To think the Daily Mail are taking the piss?

[DailyFailAreABunchOfCunts]

As you may infer from my NN I am not a fan. However I saw this on today's Mail online:

DM Link

For those who don't want to click it, the DM have mined the recent thread from a poster who lost her DS at a young age, and was asking if she WBU to still buy clothes for him and join clubs. I remember the thread as it was really moving and so clear that the poster was struggling with her grief.

The Mail has lifted the story - and the child's name - lock, stock and barrel. I'd be interested in MNHQ's view on this. I realise that posts are in the public domain but this feels so horribly invasive.

I think MNHQ have the right to republish what you post (you don't totally own your own words - it's a commercial operation). But how did the Faily Mail get permission? Did they get permission?

Tatty, it's a good point about asking permission. I don't know for certain but I am going on the balance of probabilities. The DM has form for this. Plus if they had received the poster's permission then it would make sense to have made more of a story of it - i.e. included some actual content rather than just lifting screen grabs of the thread.

I wonder if there is a way that the website can only be viewed by members?

The problem with that though is that this site is a source of help and advice for so many people over so many things. In the past I've googled for advice as disparate as what washing machine to buy, what a normal sperm count is and cat ownership advice. Google throws up an MN thread for most topics. I would hate to think that someone couldn't find quick advice on coping with a miscarriage to leaving and abusive partner because it was hidden from them.

Charles - they do. And if MNHQ come on and say that they gave permission for the DM to use that thread then I will have one question about whether they asked the poster's permission. If they did then end of story. If they didn't then I will seriously question whether I want to be part of a forum where someone would sell someone's grief as advertising.

However I think it is far more likely that MNHQ had no idea, the poster has no idea and the DM journo has just used Ctrl+PrtScrn in the way that they do...

Haven't clicked on the link but I remember the post.

That's really low, but it's the DM, so what do you expect.

I'm probably missing something here, not terribly internet savvy, but how did they find out enough about her to be able to name her child without the poster giving her permission?

This Martha Cliff person sounds a delight. Someone suffering, let's rip them apart a bit more, hateful bitch, but then she probably takes pride in that fact.

MN terms of use state that you cannot reproduce for commercial purposes without permission

This is important. I've reported your post asking for comment, BunchOfCunts because I'd love to know what specific arrangements Mail Online has with MNHQ, given that they lift an awful lot of content from here.

It's not like Mail Online provides MN with good publicity, because all it ever seems to bring in is hoards of trolls and, well, Daily Mail readers.

It's a public forum

Oooh, I take back my previous comment (except the permission bit). I've just read the article and yes, it's utterly lazy work and clearly the originating poster hasn't been spoken to because there would be a 'proper' written story rather than a copy and paste job.

Disgusting and incompetent journalism. I'd' be mortified if something I'd shared in that way was reproduced for sensationalism. But, writer beware if this kind of poor 'journalism' is legal.

Pigs - the OP named her son on the thread. Only his first name, but there was also a pic of him that she shared. The whole thread was very identifiable but I get the impression that the OP wasn't too concerned about that - she was clearly struggling with her grief and she was getting lots of support and recommendations for counselling.

My concerns are that this poster might not know that her very private grief is now on a major news website, and that this may deter other posters from using MN as a source of support and help. If the DM are willing to mine a story about a child's death, then what's next? Alcoholism? Teen troubles? Domestic abuse?

If the DM are willing to mine a story about a child's death, then what's next? Alcoholism? Teen troubles? Domestic abuse?

Yes. This is not a priest's confessional

It has always previously felt like a fine line to walk - most people aren't thrilled at the prospect that one of Paul Dacre's crew is 'virtually' present. However they accept it as an inevitable consequence of a public forum and know that it's likely that funny threads - like penis beaker - will probably end up in the Mail. However my understanding has always been that there is a line you don't cross - very personal threads where someone is asking for help, like the OP in this case - are not fair game. If MNHQ is willing to turn a blind eye to the DM doing something like this, then I think it needs to be made clear that this will be where the 'new line' is - i.e. there isn't one anymore and absolutely everything you post - including in Health, Teens, OTBT - will be considered a possible article for a journalist.

Seriously, are the journalists at the DM given empathy bypasses on their first day?

I wonder if the journos family and friends have seen the article. Or how they would feel if any children they have now or in the future saw it. Or how they would feel if someone did this to them at a moment of grief, or to someone they care about. This article will be linked to their name forever, so I hope they're comfortable with what they've done.

I just cannot fathom how enthusiastic 18 year olds go off to do journalism degrees, intent on reporting on politics, war and famine- and come out the end with a moral compass so skewed that they think this kind of thing is ok.

I met a man who worked in journalism for a bit in the 1980s once. I asked him why he left, and he said he just couldn't knock on the doors of the bereaved in the hope of a scoop. This kind of journalism is even worse- the reporter hadn't even had the guts to speak to a bereaved parent in the flesh.

I do think that MN need to do something to protect vulnerable posters. I wonder if some articles could only be viewed when logged in, for example.

My other thought is that we all add "ThinksTheDailyFailAreScum" to the end of our usernames- I wouldn't mind if they quoted me then!

Limited - it states in MNHQ that content cannot be reproduced for commercial purposes without MNHQ'd permission. If they have given their permission then people should know - because I think there are a lot of people who would be shocked if that is the case (me included).

If MNHQ haven't given permission, then they need to advise what they are going to do to stop this, otherwise it is going to impact on the confidence of people being able to use the site.

Aside from anything else, there is a genuine risk that a grieving parent has no idea that their very identifiable story is currently on one of the UK's largest news sites.

They can print this for free:

'Fuck off daily mail, you bunch of vultures. You wouldn't know proper journalism if it bit you on the arse'

How predictably vile of the DM.
I'm no expert, but I do wonder if the poor OP can sue for slander, or something...
I'll bet if this was the US, they'd have the DM journalist's arse on a stick by now.
Would be interesting to know MNHQ's view...

Absolutely fucking disgraceful. Truly. I'm flabbergasted and very upset for the poster involved. I hope she is OK (as she can be anyway) and this doesn't effect her or anyone else needing support in a negative way

If it was in the public domain then no, she has no recall.

This crap gives proper journalists a bad name.

Reporting to MNHQ to see if they will respond

There is another thread in Chat about this - that I didn't spot before I started this one:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/_chat/2623657-DM-has-gone-too-far?trending=1

DailyFail I think MNHQ should comment on the end of a thread that they have agreed can be used for commercial purposes.

I think that's a good idea Rae. I am also conscious that other posters shared their own stories of loss and grief on there. The idea that a journo has spotted it and decided that it would make a good filler article is horrifying and rage-inducing at the same time.

DailyFailAreABunchOfCunts I too would be worried about the impact this may have on this grieving lady. It's despicable.

Limited - it states in MNHQ that content cannot be reproduced for commercial purposes without MNHQ'd permission. If they have given their permission then people should know - because I think there are a lot of people who would be shocked if that is the case (me included).

AFAIK that is not true. There is such a thing as fair use. Off the top of my head, an outlet can use about a third of direct content without fear of reprisal. It is courtesy to give a credit but not essential - again AFAIK. I also doubt that MN would get very far in an argument with the Daily Mail's legal department.

Ah Okay Daily didn't remember she'd named him.

Even worse then. Poor woman is in such a state of grief that she over shares to that extent and some lazy jurno thinks 'oh yeah that'll fill a space'. Words fail me.