Here's a strange coincidence. On Wednesday, the Daily Mail ran a piece headlined Electronic devices may cause plane crashes - and older aircraft are especially vulnerable.

Two days before, the New York Times carried a story headlined Interfering with flight?

There were uncanny similarities between the two. Note, for instance, these paragraphs:

NYT: "Many of these devices transmit a signal, and all of them emit electromagnetic waves, which, in theory, could interfere with the plane's electronics. At the same time, older planes might not have the best shielding against the latest generation of devices, some engineers said.

Mail: "Most personal devices transmit a signal and all of them emit electromagnetic waves which, in theory, could interfere with the plane's electronics. At the same time, older planes might not have the best protection against the latest generation of devices."

The Mail even managed to carry the same quotes as the Times's writer, Christine Negroni:

NYT: "It's a good news-bad news thing," said David Carson, an engineer with Boeing. Electronic devices do not cause problems in every case, he said. "And that's good," he said. "It's bad in that people assume it never will."

Mail: 'It's a good news-bad news thing,' said David Carson, an engineer with Boeing. 'Electronic devices do not cause problems in every case. And that's good. It's bad in that people assume it never will.'

And how about this? Both writers tracked down the same passenger and elicited the same quotes:

NYT: Some passengers are like Nicole Rodrigues of Los Angeles, who acknowledges that she listens to music on her cellphone when she is not supposed to. "In my head, I imagine it not being a problem," she said. "The whole airplane is filled with electronics that are constantly on. Is my little cellphone going to make that big of a difference?"

Mail: One airline passenger, Nicole Rodrigues of Los Angeles, acknowledges that she listens to music on her mobile phone when she is not supposed to. 'In my head, I imagine it not being a problem,' she said. 'The whole airplane is filled with electronics that are constantly on. Is my little cellphone going to make that big of a difference?'

And what about this? They also got the same quotes from the same expert:

NYT: John Darbo, an air safety consultant and former airline executive who was a member of the group that helped the F.A.A. develop rules, said airlines could not police passengers or stop them from bringing electronics on the airplane. "Do you expect us to do that?" he asked. "That's absurd. What we have to do is tell them what's going on, elicit their cooperation and harden the airplanes."

Mail: John Darbo, an air safety consultant and former airline executive who was a member of the group that helped the FAA develop rules, said airlines could not police passengers or stop them from bringing electronics on the airplane. 'Do you expect us to do that?' he asked. 'That's absurd. What we have to do is tell them what's going on, elicit their cooperation and harden the airplanes.'

Well, they do say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. But plagiarism is a different matter.

Some US commentators are less than impressed with the Mail's blatant cut-and-paste job. See Romenesko (Somebody call the plagiarism police on the Daily Mail) and the New York Observer's Media Mob writer, Daily Mail plagiarises the New York Times, who asked sarcastically: "So what's the protocol for this? Bow in shame? Academic probation? Flowers?"

NB: The original version of this blog named the Mail writer as Liz Thomas (because the Mail site's story carried her byline). It transpired that her name should not have been placed on the story. It was, said a Mail spokesman, an in-house sub-editorial error. Incidentally, it also appears that the first version of the Mail online's story did carry an attribution to the New York Times. This was inexplicably removed by a sub.