"on MN this week" in the Daily Mail

[StealthBearWipesBumOnDailyMail]

Thread no 2

Exactly Justine. I'm certainly more cautious when I post about my hairy warts and killer farts after posts on the Book thread a few months (year?) ago.

"We have the right to..." in BIG RED letters when you sign up. You may do that now anyway. I have no way of knowing unless I flounce and re-join at some later date. Or you kick me off. I know you told me it was on here. I know others have too. I do skim read.

Hope you get it resolved.

If anything topics like this one will help members decide if they are content to post knowing every word can be reused, or not post at all. It's our choice.

Summary:

DM are running a column in its weekly Femail section, 2nd of which appeared yesterday, written by a (former?) Mnetter. 1st column was about a thread from a few months back re. fake tans , yesterday's a verbatim extract of a very recent thread regarding potential employment issue due to pg with limited editorial comment - op incorrectly attributed to another poster who is ttc.

Subsequent thread(s) raises issues of compromising the anonymity of the op in a specific sensitive situation, whether MN should be associated with DM officailly or in this instance apparently unofficially, unsolicited and without prior consultation, and whether DM has breeched MN copyright in doing so and the privacy of posters (as far as it is ever private on an open internet forum).

I'm with JacquelineHyde - I've always understood that when I post, my words are well and truly in the public domain. And so I (usually) post with a degree of caution, but over the last few years I've certainly said enough for someone who happened to know me to recognise me as me. It's a risk I'm prepared to take.

That doesn't negate the fact the DM articles are piss poor, fuckwitted, lazy examples of journalism and I feel very sorry for the OP of the thread quoted and Thunderduck.

not sure what a paid for model would do to prevent situations like this...?

After all, a journo can quite easily pay and register. And the paid for site would only be governed by the same fair use copyright T&C as the rest of the site.

Ok, it looks like the Mail may have breached fair use in this instance, but it's by no means cut and dried, and all they'd have to do is shift the balance a little bit towards original content for the probability to be on the other side.

so what's to be done, then? i do feel for people who use this site for genuine support rather than twatting about and making stupid jokes, because i fear that they are the ones who'll be exploited.

and i'll eat my HAT if they every put a bfing thread up there.

Paying and registering is more bother than just cutting and pasting from an open site.
And as has been demonstrated, sloppy baggage seems to be more her style than articulate and original.

don't speak too soon Aitch, I reckon they'd go nuts for the "AIBU to feed my 4 year old" thread.

I was just thinking that tyv !

They could have a DM pervs corner.
I wonder which would be more outrageous, EBF or bumsex?

but goblin, the person who did this article was a registered MNer.

A paid for forum might stop the occasional trawl for quotes, but not:

1. MNers using their knowledge of the site to pitch articles (or columns ) and
2. Journos coming specifically to look for MN reactions to topical stories.

And these are the two things people mind about - not the occasional lifting of a stray quip here and there.

LIZS, thnk you x

Interestingly ... the person involved (with the "hawaiian name") is the only Mnetter who ever openly insulted me to my (virtual) face - and I've been on here since 2002!

Am going to be much more circumspect in what I say as I am not prepared to be identified any more. This will affect the amount of help I get on MN, and also the amount of support I am able to offer.

I don't want anythign I say in the Daily Mail. I find it hard to understand that MN could not stop this if they really wanted to.

it's weird, a quick search of the mail and i know so much about leah hardy. i'm surprised that she didn't use a nom de plume, because i'm now stalking her and i don't really want to particularly.

Actually, I don't mind about those two things at all theyoungvisiter. They seem pretty reasonable things to do IMO.

Another MNetter posts about topics that then subsequently appear in a weekly newspaper column. Not all the time, but often enough for me to have spotted a link. It's the attribution thing that is iffy IMO.

ooooooh, really? link please.

I think there are two possibilities:

1. the DM likes the column and pushes on regardless, possibly with a slight shift towards original content. In which case they have very deep pockets and MNHQ will have to make the best of the situation and try to get the column out in as palatable a form as possible, whether that means right to read, editorial veto or whatever.

2. The DM is not that bothered about the column in which case they may well drop it, feeling it's not worth the fuss and bother.

In either case I think the outcome rests more with the DM than with us.

And none of this is going to affect the likelihood of stray quotes being picked up in future for articles.

FallenMadonna, I was meaning articles and columns based on verbatim, attributed posts, not just themes.

I agree themes are unstoppable and entirely ok.

Then we agree.

maybe it's something as simple as she thought she'd make up a name so as not to identify but came up with thunderduck by mistake? [benefit of doubt]

The three rules I use on all the forums I post on are:

1. Never post anything that you would not be willing to put your RL name to and defend in a court of law or the court of public opinion on the front page of a newspaper.

1. Never post anything that identifies you or any relatives or friends or where you live, work, play.

1. Expect to be quoted and misquoted by other mainstream media.

Other than that do not worry about it.

Thunderduck was the first responder to the work thread.

I think LH cut and pasted and it came out weird, and she accidentally misread Thunderduck as the OP.

I've seen that done half a dozen times on newspaper articles - quotes attributed to the person ABOVE the actual quote iyswim. I think it is something to do with the formatting going weird.