"on mumsnet this week" in the Mail. Is this a new thing

[jujumaman]

Came across this this morning when I should have been working

Is this a new weekly rip-off by the Mail? Or has it been going on for months and I'm behind the times as usual

I'm not quite as virulently anti the Mail as mnetters, find it silly rather than the end of civilisation as we know it. But still ...

Nancy - you can search for threads by me on the subject of being tracked down, and you'll see I'm anything but paranoid/fearful of it.

But I think this is ridiculous so shall no longer be posting on here. If it gets over taken by DM readers (I doubt it - the majority of them hardly have the capacity to string a sentence together let alone hold a debate ) then I really don't care. It's not my website so who ends up posting here is none of my concern.

Perhaps I'll go back to BW??????? or maybe not - I came here (not because of a newspaper article/link) because of the censorship there

That doesn't answer the question posed Justine, from that link

'That the source of the quoted material is mentioned, along with the name of the author.'

If the name of the author is wrong then it isn't fair use, so what was said about making sure the quotes are attributed to the correct poster?

where did I say I hated journos? I am/was one!

I'm not a fan of lazy journalism though, but don't think I've even said that.

Aitch - she's freelance.

Justine, I couldn't agree with you more re kneejerk journo bashing and - to that matter - a lot of the Daily Mail bashing that goes on here from people who appear oddly fascinated by a publication they claim to hate.

But how on earth can you not describe the DM cutting and pasting a few random quotes from mumsnet as anything but lazy. It's the epitome of the word. Real journalists wouldn't stand for it.

and now I have burnt the tea and it is All Your Fault.

vonsudenfedhatespauldacre i was responding to your point where you said you thought we were slow to empathise with folks about this issue - trying to say that I don't empathise with a lot of the lazy journo argument that had been expressed on the thread in question.
Now I have to shoot off for a bit but promise to be back laters.

Before I burn the tea .

It's not an issue of 'all journos are bad' - I don't think anybody here thinks that. Some of my best friends are journos... But copying out sections of MN is hardly the stuff of Pulitzer prizes is it? It is a very lazy, effortless way to provide filler for a paper.

Ok just finally (tea well and truly charred) - I don't think it is particularly lazy to identify an issue - before which you probably have to read loads of threads. Then read a thread with hundreds of posts - pick the relevant ones, take out the identifying bits, write and intro. It's not Pulitzer prize stuff but at least there's some work involved. The real lazy stuff (imho) is the column about my dog but I still wouldn't condemn anyone for that either - after all they've got to have been commissioned - ie convinced an editor they can write amongst a lot of competition. And if folk didn't read it - it wouldn't make it.

And copying it yet not even bothering to match the right names to the right quotes is even lazier.

Well yes that's clearly unfortunate Tamarto- maybe the writer will come on and have her say - was possibly not her fault. Hope so.

it's convenient, sure but everyone cribs from other sources.

If you work on a news or features desk on a national newspaper all the calls you get for the first hour or so are from other news organisations wanting you to put them in touch with somebody you featured. you could argue that's lazy journalism - why don't they go out and find their own people?

But she reads the threads anyway as a MNer! Reading posts on Mumsnet is fun. Would be a great way to earn a living.

Justine - you are missing the point and I'm beginning to see why others get frustrated with this MNHQ approach.

It's not the journo is question I am calling lazy

It is the Mail for thinking that it's fine to plagiarise internet forums - fora? - for copy instead of coming up with new ideas.

However, that is what the Mail do. They'll have sat in a meeting and said "what's popular right now?" "Chatrooms" "Ooh, let's rip one off then. What's one that wimmin like? Mumsnet? Excellent, that'll do for a weekly column in Femail."

Whether that article would win the Pulitzer prize or not is a bit of a side-issue isn't it? I think when things like this happen it's a wake up call that this is a very public place, and when you've been here for a while it is incredibly easy to believe it isn't. I know I've thought that, because you know people, you know the lingo, the culture. It feels like a club.

I remember reading What they said on Twitter at some point - and that had the actual advantage of famous people, so Jonathan Ross is ill, and wearing pink socks sort of thing, fascinating. It's sort of reporting on what is going on on the interweb - it might not be interesting, but it's opening a door, that's all.

MN is quite interesting too. I find it interesting, and not just in a clubbable way. It's varied, and it's direct. I understand the interest.

though also I'm never v. sure it translates. Like that a snapshot of family life article - everyone's names look a bit mad in another format. You think who are these people, who would go on the internet and call themselves Gottatippleortwo or whatever.

Doesn't really matter whether it's lazy though does it? It's clearly cheap and I expect the DM are looking to reduce their costs wherever they can like all the other newspapers. The Mail so thoroughly devoted to whipping up fear and hatred wherever it can, a bit of lazy/cheap journalism is neither here nor there. What is not good as far as I am concerned is the prospect of Mumsnet becoming associated with such a vile publication.

Enjoying the name changes v much by the way.

"Well yes [using the wrong poster's name is]clearly unfortunate Tamarto- maybe the writer will come on and have her say - was possibly not her fault. Hope so. "

The thing is, Justine, that some people do share their nicknames with their friends, and husbands. And maybe their friends might work with them. I have some friends who I know are Mumsnetters and although we have never discussed nicknames, if they asked me what mine was, I would gladly tell them.

Then if I opened the Daily Mail and found that according to that "esteemed publication" I was pregnant and was threatened with the sack, I might just feel like suing for libel myself.

It's certainly somebody's fault. If Mumsnetters' posts are not owned by the posters themselves, by whom are they owned? And if they are distributed publically, and attributed to the wrong person, causing that person embarrassment and distress, whose fault is it? I am clearly no legal eagle but would guess the buck might turn out to stop at MNHQ.

cheap? if she's freelance she'll be getting a set wage, most likely. (the reason why i suspect it may not be her gig forever).

i suspect part of my nark may be inspired by jealousy. what a freakin' JOB.

anyway it doesn't matter. it's all done now. MNHQ were presented with a fait accompli, what can honestly be done?

Indeed aitch and the mail are the monarchs of stitch ups. They will not give a flying furball about any of these complaints. They're used to it.

Always remember a friend of mine who used to work on the MoS telling me about coming in on Tuesday morning's always to find her answerphone filled with furious messages from the person whose life she'd ruined that weekend. She left after a short time, couldn't cope.