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.
She was as much a journalist as I was Santa Claus. I have respect for journalists who learn their trade by formal qualification, experience or a combination of both. She probably counts doing some opinion pieces for The Guardian as giving her the right to refer to herself as a journalist. I am currently trying to think of a job she hasn't claimed to have worked at.
I saw an advert on tv last night for the excellent 1960's film 'Oliver' which is to be shown soon. No doubt, Jack will watch it and appropriate it as her own cinematic biography.
What I am also concerned about is that when the book is published and pre-publication copies are sent to the press, that journalists will be scared of giving a full critical appraisal of the book, due to the subject matter and JM's social media presence as a 'poverty campaigner'. When the mainstream press refer to JM, her name is invariably prefaced with the words 'poverty campaigner'. She is never subject to an interview by a tough probing interviewer. I cannot stand Edwina Currie, but at least she had the guts to question JM's backstory.
People got really mad, love because your cooking advice is a load of verbal diarrhoea. Sadly, you haven't quite got it that most of the time, people are laughing at you. They shake their heads in belief because, in an age when there are so many talented people out there, how on earth you got on tv, a book deal and in newspapers is a mystery. That, Jack is what people are mad about.