Editing Daily Mail (section)

===Gawker Media lawsuit===
In March 2015, James King, a former contract worker at the ''Mail's'' New York office, wrote an article for ''[[Gawker]]'' titled 'My Year Ripping Off the Web With the ''Daily Mail Online''{{'}}. In the article, King alleged that the ''Mail{{'}}s'' approach was to rewrite stories from other news outlets with minimal credit in order to gain advertising clicks, and that staffers had published material they knew to be false. He also suggested that the paper preferred to delete stories from its website rather than publish corrections or admit mistakes.<ref>{{cite web|last1=King |first1=James |title=My Year Ripping Off the Web With the Daily Mail Online |url=http://tktk.gawker.com/my-year-ripping-off-the-web-with-the-daily-mail-online-1689453286 |website=Gawker |access-date=4 September 2015 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150905103217/http://tktk.gawker.com/my-year-ripping-off-the-web-with-the-daily-mail-online-1689453286 |archive-date=5 September 2015 }}</ref>

In September 2015, the ''Mail's'' US company Mail Media filed a $1&nbsp;million lawsuit against King and Gawker Media for libel.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Nesenoff & Miltenberg LLP|title=Mail Media vs. Gawker Media, King|url=https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2332990-daily-mail-vs-gawker-media.html|website=Document Cloud|publisher=Nesenoff & Miltenberg LLP|access-date=4 September 2015|archive-date=19 September 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150919091536/https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2332990-daily-mail-vs-gawker-media.html|url-status=live}}</ref> Eric Wemple at ''[[The Washington Post]]'' questioned the value of the lawsuit, stating that "Whatever the merits of King's story, it didn't exactly upend conventional wisdom" about the website's strategy.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Wemple|first1=Erik|title=Mail Online sues Gawker for defamation over first-person piece|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2015/09/03/mail-online-sues-gawker-for-defamation-over-first-person-piece/|newspaper=[[The Washington Post]]|access-date=4 September 2015|archive-date=6 September 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150906070041/https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2015/09/03/mail-online-sues-gawker-for-defamation-over-first-person-piece/|url-status=live}}</ref> In November 2016, Lawyers for ''Gawker'' filed a motion to resolve the lawsuit. Under the terms of the motion, ''Gawker'' was not required to pay any financial compensation, but agreed to add an Editor's Note at the beginning of the King article, remove an illustration in the post which incorporated the Daily Mail's logo, and publish a statement by DailyMail.com in the same story.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/gawker-agrees-alter-story-dailymailcom-settlement-mail-online-951352|title=Gawker Agrees to Supplement Story About DailyMail.com in Settlement With Mail Online|work=The Hollywood Reporter|access-date=27 August 2018|language=en|archive-date=28 August 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180828035551/https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/gawker-agrees-alter-story-dailymailcom-settlement-mail-online-951352|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://money.cnn.com/2016/11/30/media/gawker-media-daily-mail/index.html|title=Daily Mail's price for Gawker settlement: Words, not money|last=Kludt|first=Tom|work=CNNMoney|access-date=27 August 2018|archive-date=27 August 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180827211616/https://money.cnn.com/2016/11/30/media/gawker-media-daily-mail/index.html|url-status=live}}</ref>