Seriously?! The independent is thieving it too?!

[MotherOfBeagles]

So just seen an article in the independent about the thread where a mum wanted to call her daughter iris james!

What the hell?! You expect this theivery crap from the daily sh#* but isn't the independent supposed to be a proper newspaper?

Have they done this before but I was oblivious?

I feel a bit sad seeing someone saying national newspaper journalists only nick stories from websites. I work for a national newspaper and my stories come from tips from contacts (and my editors'), from picking up the phone, knocking on doors etc. The occasional ring in is as easy as it gets. Our online arm nick loads of stories from websites and is a very different beast. I once had to work on it for a week and it was so easy and dull compared to what I do, soul-destroying.

Having said that the OP does make me laugh as there seems to be a general view that the broadsheets (not that the Indie is anymore) are whiter than white and the tabloids are the devil.

there seems to be a general view that the broadsheets (not that the Indie is anymore) are whiter than white and the tabloids are the devil.

Yes, the similarity between the Telegraph online and the Mail Online does disturb me sometimes. Some crap story about a spooky man at the side of the road in Australia will pop up in the Telegraph a day or so after the Mail.

I understand mumsnet is a public forum completely and things will go wider. My point was more that where have all the real journalists writing about real news gone?

I know they exist! I have a degree in English and half my class are now journos of one sort or the other and have turned down jobs based on this kind of crap.

cupofcoffee & goingtobefine you've hit the nail on the head.

It's not that I'm outraged that public forum discussions end up in a wider net. I'm not naive enough for that (except maybe in cases that people could be in danger) it's more that what used to be a pillar of the "real news" companies is now following suit with the daily fail and it's ragtag band!

The Independent.

The comments section is appalling.

problem it wasn't that I think they're whiter than white I just expect better and real news from them. And come on - someone wanting the middle name james for a female child isn't news. But as I follow the independent on fb I'm fast becoming aware that it's not the case anymore.

I've not read the article, but if it was a summary of the Mumsnet thread then they have done nothing wrong. If it were a verbatim reprint, that is a different issue. Authors own the copyright to their work, even on an internet forum, but there is nothing to stop anyone else quoting or commenting on their work (there would be no such thing as a review if this was the case).

Bear in mind also that all newspapers and news programmes on television pick up their stories from all manner of sources. This is a good thing, if they could only report stories they had broken, nobody would have a clue as to what is going on in the world and would have to spend their whole life flicking between news channels to piece together what is happening out there.

The Independent on FB is a travesty of what the Independent used to be/stood for

The Times still seems to have real journalists writing real stories, and while I've seen the occasional mention of MN (eg this week Libby Purves commenting on report about nursery vs sahm, that the latter required hours on MN to maintain their sanity), and maybe a rare more specific piece, I don't recall ever seeing the wholesale lifting. But of course you have to pay for it. 'Free' comes at a price.

Same article on the sun this morning too

I mean, if you want good journalism please don't say crap like "lazy journalists" or "real journalists".

Most journalists at the Indy and elsewhere are properly trained and would love to be doing in depth reporting and great journalism. But the fact is no one buys newspapers anymore, and the only revenue these places get is via advertising, so via articles that perform well online. So if people like shit, then the boss will tell the journalist you're only allowed to write shit and you've got to write 10 of those shit articles in your 8 hour shift. Believe me, I've been there.

Please don't judge the journalists. Judge the public for clicking on this stuff / not buying papers / not being willing to subscribe to news sites when they introduce paywalls. That's why good journalists write this stuff, not because they're 'lazy', 'bad' or otherwise.

There is real news if you want to read it it's there but many people want fat quickly news reports to read and celeb gossip

Social media has changed how news is reported and it's now often part of the news

Journalists come here looking for a story isn't that because MN is open to so many discussions that obviously interest people

Fast quick news

Not fat quickly

If you write anything on here you have to expect that it could be reproduced anywhere else. That's the way it is.

If you write anything on here you have to expect that it could be reproduced anywhere else. That's the way it is.

I know, but it's pants and probably a big reason for the increase in the number of ludicrous troll threads, while the the rest of us try not say anything that might grab an Online Content Seeker's attention. It really isn't good for the site long term, IMHO.

The wider issue of the state of written newsmedia is a huge concern.

We can see the way the Independent has gone but you still had people on here cheering the possible demise of the Guardian.

Also, the Telegraph has been mentioned upthread, I'd agree that it's also increasingly a shadow of its former self.

The Independent is clickbait bullshit so no I'm not surprised.

in what way is The Independent clickbait bullshit

The referendum reporting was far better than The Guardian as the views were from both sides and raised questions why people wanted to vote leave or remain not stick to sterotyping of reasons why

Why do people think that the Indy is no longer a physical paper? It's because people no longer feel they should have to pay to receive their news.

We feel entitled to receive all our news free on line. How many people actually buy a paper now compared to a decade or two ago?

But someone has to pay for the journalists' wages, and if the income to the newspapers is dwindling, then cuts in staff will have to be made.

I do not believe it is 'lazy' journalism, I think it is 'survival' journalism