To think that the Daily Mail should be prevented from using mumsnet thread for its articles

[Atenco]

I am a bit concerned about the number of mumsnet threads appearing in the Daily Mail. IMHO this could end up being dangerous for some posters

Pity the poor journalists, having to wade through pages and pages of MN threads, trolls and all, to pick up that one elusive gem

Ok this actually is my area .

Whilst the DM is particularly shit, and anyone who works there needs to take a long hard look at their life, the comparison to blaming shopworkers for queues is apt. Thanks to the relaxation of monopoly legislation since the 1980s, UK journalism is strictly business. It's not a public service and public money makes up only the tiniest fraction of its funding. Business owners want to churn out as much clickbait product with as few staff in as little time as possible. Result = demise of investigative journalism, photojournalists lose their jobs as images are sourced online, copy and paste etc. A study led by Prof Justin Lewis of Cardiff University in 2013 found that at least 80% of UK news is copied and pasted from PR etc with little or no change. The only way to change this situation is much, much tighter regulation on monopolies and more public money for the journalism sector. (Anyone who's interested, Nick Davies' book Flat Earth News is very readable and eye-opening and a great place to start looking into the issues).

Also re copyright: yes, Mnet owns the copyright, but citation of a minimal percentage of text, properly attributed, is perfectly legal. This is a good law, though naturally it has some annoying consequences.

It's lazy journalism, not that individual journalists are lazy. That's not that hard to understand either is it?

In fairness the lazy yoof journalists are probably the offspring of the first gen mnetters who discovered pissing about on the Internet and saying fuck a lot is more fun than doing adulting and parenting stuff. Apple doesn't fall far from the tree. We have only ourselves to blame [daily mail sad face]

Cricky Buckinbronco, are you in a really bad mood or something?

Iloveeverykindofcat

That 80% stat is really depressing.

In a world full of social media click bait, it's par for the course.

You can be outraged by it, but it won't make a difference.

There is no real journalism anymore.

That's a conservative estimate too, because it excludes the pieces whose history the researchers couldn't trace.

'Kaboom'! you're in the daily mail talking about your love of anal

Unlikely in my case. Though the Daily Mail could really turn me over in one of their features about people who wait for reduced items in supermarkets. I got a tub of Sainsbury's Taste The Difference chicken gravy reduced from £3 to 25p on Sunday. It was £1.49 but it was 10 minutes to closing time so I asked the person to reduce it one more time.

Not at all. I've only said the same thing you did re it not being that hard to understand

"They aren't breaching any form of copywrite; they're citing their sources and it's more of a commentary on a thread as opposed to simply copying the thread."

The DM and others can make quotes as part of their own original article. But if the whole or a substantial part of the work is copied without permission, that's copyright infringement. Surely if numerous quotes from MN are put together into an article with minimal other text, that's a "substantial part"?

www.gov.uk/guidance/enforcing-your-copyright

Ok - then I am misunderstanding your tone.

remember the DM is happy to hack the phones of dead/missing children

Erm, no. TrillKitten That was The News of the World. No Daily Mail employee has even been charged with phone hacking let alone convicted and they are aggressive in pointing that out.

If you're going to accuse journalists of not getting their facts straight, try to get yours right too.

And by "numerous quotes from MN" I don't mean the whole site, I'm particularly talking about from the same thread, which I guess could be thought of as the "work" i.e. original content?

I would probably get turned over in the Daily Mail for my fantastic knowledge of a certain 80s band, my love of cats and some dubious TV watching habits.

I was quoted in the DM once about Mandy Holden and in the Sunday Telegraph magazine about Tunnocks Tea Cakes. Rock and roll.

Weirdly I have never felt to need to start an AIBU about anal sex.

i think its a shame when there is so much good stuff on mn. that the threads that mainly get used are the doubtful outrageous ones

Personally I think HQ are on cahoots with the DM give permission and that's how they get over their own copyright T&Cs

How is employing kids to trawl Internet forums for non stories NOT lazy journalism?!

buckinbronco Who says they're non-stories? They just don't interest you or if they do, you dislike them. So?

It's the same as 30 years ago when I was a kid employed on a local paper to go to the funeral directors to ask for names so I could contact their relatives and ask if they wanted me to write an obituary. I was given only the names of people who wanted to be contacted. Most people did. I imagine you probably wouldn't be interested in Mr Jones's great love of gardening, but that doesn't make it a non story.

How do you think journalists get stories?

I don't think it's lazy journalism at all, it's bringing an already much talked about topic to a wider audience - not everyone wants to read about global warming & Isis.

Yes, it is a shame the much talked about topics are often a bit though. I had never thought of a tumbler kept by the bed for sticking a penis into as being a talking point.....

It's not all bad though, MNHQ get the clicks, and we get a free site, DM get the clicks too so revenue for all. Isn't that what it's all about?

I completely agree mrsjay!

Limited period- someone's wedding gift response is a non story.

Why are people so fucking precious about this site? You all behave as if it's a cross between a private members club and some kind of emergency counselling service.

It's an open site on the internet that anyone can read and anyone with an email address can join.

Amen to this ^