of article, the structure of how e.g. inquest reports were compiled, which details were preferred.

[Wickerman]

Jeff.

I've read a great deal on the Victorian press over the years. I'll just try to answer a few of your points.

The evening papers (Star, Echo, Evening News, etc.) often did copy stories from the Dailies, ie the morning press (Times, Telegraph, Morning Advertiser, Standard, etc.), but also the weekend papers (Reynolds, Lloyds, Sunday Express, etc.) copied from all the daily papers morning or evening.

It is always necessary to check the morning papers for a story if you find it in an evening or weekend paper - the morning press is usually the first to publish a story - but not always!
One point to remember, the morning papers go to press over night, so what they publish at 5:00am are stories from the evening before. Whereas evening papers typically report the days events up to about 2-3:00pm, when they in turn went to press to publish by 5:00pm, or thereabouts.

As far as who originates stories, that is often an agency like Central News, Press Association, etc. there were three or four agencies but those two mentioned were the most common source.
Next, these agencies sold their stories & distributed them across the UK by telegraph, so it is not unusual to see a story break in London, Ireland & Scotland at the same time - the morning papers.

Add to that, a paper may chose to edit the agency source, whereas some reports will begin with, The Press Association reports...., others will just publish the story, and some will edit the story down - space was always a premium in London papers. Which means it can be a benefit to look in regional, Welsh, Scottish or Irish papers for a more complete version of a story that was published in a London paper.
Also, a story may begin "our reporter writes...", leaving the reader to think the newspaper had their own reporter on the story, whereas in a contemporary newspaper that same story may begin with: "Central News says - our reporter writes...."
Newspapers were known to take credit for stories they had bought from an agency.

Your points 1, 2, 3, are all true to a certain extent.

[Michael W Richards]

I think your possibilities 1 thru 3 could all be applicable, and for point 1, much like the modern AP, reproduced stories need not have a reporter to get published.

[JeffHamm]

Thanks everyone. That all makes sense to me.

- Jeff

[drstrange169]

It's the same principle as today, or was until Reuter's recent demise.

Daily Mail online infamously "borrows" other peoples stories, unpaid or credited. And of course, in YouTube, blogs and various amateur social media it is rife.
Stories that appear different in the mainstream press are often simply the result of sub editors re-writing them in the newspapers own style.This can often result in chinese whisper errors in minor details and is certainly evident in ripper reports.