Err?

Sometimes, you have to wonder whether people really have no imagination, or whether there's something more nefarious at work.  Look, for example, at these two articles - one from the Post, and one from the New York Times.  

They have the same premise - America's blue chip stocks are crumbling.  Reasonable enough that two major newspapers would have a story on that issue given the calamitous state of the stock market, you think.  But the similarities stretch far beyond general theme. They both start by comparing the price of a share of Citigroup to something else - an ATM fee for the Post, and an item at the dollar store for the Times.  Both describe Citigroup's falling below $1.00 as having "broke the buck".  Both refer back to Citigroup's price of $55 two years ago. Both mention that a share of GM isn't enough to buy a gallon of gasoline.  Both compare the price of a share of GE to something else.  Remarkably enough, to precisely the same something else, "compact fluorescent lightbulbs".    Thankfully, they disagree on just how many lightbulbs one gets to buy with that share.

I'm sure, if I had the time or inclination to compare them further, I'd discover even more to list here.  In any case, though, it seems likely that both authors cribbed substantial portions of their articles from some common source. Is there a journalistic practice I'm unaware of that legitimizes this kind of half-plagiarism? 

UPDATE: I was mistaken.  The Post refers to compact fluorescent flood lightbulbs.  There's some good reporting for ya.  Also, in case anyone thinks that "breaking the buck" is a common way to refer to a stock going below a dollar, it's not.  Finance people typically talk about "breaking a buck" when the NAV of a money market fund falls below a dollar - which incidentally is a shocking, world-changing catastrophe that has happened recently. Not when a stock falls below a dollar.