A website is claiming to know the “truth behind” rumors linking Robert Pattinson and Emma Watson, but it stole this information from Gossip Cop. We can bust the outlet for taking our proprietary reporting and using it without any attribution or credit.
Last month, Celebrity Insider first asserted that Pattinson was “now linked” to Watson, but maintained “the report should be taken with a grain of salt.” Then earlier this month, the site wondered if Pattinson and Watson took their “secret relationship public at the Golden Globes.” In this article, the blog noted that recently “tabloids have linked him to everyone from Katy Perry to his ex-girlfriend and Twilight co-star Kristen Stewart,” but added, “Gossip Cop has shut down all the rumors so far.”
Then on Saturday, there was headline that made little sense as it appeared to be missing a word: “People Are Shipping Emma Watson And Robert Pattinson Hard, But Is The ‘Harry Potter’ Real?” Here the website said that their purported connection “appears to be solely a rumor,” but still added, “As you know in Hollywood, anything can happen.” That brings us to Sunday’s story, which is titled, “The Truth Behind Those Robert Pattinson And Emma Watson One Night Stand Rumors.”
While the site correctly writes in this latest piece that a tabloid tale about the actor hitting on the actress is untrue, it inexcusably copied Gossip Cop‘s original debunking from last week about Pattinson being rejected by Watson. This is not a matter of a blog simply picking up our reporting and sharing the accurate information. Sentence after sentence is specifically based on lines in our article, without any recognition of our work as the source.
It starts somewhat innocuously. Whereas we wrote, “The multiple reports wrongly lead fans to believe there could be some merit to them,” Celebrity Insider states, “Multiple tabloids have been reporting that there is something going on between Robert Pattinson and Emma Watson, leading fans to believe that there could be some merit to the story.”
Gossip Cop went on to write: “Celebrities participating in awards shows typically don’t choose their presenting partners. And to assume two stars are in a relationship simply because they shared the stage for a few minutes is ridiculous.” This outlet similarly asserts, “The problem is, celebrities don’t choose who they present with at an awards show. So, the fact that Pattinson and Watson shared a few minutes on stage together in no way means the two are in a relationship.”
We reported: “We’re told by contacts on both sides that this supposed incident ‘never happened.’ They each had fun at the ceremony, but Pattinson never hit on Watson and she never rejected him.” The copycats assert, “The incident simply never happened. Reps for both Watson and Pattinson say that the two actors had fun at the awards ceremony, but he didn’t hit on her and she didn’t reject him.”
Gossip Cop further pointed out: “In late November, it was revealed Watson and her boyfriend had split. So, after it was confirmed she was single, the National Enquirer chose to randomly tie her to Pattinson less than three weeks later… One tabloid fabricated a romantic connection and inspired its fellow gossip magazines to copy and do the same. But all of these claims are just as fictional as the Harry Potter series itself.”
Celebrity Insider offered, “Once Watson split from her boyfriend, entrepreneur William ‘Mack’ Knight, back in November, meaning both she and Pattinson were single, tabloids started to randomly tie the two together just three weeks later. Once one outlet fabricated the romantic connection, others picked it up and copied the story. But, it is all complete fiction.”
The website is clearly familiar with our work since, as mentioned above, one of its previous posts specifically referenced Gossip Cop “shut[ting] down all the rumors.” So there is no excuse for taking our reporting for this new article but not providing credit. Celebrity Insider is touting that it has the “truth,” but that “truth” was stolen, which is why our meter here is a zero. And though the sentences weren’t directly copied and pasted, the paraphrases are still close enough, and some of the phrases identical, that this undoubtedly falls under the category of plagiarism. See the comparisons in the screengrabs below.
Gossip Cop has determined this story is totally false.