To be shocked at the Daily Mail getting stories from mumsnet

[shatteredmama]

Well, I'm not that shocked at all really, but this level of lazy journalism is something else. I remember the featured thread on here well, and was going to comment at the time, this'll make me think twice about commenting on threads in the future...

www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3512349/Mothers-reveal-eye-watering-comments-midwives-childbirth.html

nick sorry, don't know where the random k came from

I'm not. Through my job I come into contact with the 'reporters' from mailonline. What a bunch of lazy, fuckwit, ambulance chasing, morons they are.

Life as a Daily Mail journalist (and I use that term loosely) must be grim. When you're not trawling the internet for ISIS execution videos you're searching for 'shocking' exposure clips of celebs, all the while stories op about 'perverts' are run alongside stories featuring 'up skirt' flashes of teenage children of celebrities. Devoid of any journalistic integrity, you trawl Twitter for quotes and stories about schlebs and Facebook for photographs for 'real life' stories, mainly about people who never asked for fame in the first place but have been caught up in unfortunate circumstances.

If you are a Daily Mail journalist reading this, what you are doing puts bread on the table, I appreciate that fact, however, didn't you want to be doing some serious journalism? Didn't you sign up for serious writing and exposés, didn't you want to be Frost interviewing Nixon? Have you not sold your soul to the lowest bidder? (Though admittedly the lowest bidder would be a dirty Desmond publication. We're not quite at the Daily Express yet).

Seriously, is this the best you can do, to troll popular message boards with contentious subjects and relay the results as 'journalism'?

Seriously, is this the best you can do, to troll popular message boards with contentious subjects and relay the results as 'journalism'?

Yes.

Next question?

I'm not. Through my job I come into contact with the 'reporters' from mailonline. What a bunch of lazy, fuckwit, ambulance chasing, morons they are.

I'm really not surprised.

That "Which MP would be the best lover" was quoted in the fail and other places. There were several mumsnetter quotes in that.

Looking on the UK's most popular parenting board to see what middle-aged mums are talking about, when those middle-aged mums are your target audience, is not lazy journalism. It's smart. OK, it's not going to win the Paul Foot award, but if you're expected to churn out 7 leads a day, then you can't be doing 7 in-depth features on matters of public interest because you wouldn't have the time.

If people didn't want to read it, they wouldn't publish it. So if you don't like it, don't read the Mail. Yes, all of you clicking on the sidebar of shame, just sneaking a look at what Katie Hopkins is saying now, checking what the Kardashians are up to...

I wish every story that is posted on the DM, and other news websites, could be important and worthy and intelligent, but honestly no one would bother to read them.

If I do a story on some form or corruption in our local authority, I get maybe 1000 hits. If I do a listicle on the nightclubs that have closed in our town over the past 30 years, I get 10,000 hits. The corruption story makes me feel great, like a proper journalist, and is infinitely more important than the latter. But the nightclub listicle is what people want to read and if we don't put stuff out that people want to read, we'll go out of business pretty quickly. There's a place for both types of story.

(I'm not a DM journalist)

Read that thread through tears of laughter. So glad I didn't comment/make a dick of myself.

Publishibg opinions on a public forum counts as it being in the public domain and is therefore not subject to copyright. The mail and anyone else can do as they please

Far from banning them from doing it, I expect MNHQ are absolutely delighted when a story gets covered in the national press. It's wonderful publicity and they are a business. I work in the media. I wouldn't be surprised if they issue press releases about juicy posts in the hope of getting coverage.

You are posting your comments on a globally available website, so you shouldn't think that anything you post on here is private or that you have any control over what happens to it afterwards. Whether the comments are on dailymail.com or mumsnet.com it's the same thing - anyone can see them. This is not a private club.

Most people just have no idea of what newspaper journalists do. A lot of the time they are just re-writing press releases that come directly into their inbox complete with quotes, photos and all the info they need. But none of you would read the resulting story and think it was "lazy". Conducting internet research, finding something that you know will be interesting to your editor and your readers, and actually turning it into a story requires more time and effort than that. And none of this is lazy, it's just standard journalistic practice.

Right now newspapers are in real crisis, laying off so many staff and expecting the rest to come up with enough copy to fill the columns. So if you want to continue to see time-consuming investigations along with these kind of stories then just make sure you keep buying the newspapers.

I wouldn't worry too much. There website pumps out more stories per day than there is threads on this forum. Average readership is probably less than 2 per story.

What concerns me is the amount of trolling on here atm, and the fact that every time I read a thought provoking thread my immediate response is 'oh. Another lazy journo.'

It's happening all the time now.

Re the poop 💩 emoji
I know this says application but the principle is the same
You would need permission from Apple to use their emoji set. They can't copyright the poop emoji, but they can copyright their poop emoji.

I really don't believe that Apple would have licensed their particular set, so if someone is using that exact set they will be infringing. It's best not to go down that road because you don't want a suit from them and have to change all your products.

As I said before, think of it like fonts. You can't copyright the letter G, but you can copyright the G of your own typeface.

I have a Times subscription, and sometimes look at Mail online as well. They lift stories wholesale from there too. They are the only stories that are written with no spelling and grammar errors, so you can spot them a mile off. When we lose our right to a free press, no one will care, because all that we will have left are crappy stories about the Kardashians and poorly written articles lifted from the internet, where people have written them for free.

Mumsnet topics appear everywhere on tv a thread starts and its either on loose women the wright stuff or this morning so i guess a news paper is no different.

I'm glad they read MN and can see that I regularly post that they are toxic and evil.

YABU to be shocked, yes.

Times now running it..

The Mail and Mumsnet are both commercial businesses.
They certainly have different ethics and agendas, but they both need exposure and publicity to succeed and profit. They both benefit from the cross feeding that goes on.

There is no level so low that the Daily Mail won't stoop to it. They are happy enough to print photos of dead children so I doubt they would bat an eyelid at lifting quotes from Mumsnet. They are the scum of the earth.

Don't forget their pictures of 15 year old girls 'flaunting' their bodies, and their nauseating use of 'All Grown Up'.
That's a particularly vile DM thing. Foul rag.