Why is the MSM copying each other so obviously (and vigorously)?

I found this article aptly named 'Voters demand EU Referendum if Cameron becomes PM' by Patrick Hennessy and Melissa Kite at the Telegraph. Having listened to Daniel Hannan over at Calling England it appears that I am somewhat of a Field marshal of cynicism for I do not think Mr. Cameron will issue any kind of referendum even if the treaty has not taken legal personality upon entering Westminster. I simply do not trust Mr. Cameron to do what my vote supposes him to do. I do not trust him enough to exercise my democratic power on my behalf. He is as greasy as a barrel full of eels - perfect for politics but rather improper for the descent people who are tired of their country becoming the back and beyond of the Western World.

Back to the article, the copy-paste begins quite unashamedly.

Here is exactly the same article copied straight from (I presume) the Telegraph.

Pressure on Tories over Referendum by Ananova
Pressure on Tories over Referendum by Loughbrough Echo
Pressure on Tories over Referendum by the Southport Visiter

WTF? Journalistic integrity anyone? Just to draw a parallel with one of the aspects of the Lisbon Treaty - the more law the less justice, they would do well in remembering that. British people might be the most reluctant to stand up to its oppressors (see WWII) but there will be hell to pay if we do. Personally I would prefer to remove Labour from government by force. Losing an election is just not adequate punishment for them for all the utter crap they have put us through.

Ad hominem article backfire badly

An ad hominem arguments consists of appealing to the character of the source of the argument, rather than the substance of the argument itself. This trend can be seen very clearly in British media with regards to the BNP-though still vile racist pigs-the media cannot attack their policies for they are wildly popular amongst the electorate or are at least growing exponentially in popularity. We read that the BNP has the most popular political website in the UK. That is a cause for concern. The BNP are growing up. Since they are rising to fame rather quickly one cannot respond with old dead-beat adages about the BNP or their characters, it does not work, it is not popular and quite frankly you look like a right dick when you, a supposedly respected British news paper, cannot come up with anything better than this kind of bollocks for a BNP-blitzkrieg. I do not support the BNP but that is just ridiculous.

If you want to make a grown up attack on the BNP attack their policies and have them defend them. Simple. Crash and Burn is the most likely outcome.

But the issue is not the BNP, it is the Times' foray on the BNP which is quite frankly not acceptable in the manner it is presented and for its journalistic bias - words which are mutually exclusive.

1. The Times refer to a "war book" that was leaked and-horror-internal. The little booklet is freely available to download on the BNP website.
2. Would this kind of journalism ever touch the sacrosanct main parties, would they ever comment upon body parts of the government? Highly unlikely. Jim Diggory of Worcestershire, in the comment section points out that:

It is interesting to compare the thinly veiled hostility towards the BNP enshrined within this article with its uncritical reference to Searchlight, a Marxist organisation having criminal connections both past and present, closely associated with the Labour Party.

3. The more spotlight they get the more attention the get and the more clicks they get... This is clearly brain dead and biased bollocks. They do not seem to comprehend that the more negative criticism they bestow upon the BNP the more angry people are going to get about their journalism for being so utterly and completely partial. At the time of writing there were 19 comments posted on the article. I have read one which was appreciative of its contents.

The BNP are open, even wanting, for criticism and the best a professional news outlet could produce was an article about skinhead-hiding. Pathetic.