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

If nearly the whole of their article is "They said" followed by quotes longer than what they've written, how does that count as original? It's not a review, just screenshotting substantial parts of a thread.

Reporting on the Paris terror attacks isn't reporting on what "someone said"

Of course it's the same. How is asking eyewitnesses what they have seen, including reporting the Tweets of eyewitnesses, while clearly showing that they are Tweets from the scene, not reporting on what someone said?

How are these people not sources Buckinbronco?

When journalists arrived at the scene they continued to gather the evidence from eyewitnesses and were able to give their own eyewitness accounts. Again, sources.

The alternative to reporting on what people said who were there when you weren't, is making it up. Who wants that?

When you're talking about 'every article ending: 'in the queue at Tesco, Mrs White said...' I agree that's pointless. I don't often see it in body copy, particularly not in a report such as the Paris attacks, there's too much other stuff to put in. Perhaps they turn up in the online comments section, but that's different. Why should Mrs Smith or Mr White be prevented from expressing their opinion as long as it isn't offensive?

I disagree it wouldn't have happened 20 years ago. Some of my colleagues used to do things like that 30 years ago. It was because they had no news sense. Normally they'd get knocked out by subs and news editors who did.

You know these are not from the scene they are random Twitter postings

I was sent out to do one on the first day of my journalism course.

snailhunter The people of Harlow were usually very patient whenever we were sent out of the classroom to practise finding off-diary stories

Are you suggesting that all those tweets were made up? I suppose some of them might have been, but all of them? And things like the phone footage of people escaping from the back of the concert venue? That would be like suggesting the whole thing was made up, which would be silly.

No limited. I'm not sure if we're talking about different things. These appear frequently at the end of articles- the last paragraph or two- and are not sources, or eyewitness accounts. They are random tweets from unknowns. So I have not been to Paris, do not know anything about the Paris bombings bar what the bbc are reporting and tweet "so sad about paris!" Then the next day I'm in an article- buckinbronco tweeted "so sad about Paris"

How does that add to the story? It's nothing to do with being made up, make it up or spend 10 seconds lifting it from Twitter, it's equally useless and adds equally little
To the article

limitedperiodonly oops, my bad. They merge into one in my mind. Awful publications, all of them. Pretty sure I didn't "accuse journalists of not getting their facts straight" though, just of failing to have ethics, so your assertion that I "try to get [my facts] right too" becomes amusingly ironic I stand my my pub/sitting room analogy though!

Surely screenshotting posts and printing in them in the DM or publishing them on their website breaches this term? Or does that mean that MNHQ are approving the features? Surely not?

Actually, so far the stories seem to be relatively innocuous and if that is because MNHQ is approving them, I would find that reassuring.

However my concern is about people in DV situations or, as someone mentioned above, adoptive parents. Some people are quite isolated and posting here can be a first step to finding a way out of that isolation. If however a newspaper were to decide that their thread would sell more newspapers, I hate to think of the consequences.

Why don't MNHQ right to their comments page.....

Dear Daily Mail

Ahem

Peace and Love
Mumsnet

Works on us when it's a taat although that's because peace and love actually means ner ner I have a big ban hammer at my disposal

HoneyDragon

Write

I'm not sure if we're talking about different things. These appear frequently at the end of articles- the last paragraph or two- and are not sources, or eyewitness accounts. They are random tweets from unknowns.

I think I get you now Buckinbronco. I don't often see it - where do you see it? - but I'd agree that it's pointless. My explanation is that some people on news desks think that's balance or interesting. They're wrong but you can't shake them.

It's a recruitment and training issue. It's annoying when you work with them, but I can't really see the harm for readers.

I am more concerned at the number of people who buy the Daily Mail, the paper that supported the Blackshirts.

That was a while ago. Surely they've done other things to incur your wrath since then.

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

Given how many times the DM is linked to, or quoted on MN, wouldn't it be a little hypocritical to say that they should not take from here?

I don't think I know anyone who buys an actual paper newspaper any more.

But then they'd have to do proper journalism.

I only know 2 people and my mum who buys the weekend one to do the crossword.

My mum gets the Daily Mail . I think its depressing given their obvious hatred against women how most of their readers appear to be female 50/60+.

I get the Times on a Saturday because I like the weekend food and travel supplement and the Caitlin Moran column.

How does that add to the story? It's nothing to do with being made up, make it up or spend 10 seconds lifting it from Twitter, it's equally useless and adds equally little to the article

It depends where you read. The Times won't embed tweets, but Buzzfeed will. It's all about targeting readers. Buzzfeed and co do research which assumes their readers are 18-30 for example. Research suggests that these younger readers will be reading through phones / mobile devices, and large blocks of text without images doesn't work in the same way that it does on a printed newspaper.

I've worked at a national news organisation where the rule is "no more than 3 paragraphs of text without an image". When you're under pressure to write 5 articles a day to bring in ad revenue because no one buys newspapers anymore, the easiest thing to do is to embed a tweet. Doesn't mean the rest of the article isn't throughly well researched, accurate and includes all the necessary facts.

I was interviewed for a magazine last year and it ended up (sensationalised of course! ) on the mail online site. Bit of a shock but nothing I could do about it.

I've worked at a national news organisation where the rule is "no more than 3 paragraphs of text without an image". When you're under pressure to write 5 articles a day to bring in ad revenue because no one buys newspapers anymore, the easiest thing to do is to embed a tweet. Doesn't mean the rest of the article isn't throughly well researched, accurate and includes all the necessary facts.

YY Rosalie55. I tire of people who say they don't read print news but then don't understand how online works.

I also think that if you have a certain preference for the type of news you read, then you have to show the industry that that's your preference.

If 10,000 people buy the Telegraph each day, but 1 million people click on Buzfeed each day, how do you think the industry will react in the way it presents news?

Oh is this why the BBC news website is littered with videos and hardly any news articles any more?

Well I can't speak on behalf of the BBC Barbara, but it's certainly the rationale of other high profile national organisations