What's the worst that can happen if a thread has been picked up by the Daily Mail?

[BeyonceZ]

Or has happened?

It's amazing how many mumsnetters read the daily mail or mail online and then slag it off. It's a comic stop putting the viewing and buying figures up.

Cancel the Cheque was gold. I got to enjoy that one in real time. I think it's in classics now. It went into the DM, Guardian, Telegraph... just everywhere.

Enjoy! www.mumsnet.com/Talk/mumsnet_classics/2630932-Post-wedding-message-please-help-me-what-the-hell-do-I-say?pg=1&order=

Why is it always the fail that is blamed? My post was mentioned on radio 4.

The worst one was the poor lady who I think discovered New Year's Eve that her husband was having an affair - possibly with a friend? (Sorry I can't remember the details.) she was getting all kinds of support and good advice and the bastards at the mail decided to publish it so she had the thread pulled.

I know when we post we are to some extent putting ourselves in the public but for fuck sake i am astounded at the lack of humanity of the "journalist" who decides to make the worse day of someone's life even worse. Fucking tosser.

One of mine got lifted and ended up on Loose Women, the Mail, the telegraph and That's Life! magazine.

It was rather funny.

There was one where it sounded like the DH was abusive although the wife hadn't said that in her OP. It was picked up by lots of places including the Mail and the Wright Stuff. That could have had dangerous consequences for the OP.
It's not just that they have bigger audiences. It's that the demographic is different too. Someone might post on MN thinking their DH isn't likely to venture on to a parenting website but once it's in the Mail and on TV, the demographic is much wider meaning you're more likely to be recognised.

I have noticed recently that the Guardian seems to be taking MN threads and changing a few details to create articles for their 'agony' page online. I have had several articles pop up on my FB feed that are very similar to threads I have read here in the previous couple of days, just with minor alterations.

I have noticed recently that the Guardian seems to be taking MN threads and changing a few details to create articles for their 'agony' page online. I have had several articles pop up on my FB feed that are very similar to threads I have read here in the previous couple of days, just with minor alterations.

Viserion, I noticed that too! I'm far too willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, wondering if maybe the same OPs wrote in or if was just a weird coincidence. I'm sure you're right though.

Mail Online gets over 11 million visitors a day, for comparison.

Yes but they don't put these stories in the main bit (well not that I've seen).

They're normally in the online version of the magazine supplement.

IMO most of them are started by the papers in question.

There's currently one which appeared in a paper over the weekend with a pole for users to decide what should happen. It was started towards the end of last week, OP is a first time poster, huge amount of debate followed, OP never returned and suddenly it appeared in the press and on r4 or r2 can't remember which. I suggested that it was probably started with that purpose and was deleted for troll hunting. .

By comparison it was actually quite an eye opening debate and completely polarised.

In terms of personally outing threads though, if you don't want your personal details online where you can be identified then you shouldn't be posting on MN. You're no more recogniseable in the DM than on MN and it's worth remembering that a DM thread or similar will only stay on the front page for a matter of a day or so or even less, whereas a long ongoing story on MN can stay in active for months if there's a second or third thread...

FWIW I was recognised in my local tesco by a MN'er who remembered the area I lived in and certain details about me such as that I had a guide dog and a child....

They do sometimes publish them on the front page but they don't make it clear that it's a lifted MN thread in the headline. I assume because less people click on it then. It'll be something like 'angry wedding guest complains about car parking bill' and then a few lines down, they'll drop in that the complaint was actually a MN thread.

Part of the problem is that potentially sensitive posts are nearly always prefaced with the words 'NC as I don't want to be outed' but then follow on to 3000 words of minute detail on a situation which would be instantly recognisable to anyone involved.

Either that, or they try to keep it fairly anonymous but are then accused of drip-feeding, issued with demands for more details/updates or troll-hunting.

It's irritating to see news websites lifting stuff from MN, but posters need to remember that MN is not secret and not to post every tiny detail about their row with Mavis next door if they don't want to be identified. Or not post about it at all.

Creating the nth thread demanding MN 'do something' about it or make MN subscription only is ludicrous and and an exercise in futility.

I'm a bit bemused by mailonline. I took a story to my local paper about a care home, and they said could they put it about, and someone from the Mirror called up, so that went online. Months later I found the mailonline had done something on it too, but I never knew, they never contacted me, they were lifting quotes from my phone chat with the Mirror guy. I don't mind, was quite happy they did so - say what you like about the Mail, but they're the only ones to really focus on the scandal of adult social care. But it was odd to find this story months after the event, with various comments underneath. On top of which, it said it has over a million views - surely that's not right?

NewspaperTaxis: A lot of nationals (the tabloids in particular) pay people to keep an eye on local newspaper stories that they can recycle. You'll notice that Mail Online, for example, has a lot of school uniform stories - I'm pretty sure that in at least 90% of cases this will have been a local newspaper story that the Mail then picked up.

Mail Online also lifts a lot of stories from other nationals, some with acknowledgement, some without. The Mail (paper rather than website) also, rather curiously, has a syndication agreement with the Guardian, or used to, at any rate.

And it's an interesting point about months after the event - Mail Online is always on the search for new content. You'll notice the front page refreshes constantly. So if it comes across a story that's months old, it will happily recycle it unless it's very obviously out of date.

It's worth making the distinction between Mail Online and the Daily Mail - same brand, but different editorial teams often publishing very different content.

Ah, okay, thanks hackmum. It's odd, because there's a byline on the story, but the quotes are from another journo, yet didn't Johann Hari get into trouble for doing the same thing some years back, passing off quotes from another journo's interview as his own (not imo the worst crime in the world, but still...)

I meant, btw, I only in fact found out about the story months after the event during a Google. It went out about the same time, and would have liked to add more to the Comments section, but it had been closed by that time.

You're right, NewspaperTaxis. What can I say? Journalism is a funny old business. The only difference really is that Johann Hari was deceiving his editors, whereas it is probably the Mail's policy to rip off stories from other newspapers. I do know journalists who have had their work stolen in this way and they're very unhappy about it, but there's not a huge amount you can do because they can afford better lawyers than you as a rule.

Hi hackmum, I have another question, I don't know if you can help? Is there a reason why the press don't pick up on local authorities much? It seems to me that whenever there is a care home scandal, the council is able to fob off the local press with a 'no comment' statement and generally gets a free pass. It also seems the case with the national press. Is the local Council really that frightening? Also, the individual Safeguarding heads are never ever named, it's always the 'Council spokesperson'. Sure, you have some interest with Kensington and Chelsea, but as with Rotherham, something big really has to happen for it to get anywhere, and even now I don't see Council officials there being 'hounded' whereas the press is always happy to doorstep Jez Corbyn...

I remember the cheque one! Haha.

I think the problem is that, especially in the event of some form of abuse, that someone speaking on here about an abusive partner is less likely to be seen by said partner than if a story is run in a paper.

Same goes for any embarrassing or awkward situation where people are seeking advice.