Forum Message

Topic: Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Sipsmith - oh, whoops...
Posted by: Felicity Caborn
Date/Time: 17/01/16 19:20:00

I'm not really warming to you Michael.

The Mailonline is about volume so each one of their staff would be expected to generate about ten of these stories each day. They would be under intense time-pressure and not have the safety net of a sub-editor. If you are right that they have just lifted copy from Timeout without attribution that is, of course, wrong. However, it is likely that the original was rewritten to avoid copyright issues and you'd be surprised how challenging it can be to say the same thing again using different words.

Your view that the job not deserving of a high salary is shared by their employers. If you spent half an hour in their workplace you would be quickly disabused of your view that it was easy.

Entire Thread
TopicDate PostedPosted By
Sipsmith - oh, whoops...16/01/16 21:01:00 Helle Kaiser
   Re:Sipsmith - oh, whoops...17/01/16 12:36:00 Andrew Jones
      Re:Re:Sipsmith - oh, whoops...17/01/16 17:12:00 Michael Robinson
         Re:Re:Re:Sipsmith - oh, whoops...17/01/16 18:23:00 Felicity Caborn
            Re:Re:Re:Re:Sipsmith - oh, whoops...17/01/16 19:05:00 Michael Robinson
               Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Sipsmith - oh, whoops...17/01/16 19:20:00 Felicity Caborn
               Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Sipsmith - oh, whoops...17/01/16 19:38:00 Michael Robinson
                  Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Sipsmith - oh, whoops...17/01/16 19:40:00 Felicity Caborn
   Re:Sipsmith - oh, whoops...17/01/16 20:08:00 Sam Galsworthy
      Re:Re:Sipsmith - oh, whoops...18/01/16 09:53:00 Colin Jordan
         Re:Re:Re:Sipsmith - oh, whoops...18/01/16 13:45:00 Gordon McDonald
            Re:Re:Re:Re:Sipsmith - oh, whoops...18/01/16 17:12:00 Rima Jones

Forum Home