Sharing reporters means they work twice as hard?

[Joel S. Berson]

On Monday, the lead article in The Boston Globe was titled "Khadafy
foes gain in Libya turmoil", by David D. Kirkpatrick and Mona
El-Naggar.  It begins: "Cairo--The son of Libyan leader Moammar
Khadafy warned in a nationally televised address early today ..."

I read a bit more, and then turned to the lead article in the same
day's New York Times, titled "Son of Qaddafi says Libya faces civil
war peril", by David D. Kirkpatrick and Mona El-Naggar.  It
begins:  "Cairo---A five-day-old uprising in Libya took control of
its second largest city... late on Sunday ...".

It slowly entered my consciousness that the two authors were the same
but what I was reading was different, and turning back to the Globe I
saw below their byline a credit to "New York Times".  The text (on
the first page, at least) of these two articles is entirely
different.  Did they write two articles for the wages of one?  (Was
either published at some point on-line on the *other* paper's web
site?  I didn't think to check that.)

On Tuesday the same two reporters got another lead article in each
paper.  Different headlines again, but now the first four paragraphs
at least are identical.  Except for the spelling of the
president.  And a reference in the Times to "By Monday night" is in
the Globe "By last night".  (The latter difference is puzzling, since
neither article is given a date; they are both datelined simply
"Cairo".  Meaning, I was once taught, that they both should be
understood as referring to Tuesday when they say "today".)

Curious.
Joel

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org