Daily fail taking stories off here

Well, lots of posts on Mumsnet begin by quoting a Daily Mail article.

sauce for the goose…..

Not a fan of the Mail, but it does seem a bit unfair that they get attacked for lifting stories from here, when so many other online "news" sites do the same. So many clickbait articles are just lifted straight from here, or more often, reddit. We're just basically posting free content for them. Although, why are most people reading AIBU anyway? Isn't it mainly for entertainment? How is that different from reading the same story in an article?

It's not lazy journalism. It's just a way of gathering stories that may be of interest to their readers.

If your problems are so severe you don't want anyone else to know, then posting them on a public parenting forum is very silly.

Years ago you had young journalists cycling round on push bikes listening to local gossips to try and pick up news.

This is just the modern equivalent.

It's common knowledge that the Mail (and other outlets) lift directly from here. If them publishing your thread is going to place you in danger then you were extremely naive not to make it less identifying.

£1000? I'll work for the DM for that.

More like £50. If that.

I get £80 for 1000 actual words on a subject I am knowledgeable about from one magazine, and 75ish for 800 words from another source, ditto subject matter.

No one is getting a grand for 'Someone on Mumsnet/reddit/Nethuns said....' and 'here are some quotes from other posters'.

The truth is, newpapers and magazines are dying, because people are getting their news and information online.

So that is where the news now is, and content providers need to provide content so they scrape the net for whatever folk are reading. Which typically is not 'heres some sensible info about x subject' and generally is 'here is some ridiculous gossip and stupidity from other humans like you'.

Jinx @JaniceBattersby and we even have the same initials... Spooky...

So don’t post then if posting on an anonymous forum is so dangerous

This comes up time and time again. MN is not some small, tiny little group in a corner of the internet. It's massive, and if you are a woman aged 30-60(?) in the UK then that's particularly true and you post on here, then you're basically posting on a billboard on the school run.

Never ever post anything on here that you wouldn't want on that billboard on the school run. Change details, name change so posts can't be linked and always always remember there's nothing small or private about this place.

You do know that MN share posts from here on Facebook: readership 2bn?

Most MN-based stories on the DM are used as filler by people whose job it is to turn social media content into stories. They’re certainly not lazy. They aren’t winning Pulitzers but that doesn’t mean they aren’t working really fucking hard to get a foothold. And most will actually get a lower number of pageviews than they do on MN, which is an absolutely huge website with 8m unique monthly users.

Anything you post on MN, you might as well go and shout it out in the town square tbh.

Lazy Journalists post their own threads on here … normally bat-shit crazy ones, so they can write a story on the bat-shit thread they started.

EG .. OP says “my Cat can understand semaphore” … 5 days late a story in The Mail “women believes Cat can understand semaphore” - with various replies from on here, and a healthy number of Daily Mail comments

Journo then gets paid £1000 for an article that took 5 minutes

Sometimes posts being repurposed can be a good thing, drawing the attention of a wider audience to an important issue etc. But newspapers are fully entitled to use any public resource as they see fit, nothing disgraceful or unethical about it at all. If you don't like the prospect of your post or comment being repeated, don't make them in the first place

Everything that you put on social media is available on the www.
It doesn't matter if it's a picture of your kneecap on Facebook, a post on here about your feeding everyone barbequed baboons bollox at a family gathering, once you press send and it's out there in the public domain then anyone can lift it and repost it.
It's unfortunate but it's the way it is and there's nothing anyone can do about it.
Even if you make a forum subscription only, journalist will simply pay it and continue reposting.
If you don't want your post ending up in the newspapers, then don't post.

When something on the Internet is free, it is safe to assume that you're the product.

I see MN threads posted all over the place. It's not just the press.

People need to realise this is not a private board. Thousands of people pass through every day.

Did you know that if you put a disclaimer on your posts, they can't lift it to use?

Honest guv.

so you think Journos only work for 11 months?

You want private, dont write it on an internet format which is there to make money from you - You are the commodity

How is this allowed?

How would you propose that it’s stopped?

It's nothing new. It's allowed because it's a public forum.

I really don't know how it could be stopped.

Private forum area, not available for non-members to read, only accessed for those who have been members over a certain amount of time?

MN is filled with journo accounts already, they've been here donkeys years, that horse has bolted, run the 3.15 at Ascot and gone to meet its maker at the glue factory already.

Subscription only area - possibly but again, as above, and that area unlikely to then be available to those in need of advice/help in dire moments...

Both options would lock out newer members in need of help, whilst not locking out journos.

If posting puts you in danger - don't post.

But surely the media behaving in an unethical manner can't be a huge shock to you?

This has been how many papers meet their requirement for content for years now.
It isn't just the Mail, its all of them, and it isn't just here either, its NetHuns, Reddit, Facebook... all over the place.

Once you hit post, that content no longer belongs to you, and MumsNet have little choice but to allow it, because stopping it is impossible.

Anyone can quote a chunk of content from somewhere else, as long as its properly attributed.

The bottom line is, don't post anything you don't want becoming public knowledge.

There is a way to do it

How is this allowed?. How would it be prevented though, and by whom? Don't get me wrong, I really dislike it, and it's the laziest form of 'journalism'. But when we put information on a very popular website, we have to accept that it might be shared elsewhere, discussed elsewhere, perhaps taken out of context or quoted selectively. That's just the nature of the beast.

I agree, it puts me off posting sometimes just in case anything ends up in the paper. It would be good if MN made some threads private and only viewable by members with accounts older than say a year (unless there is already a way to do this 😳) I haven't actually seen the thread or article in question but it's awful to think someone could be put in danger just so they can get some clicks.