Morning Call: pick of the comment

The ten must-read pieces from this morning's papers

1. The change we need now is a rougher, more radical Barack Obama (Guardian)

Jonathan Freedland says it would be disastrous for Obama to conclude he must rush to the centre to win back independent voters. Instead, he needs to make himself the leader of a radical movement again.

2. Irrespective of Chilcot, Blair will always remain a pariah (Independent)

Matthew Norman predicts that Tony Blair's appearance at the Chilcot inquiry will change little. He can never escape the verdict of the court of public opinion.

3. How political ideology found a new world (Financial Times)

Ideologies now play a larger role in US politics than in Europe, says John Kay. European parties seek office by emphasising their competence rather than their beliefs. By contrast, US politics is more aggressively, even destructively, partisan.

4. This recession was no accident, and we know who's to blame (Daily Telegraph)

Simon Heffer argues that the government cannot evade responsibility for the recession; it was the Treasury that gave banks access to huge amounts of cheap money. Worse, the Tories followed Labour and took growth for granted.

5. This time let's not waste growth (Independent)

Hamish McRae says that as growth returns we need to consider how to use it more wisely. Even during the boom, it was not clear that added wealth was making us happier.

6. Tories must talk about the next generation (Times)

Daniel Finkelstein discusses David Willetts's new book, The Pinch, and says it provides the Tories with something they have been missing -- a Conservative explanation of fairness.

7. France's attack on the veil is a huge blunder (Guardian)

Raphaël Liogier argues that France's attempt to ban the niqab and the burqa is a huge blunder. Women who wear the full veil are not against modernity.

8. Credit rating (Times)

A leader says that the memory of the recession is too recent for the government to seek electoral reward. No credible politician can claim that the downswing is an accident but the upswing is all his doing.

9. Volcker's axe is not enough to cut banks to size (Financial Times)

Martin Wolf argues that Paul Volcker's plan to tame the US financial sector is, in important respects, unworkable, undesirable and irrelevant to the task at hand.

10. Yemen's greatest enemy is sitting across its border (Independent)

Victoria Clark says that Yemen dreads becoming dependent on aid from Saudi Arabia.

 

Follow the New Statesman team on Twitter

Show Hide image

What it’s like to fall victim to the Mail Online’s aggregation machine

I recently travelled to Iraq at my own expense to write a piece about war graves. Within five hours of the story's publication by the Times, huge chunks of it appeared on Mail Online – under someone else's byline.

I recently returned from a trip to Iraq, and wrote an article for the Times on the desecration of Commonwealth war cemeteries in the southern cities of Amara and Basra. It appeared in Monday’s paper, and began:

“‘Their name liveth for evermore’, the engraving reads, but the words ring hollow. The stone on which they appear lies shattered in a foreign field that should forever be England, but patently is anything but.”

By 6am, less than five hours after the Times put it online, a remarkably similar story had appeared on Mail Online, the world’s biggest and most successful English-language website with 200 million unique visitors a month.

It began: “Despite being etched with the immortal line: ‘Their name liveth for evermore’, the truth could not be further from the sentiment for the memorials in the Commonwealth War Cemetery in Amara.”

The article ran under the byline of someone called Euan McLelland, who describes himself on his personal website as a “driven, proactive and reliable multi-media reporter”. Alas, he was not driven or proactive enough to visit Iraq himself. His story was lifted straight from mine – every fact, every quote, every observation, the only significant difference being the introduction of a few errors and some lyrical flights of fancy. McLelland’s journalistic research extended to discovering the name of a Victoria Cross winner buried in one of the cemeteries – then getting it wrong.

Within the trade, lifting quotes and other material without proper acknowledgement is called plagiarism. In the wider world it is called theft. As a freelance, I had financed my trip to Iraq (though I should eventually recoup my expenses of nearly £1,000). I had arranged a guide and transport. I had expended considerable time and energy on the travel and research, and had taken the risk of visiting a notoriously unstable country. Yet McLelland had seen fit not only to filch my work but put his name on it. In doing so, he also precluded the possibility of me selling the story to any other publication.

I’m being unfair, of course. McLelland is merely a lackey. His job is to repackage and regurgitate. He has no time to do what proper journalists do – investigate, find things out, speak to real people, check facts. As the astute media blog SubScribe pointed out, on the same day that he “exposed” the state of Iraq’s cemeteries McLelland also wrote stories about the junior doctors’ strike, British special forces fighting Isis in Iraq, a policeman’s killer enjoying supervised outings from prison, methods of teaching children to read, the development of odourless garlic, a book by Lee Rigby’s mother serialised in the rival Mirror, and Michael Gove’s warning of an immigration free-for-all if Britain brexits. That’s some workload.

Last year James King published a damning insider’s account of working at Mail Online for the website Gawker. “I saw basic journalism standards and ethics casually and routinely ignored. I saw other publications’ work lifted wholesale. I watched editors...publish information they knew to be inaccurate,” he wrote. “The Mail’s editorial model depends on little more than dishonesty, theft of copyrighted material, and sensationalism so absurd that it crosses into fabrication.”

Mail Online strenuously denied the charges, but there is plenty of evidence to support them. In 2014, for example, it was famously forced to apologise to George Clooney for publishing what the actor described as a bogus, baseless and “premeditated lie” about his future mother-in-law opposing his marriage to Amal Alamuddin.

That same year it had to pay a “sizeable amount” to a freelance journalist named Jonathan Krohn for stealing his exclusive account in the Sunday Telegraph of being besieged with the Yazidis on northern Iraq’s Mount Sinjar by Islamic State fighters. It had to compensate another freelance, Ali Kefford, for ripping off her exclusive interview for the Mirror with Sarah West, the first female commander of a Navy warship.

Incensed by the theft of my own story, I emailed Martin Clarke, publisher of Mail Online, attaching an invoice for several hundred pounds. I heard nothing, so emailed McLelland to ask if he intended to pay me for using my work. Again I heard nothing, so I posted both emails on Facebook and Twitter.

I was astonished by the support I received, especially from my fellow journalists, some of them household names, including several victims of Mail Online themselves. They clearly loathed the website and the way it tarnishes and debases their profession. “Keep pestering and shaming them till you get a response,” one urged me. Take legal action, others exhorted me. “Could a groundswell from working journalists develop into a concerted effort to stop the theft?” SubScribe asked hopefully.

Then, as pressure from social media grew, Mail Online capitulated. Scott Langham, its deputy managing editor, emailed to say it would pay my invoice – but “with no admission of liability”. He even asked if it could keep the offending article up online, only with my byline instead of McLelland’s. I declined that generous offer and demanded its removal.

When I announced my little victory on Facebook some journalistic colleagues expressed disappointment, not satisfaction. They had hoped this would be a test case, they said. They wanted Mail Online’s brand of “journalism” exposed for what it is. “I was spoiling for a long war of attrition,” one well-known television correspondent lamented. Instead, they complained, a website widely seen as the model for future online journalism had simply bought off yet another of its victims.