UPDATE: Mail responded again, acknowledging the complaint, making changes - and compensation!!!! thank you everyone for your support
 |
| Definitely no originality here. She just likes to have her clicks!. |
Late Sunday evening I received a message from a friend with the news that Prince Andrew Romanoff, the grandson of Grand Duchess Xenia, died in California a few hours earlier. I thanked him for the scoop.
I went upstairs to my office to grab a file (Russia - Princes, and Princes), several books, including Andrew's autobiography.
The laptop was turned on and I wrote my article. It was about an hour later when my source messaged me again to say I could now send the post as Andrew's death had been shared with family members and others.
The link to my article on Prince Andrew's death was tweeted and retweeted. I also posted my link on several Facebook pages. This is what I do with all my posts.
I received numerous comments, but then came the concern when my source and several other people messaged me asking if I had seen the Daily Mail article.
I did, and I was not happy. Harriet Johnston plagiarized my article and used chunks of my text. That is illegal If you plagiarize at the Washington Post, you get fired. The Daily Mail looks the other way.
I filed a complaint with the Mail. All I want is an apology and compensation. I would settle for £1000. So how did the Mail respond?
Here is Michelle Core's response. She did not address my complaint about plagiarism even though she saw the side-by-side comparison of the two articles. My complaint was not about details but about the blatant stealing of my words. Word for word.
I told Michelle that I used a plagiarism checker for Harriet's article. The result showed the "significant plagiarism" of my article. Michelle has not responded. This does not surprise me. She nor Harriet Johnston have no morals or ethics. They live for their clicks.
Sorry, Michelle, fobbing me off with a "goodwill gesture" of putting a link to my article at the bottom of Harriet's is not appreciated at all. I do not want to associate with a "newspaper" that has no integrity or ethics and hires "writers" who are too lazy to do research beyond a Google or a Twitter search. I am sure Michelle thought I would be flattered by her gesture. No, dear, I am not. You have copped out of being moral and good by rewarding Johnston's bad behavior.
For many reasons, I expect, Johnston keeps her Twitter account locked. I have called her out for numerous royal mistakes in her articles. Never a thank you and "get me rewrite!" to fix them. She is lazy and sloppy. She does not care about her work. Apparently, neither do her editors & bosses.
If Harriet Johnston actually cared about her work, she would have contacted me directly. I would accept an apology and perhaps, an Amazon gift card. She was paid to write an article that was largely written by someone else. Me. The Daily Mail made money every time someone clicked on her article.
I am grateful to my source for the scoop and thank you to all who alerted me.
Everyone knows that Harriet did the wrong thing and does not have the morals to make it right. Used toilet paper has more value than Harriet Johnston or Michelle Core. They prostitute themselves for Associated Newspapers.
At some point, Johnston & Core will receive their just desserts.
It's infuriating when someone does good research and writes a nice, informative article, and some lazy no one just free rides on your effort. And to think these people get paid for doing nothing, and you do this just for pleasure (and maybe a few cups of coffee).
ReplyDeleteWell, well, well, Harriet Johnson. Do you get paid by the word so it's easier to copy someone else's and get paid like you wrote it? Nice gig if you can get it, and apparently you have. A belated link to Marlene's post doesn't cut it.
ReplyDeleteLooking at today's news with the Mail losing their copyright case re Meghan Markle's letter, I do see some similarities. The big difference is Meghan was aware her father could sell her letter. Marlene did not think someone would basically steal her words and monetize them. Yet, this woman did and she's supposed to be a professional? Hiding behind a private twitter account now too.
Harriet Johnson and, by extension, her employer are dishonest and taking advantage of someone who does not have the resources Meghan Markle has. It is not right, and I wish there was something you could do that would get their attention, Marlene. they know you can't afford to fight them, and it's despicable.
So sorry that your work was stolen. The Daily Fail is a rotten excuse for journalism, with non-existant ethics and zero talent on the staff (the definition of hacks). Too bad it takes too much money to launch a lawsuit for plagarism--it would great to see a respectable journalist and historian such as yourself take them to the cleaners.
ReplyDeleteThe Daily Mail is truly a horrible rag that employs useless, uneducated morons to copy other people’s work. The Daily Mail is not news or journalism, it’s trash. Thank you for providing your readers with interesting, accurate information. You are an amazing journalist.
ReplyDeleteThese kind of things happen far too often nowadays. Once saw an example of a Dutch woman who had done an article on her blog about the Dutch royals. A well-known gossip journalist decided to rewrite it a little and a gossip magazine published. He got paid for the job she had done. She complained, they acknowledged and apologized, but she was never paid or so. Freelancers get paid very badly, that's one thing for sure, but it doesn't mean that you simply copy things online to make money, and that should certainly count for people working for an actual magazine or newspaper.
ReplyDeleteYour work is stellar, Marlene, we all know it and I hope you do too. Respect and admiration to you for the way you handled this injustice, bravo! I'm happy that you received their acknowledgment, brought about some changes and received a little compensation. Not perfect, but a bit of satisfaction and redemption.
ReplyDeletethank you Your words mean a lot!!
ReplyDeleteHarriet Johnston is one of their prized feminist writers they can't punish her at all.
ReplyDeleteHer other articles are a proof of her incompetence.