Compare Documents
This page compares two reports at the document level. The column on the left shows the first report and the column in the middle shows the second. The column on the right highlights any differences between the two documents. Pink shows differences in the first report and purple in the second report. The Match percentage shows the percentage of similarity between the two documents.
Dublin Evening Telegraph - Friday, April 5, 1895
London, Friday Morning. [...] The length at which the London papers, both morning and evening, have reported the evidence in the Queensberry libel suit has excited a good deal of remark. The St James’s Gazette, with rather ostentatious self-righteousness, issued a placard yesterday describing itself as "the only paper containing no report of the Wilde libel suit," which undoubtedly must have been a recommendation in the eyes of many, if not most, newspaper readers. The Freeman, however, without any such proclamation, confined its report to the briefest and baldest account of the case. In the later edition of the St James’s the following note appeared—"The editor of the Daily Chronicle presents his compliments to the editor of the St James’s Gazette, and while, in view of the grave public questions involved, he does not see his way to a complete suppression of the report of the Queensberry case, he desired to co-operate with the editor of the St. James’s in preserving the public from familiarity with the grosser aspects of the trial in its further developments." This is a very proper attitude, and doubtless it will be imitated by the London papers before the case has concluded. [...]
The Freeman’s Journal - Friday, April 5, 1895
London, Friday Morning.
[...]The length at which the London papers, both morning and evening, have reported the evidence in the Queensberry libel suit has excited a good deal of remark. The St James's Gazette, with rather ostentations self-righteousness, issued a placard yesterday ascribing itself as "the only paper containing no report of the Wilde libel suit," which undoubtedly must have been a recommendation in the eyes of many, if not most, newspaper readers. The Freeman, however, without any such proclamation, confined its report to the briefest and baldest account of the case. In the later edition of the St James's the following note appeared—"The editor of the Daily Chronicle presents his compliments to the editor of the St James's Gazette, and while, in view of the grave public questions involved, he does not see his way to a complete suppression of the report of the Queensberry case, he desires to operate with the editor of the St. James's in preserving the public from familiarity with the grosser aspects of the trial in its further developments." This is a very proper attitude, and doubtless it will be imitated by the London papers before the case concluded.