I have indeed written about this, for @cosmicshambles

https://cosmicshambles.com/words/blogs/deanburnett/toxic-positivity

But you know what? That was MY choice. To do so on my own terms, for a platform I trust, that's crowdfunded

The world's biggest paper copying it for profit is NOT something I'm OK with
It's been about 6 months since Dad died. I'm 'coping'. My Nan died recently too. Both were traumatic. I'm managing OK considering. I find talking about it publicly helps, when I'm up to it.

Does that give a major platform carte blanche to hijack my grief for free content?
Now I've get emails from strangers wanting advice about how to 'get over' a father's death. And voicemails from radio shows saying "We read *your* article, would you like to come on and talk about it?"

I could easily have been in a headspace where this would be devastating me
The Mail article mentions I 'wrote' about my experience. Do they *link* to, or even mention the original source article? No. They copy the content verbatim, so obviously know all about it. A conscious and actively self-serving choice was made to hide the source.
If they'd linked to or acknowledged the original article, or even linked to one of my books, at least I'd have got *something* from it. But no, they exploited my grief, and actively denied me any chance at benefiting from them doing so.

As you might guess, I'm not OK with this
The worst thing is, if they HAD asked me if they could use what I'd written, I'd have said yes. It's otherwise a GOOD article, which I agree with, that puts #ToxicPositivity in front of a readership that'd most benefit from learning about it

But... they stole my grief to do it
An interesting approach, pushing her own efforts to help people's mental health, by actively throwing mine under the bus. For profit/attention

Maybe it was the Mail's instruction, not her choice. But you know what? If it was me, I'd have refused to do it.
Thing is, I'm ALSO a mental health writer. I know how this should work. I have contributions from people in my new book all about it. I always get consent and check they're OK with things. Because it's #mentalhealth, you don't get cavalier with it, if you really care
And if I haven't been able to reach the person who's public contribution I use in my work, I always do everything I can to properly source/reference it. It's the bare minimum of what you should do, as far as I'm concerned

Sadly, seems others don't feel that way.
And I've already had several people say "It's the Mail, they're always doing shit like this". Yeah, I know.
But you know what; maybe if enough people give them grief (ironically) about it, they might consider not doing it any more? Worth a go, at least.
And yes, what they regularly do/say about immigrants/minorities/LGBTQI* etc. is far worse and more blatant than what's happened to me.

But maybe they're more likely to pay attention if the balding straight white cis guy takes them to task? I'll happily use my position for that
But in any case, that's not how it works. I've said this many times in many contexts; just because someone else has it objectively *worse*, it doesn't mean your own pain and problems are somehow diminished.

I had my grief hijacked by the Daily Mail! And I'm not ok with that!
If you have followed this thread and feel sympathy for my position, I appreciate that. Not sure what you can do though. The fact is, I can deal with it. But that this is the case is pure good luck. I could well have been in a position where this would have ruined me for days
The Mail, or the author, didn't know I was in the sort of headspace where I could manage this. They made no attempt to find out. In an article all about good #mentalhealth, mine was of no concern. I doubt they even considered it at all.

And that, I feel, is vile
You can follow @garwboy.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: