But she claims to have been a journalist and they definitely have similar codes of conduct with regard to ethics and choosing their informants.
I think we can all agree that Jack and her publisher should be carefully following an ethical procedure for both procuring her informant sample and the process of interviewing them, and they know this. However, we all also know that her "research" is inevitably going to consist of this casual twitter shout out for stories, Jack choosing and not fact-checking the most ostentatious screeds of woe, and then bullishly inserting her own experiences into any interview she may conduct, with no aftercare or signposting to further help.
It's a horror show, and absolutely ridiculous that nobody involved has thought about the implications of making money by weaponising accounts of poverty (I don't care if the respondents are paid because it won't be anything like the fee Cackie pockets). I wish someone would put Stuart Hall's 'Representation' into her "to read" pile, as it's a great explanation of why upper to middle class publishers think that publishing a middle class girl's account of briefly being skint is some form of poverty activism. However, Jack would no doubt read it and her narcissistic brain would take it as a vindication of her baffling success as an urchin done good.
