That's fine. But it's kind of illustrative about what I'm saying. I grew up in a mining village, staunchly socialist, not from any understadning of socialism which I thought, in my naivety was a benign, humanitarian movement. And who wouldn't be for that?

But I've since learnt the socialists used the miners for a wider political aim. That to the left, we have to be wary of totalitarianism, and to the right, facism - whcih are basically the same things just reached by different ideologies.

I have taken a step away from party politics but not politics as such. Old manifestos and teleological ideologies do not serve us well in the modern age, where we face many unique challenges and threats.

I'm a humanitarian most of all, and if that means I have to 'betray' my roots and test some new ground so be it.

You probably won't read it, but this is pretty close to what I'm talking about www.henryjacksonsociety.org/

We will have to disagree MT. As with previous discussions, I can't buy into your description of this as a minimal shift to the right.

I wonder whether I'd characterize the liberalism to which you refer as liberalism at all, but rather as a specific form of conservatism which has been historically, erm, conflicted about its own identity; in order to bridge the gap between self-image and reality, it clings to the language of liberalism to describe itself to itself; the meanings which that language attempts to signify, however, are essentially conservative.

I don't think I believe that its possible to section off 'defence and national identity' from the whole. These values form the core of a politics.

You are right. But a slight shift to the right (still left of centre) gives you an important new perspective - much needed in these rapidly changing times. That is the phenomenon in so called neo-conservatism, it's not Tory in the least. It is progressive 'liberal' (have to be gareful as these terms have different nuance in the US) values with a conservative slant to defence and national identity. It's a corrective to the post-modern project of nullifying western identiity as all bad and imperialist. Its happened because of a very specific threats that face us.

We are very much protected from the violence in the world here, we forget that we have deadly enemies, and not just in the abstract. Like issues of immigration;It is essential that liberals grasp the pros and the cons of immigration. It's not a betrayal of liberal values. Relegating these issues to the sidelines as a 'far right' issue will only mean the middle ground is not explored. . Nature abhors a vaccum and if patriotic liberals don't fill it right wing extreamints will.

(thinks hard about what bat and monkey are discussing. Realises that that last sentence looks like a line from the Jungle Book. Gives up attempt to be intelligent).

It's true that there are things that could be worse

Just pointing out that one can exhort a group to be progressive and self-critical in order to refine its position and respond to changing contexts.

Or one can demand that a group is progressive and self-critical, in order to effect a fundamental shift to the right (or indeed left, but less frequently I think).

It's always interesting to watch how interest groups 'claim' language and use it to set the terms of the debate, and ultimately to make their own position appear to be the Common Sense one.

lol Onebat. Like there could be nothing worse than a bit of national conservatism/protectionism in an otherwise liberal system that has been decimated by cultural reletivism.

I think I defined what I meant by progressive. Nothing trecherous about self analysis and criticism. Kind of based on the scientofic meathod. Nothing tretcheous about that kind of progressive - or is there?

Re the web chats, if many people have serious issues they want to address with someone, why not get 'together' beforehand, form a lobby, define your focus, choose your questions and then choose a rep to ask them. Otherwise the person gets inundated by a baying mob.

But that double standard, if it exists, isn't between print journalism and blogging, is it? Because blogging doesn't just mean chatting on the internet. A blogger who was abusive in that way would just be a really rubbish blogger. No one would read that person for political info or interpretation.

(Though if a blogger were cleverly and entertainingly abusive they might be read in the same way as a newspaper cartoon is viewed by the newspaper's readers. Steve Bell, for example, is incredibly abusive in the way he depicts politicians. To that extent abuse is legitimate.)

I do think that sustained demolition attacks of public people on MN are embarrassing and unhelpful, though. And perhaps there ought to be a distinction between just fooling around in Chat and participating in a more responsible convo in a 'livechat'. That's one reason why the livechats ought to be renamed -- what term would generate the proper moral seriousness? -- Mumsnet Commission of Inquiry?

I dunno. I don't think any slebs have subjected MN to a sustained, bitchy, personal attack over entirely trivial matters, but we sure have done it to some of them (Scherezade Goldsmith is the case that always makes me wince). It doesn't serve any purpose, and it's thoroughly unpleasant. And it makes us look like a bunch of tits - even those of us who didn't participate.

On a wider point - people do say libellous stuff on here about slebs. I'm constantly reading things that make me think, 'Can you say that?' You couldn't say these things in a paper. So in that sense, the journos are right to be pissed off at the double standard.

That is a good point -- it only becomes anonymous, in that sense, when its contents are taken out and reproduced in a paper. Where MNers don't have right of reply as she has here.

i have started a thread

but YES, lupus, i thought that was a bullshit point. her name goes out to her constituency, for which she is paid handsomely, the lucky besom.

we read, form an opinion, and comment on here, on our community, our consituency. if i were to suddenly say that she is a cock sucking whore (i wouldn't, i'm sure she's very nice indeed) then i'd have fifty of you wrestling me to the ground AND i'd have made myself look like a cruel twat in front of my own community. my posts are not anonymous, in fact they're less so because this is a smaller community than her daily mail readership. i know most of you, most of you know me. this is not an anonymous forum.

Except for Waitrose. They showed much respect to the Great MN, even if in the end they didn't answer all our questions. And they may/or may not have paid. But they have actually followed up and engaged with the sophables and us intelligently.

I have mixed feelings. DG is not anonymous and therefore allowed to be rude; we're anonymous and therefore we're not? I don't really get that bit, Swedes. I think I'm pretty easy to identify if someone was really cross with what I was saying. And - as with the religion thread - tone is so difficult to convey in any case: my pointed question is someone else's jeering.

OK, I think I probably jeered at Daisy. But why is it OK for her to publicly jeer at us collectively? I imagine that legacy will have a much more lasting impact than my being ever so slightly rude to someone who is paid to be in the public eye. If you don't want a pointed response, don't write for a national newspaper...

I agree however that the point is getting lost in the bunfight. But the chatters often clearly don't do their research, as Aitch says. Waitrose started off thinking we just wanted nice recipes for salmon en papillote. And ended up gaining a bit more market share because they took some tough and intelligent questions seriously.

Thread would be good. They don't work well, do they.

I liked Swedes' idea of a panel. And why can't the guests be expected to do a little homework -- to write answers to early questions beforehand?

Plus, I think that we shouldn't have product-placement livechats in the same category as 'political' livechats. Or if there is a chat that necessarily straddles the two, some conventions ought to be in place to mark exactly what the terms are.

lol re progressive treachery.

wrt the webchats, how are they actually done?

is Daisy G logging on from her well-appointed office? has she actually been given those questions we asked in advance?

should i actually start a proper thread about this? i don't like the way the chats work at the moment, i think that the guests have no respect for MN tbh and that we show them little in return. when tanya byron came on, all was fine because she didn't have an attitude and she plainly isn't an attention-seeking nobboid whose PR has said 'there are these silly women on the internet, just be yourself, they'll LOVE you'.

I usually think of it as a euphemism for 'pragmatic but treacherous shift to the right'

'progressive' is one of those capricious words whose meanings can be entirely opposed to one another, isn;t it. It's claimed by both left and right. Probably centre too.

Ah yes I see what you mean now thanks

or one that refuses to be self critical and progressive

any ideolofy that puts itself before the people it claims to represent, GU.

LOL. I would Wittering? All human interaction is game theory, as well as lots of other things too. It's just one of many lenses to understand phenomenon. It's not always rational - depending on your persepctive.

You know equilibriums. When one reaches its zenith, it's then paradoxically most vulnerable to cheater strategies. That's all I mean. If most people play by the rules, there will come a time when someone will reaslise how to expoit the system to their gain - whatever system that is, MN or anything. MP's expenses for example.

Interesting, MT, how would you define militant?

It would b e really difficult to find 20 thousand plus people who would all play by the same rules on an unmoderated, anonymous forum. I'm not saying it wouldn't be nice, just a bit idealistic rayther than pragmatic.

My politics. Based in liberalism but without adherance to the militant ideologies. I believe politics should work for people, not the other way around.

MNHQ - Scratch that last post, sorry. I've found it now, it was in webchats and not in site stuff.

This is lovely. You see, every time I am about to give up on MN because I need to spend more time in RL, we have a conversation about game theory or something that pulls me back in.

MNHQ - Apparently sophable said on the other Waitrose fish webchat thread (that seems to have disappeared) that Waitrose were invited to do the webchat by Mumsnet and had NOT paid. I know sophable asked you to comment on that on that thread (but I can't find it any more - has it been removed for some reason?) and I'm just wondering what was the outcome?

I mean, the interests we pursue here (perhaps unlike those we pursue in rl) are inherently social, so it can't be claimed without argument that the individual explains the social. So we wouldn't necessarily need social constraints imposed on us by a Leviathan.

I think you'd have to make a strong case for analysing chat-forum dynamics in that game-theoretical way wouldn't you? Rather than just asserting it.

I don't think we post here just in rational pursuit of self-interest. What self-interst is there to realise here, except commuity approval? That being the case, I'd imagine that community ethos has some independant explanatory pull, and that individual decisions are partly the consequence of it rather than always the cause.

Monkeytrousers - It may be unmoderated but it can be self-moderated, surely? MT what are your poltiical beliefs, broadly? Feel free not to answer if you would rather not.

because it's unmoderated. Its all game theory.

Monkeytrousers - Of course you can ask everyone to play by the rules. We all abide by rules in our daily lives and I don't see why Mumsnet should be different.

"I really cringe during most Mumsnet webchats. We can be rigourous without being rude, can't we? In fact being rude means the rigour gets lost in the din of the jeering. It's v ugly and I think it should stop. We want to encourage people to come here don't we?"

I don;t think there is a problem with numbers is there - of more is better. Problem is you cannot police debates or ask everyone to play by the rules on a forum of tnes of thousands. There will always be one cheater who exploits the system, gets a cheap laugh, and then others will follow.

Isn't this what Arronvich was on about re democracy? The need for a supreme court.

Is a good idea. But it is part of the wider civility-on-Mumsnet question.

I think that's a good idea, Swedes. The chats have such a lot of potential, but at the moment they don't quite work. Using your method,
we'd have a better chance of getting answers to specific questions.

Yes, I thought Daisy G was spot on in her webchat today when she said she put her name to the things she writes, and we are all anon.

I really cringe during most Mumsnet webchats. We can be rigourous without being rude, can't we? In fact being rude means the rigour gets lost in the din of the jeering. It's v ugly and I think it should stop. We want to encourage people to come here don't we?

Do you think it might be a nicer idea if we invited guests to webchat to a Mumsnet panel- with Mumsnetters selected partly by interest group Mumsnetters and partly by ballot?

So for example, today we could have had TikTok, Hunker, Aitch, MorningPaper, Phono and someone else (sorry to anyone I've missed) and another 6 Mumsnetters by ballot. It's impossible for guests to answer all the qs otherwise and sometimes the qs get continously repeated, but asked in slightly different ways. What do you all think?

I am Neda

This is the kind of thing the Blogosphere is best at, which captures its viral impact...

It's just not an enjoyable way for a woman to pass the time - cock jousting without a cock!

Very interesting to hear some confirmation of the fact that much political blogging is very preponderantly male (both in authorship and readership. I've seen research to that effect based on the US, but it came up in recent threads about the participation of men on Mumsnet, where is was treated with scepticism.

In the US research it was put down partly to the kinds of issues that the blogs focused on, which were seen as male ones. But of course that is likely a n effect as well as a cause of low female involvement.

Aaronovitch alluded to male domination of blogs and comment sites, and wondered whether it's related to their lack of civility. He called blogs 'democratic but unreliable, as democracy often is', which I thought was a nice line. Iain Dale said that 85 per cent of his readership is male, but that this 'reflects levels of political participation'. Surely this is bollox? I mean, I know men tend to participate more than women, but not by that sort of differential.

I think Aaronovich is on to something with the male agression on blogs and forums - ones where they dominate anyway. You can almost smell the testosterone as they all lock horns. Its not pretty. Good way for them to let off steam but it's just a feeding frenzy - anoither way to cme out alpha male. Cock jousts. Totally.

I mentioned male intrasexual competition to to Nick Cohen once and he said 'fuck me is that what me and Chris (hitchens) are up to?'

(And look, take note, I was once politically engaged, i even wrote to Polly Toynbee, I wasn't always this stupid pregnant woman in a dogcollar)

gu, yes, her flip-flopping on Brown seems to have lost her a lot of credibility. I don't really mind it myself - it seems to me to reflect a rather female willingness to change your opinion when the facts change - but I suppose people want Certainty from top commentators.

I tend to agree with you to a point, PW, I think in general MN etc can be ruder than is fair about celebs/books etc.

The problem with that JH book as I saw it (but then I didn't read it) was that whatever the actual words said, it was sold to the public as a kind of "gosh my journey has been so difficult" when actually, you know, by most people's standards she had quite an easy life. I think that can be one of the useful things about MN etc, the real world can crowd in on people's delusions etc and say "but hang on, you had the money to pay for childcare and a SAHM husband" or whatever it was. Like I said, the fault may have been in the marketing more than in the book itself.

But it's never nice to know that people have been upset by online debate.

I think I'd cross the road to avoid both of them tbh, Swedes. Politically I'm more with DA, but he does seem to be permanently enraged.

Interesting re: Polly Toynbee. She did however reply to an email I sent her. Mind you, it was complimentary (this was before her weird Gordon-infatuation/revulsion thing)

Suzanne's hair is absolutely full of vibrance and personality. If it were a small child, you'd be cutting down on its sugar intake and wondering whether it needed an early night.

It's difficult, this thing about comment vs rudeness. There's no easy dividing line, is there? I think quite a lot of what gets said on here is too rude to be considered constructive. I s'pose there's no requirement to be constructive, mind. I do think the print journos have a point about anonymity though: it's a lot easier to call, say, Daisy Goodwin a *****ing *** of a ***** when you're posting under a pseudonym. It does rather smack of cowardice and childishness.

Also (and maybe this is just me being a bit soft), when you see someone like JH in person and how she has obviously been very upset by what we said about her, it reinforces the point that these are all real people, even if they are rich and famous and well-connected.

I don't think the journos were feeling intellectually redundant, but I think they are (en masse) worried for their jobs/salaries, and a lot of them are resentful of having to engage with online posters, even when they have no desire to do so. (I was told by someone last night that Polly T absolutely refuses to have anything to do with the exchanges on Comment is Free, because she thinks it's all a load of rubbish.)

Ilove - there was very little mention of anything outside the Westminster bubble, to be honest. The Iranian twitterers were mentioned in passing. There's an interesting discussion to be had about all that, but it wasn't covered last night.

Mark Reckons' blog with with links to podcast and comments about the evening. I love the live tweet coming in saying "But David A is a c**t" I've just watched the podcast and honestly don't think Iain Dale was the tittier of him and DA.

Was anything discussed about foreign bloggers who send on the ground information to print and TV from war zones where otherwise there isn't access? Moral obligations to keep these people safe?

Suzanne Moore still has interesting hair? <is that libellous?>

Very interesting PWonk. Spesh the last bit about Us, obviously. Little bit protesting too much from Aaronovitch when journos, um, Get Paid for talking nonsense. And we, um, Don't.

Are they feeling symbolically and literally (in the Indie's case) redundant then?

And what does Frogspawn expect, really? DG today another case in point. There is lots of indignant hysteria. But far more critical intelligence on MN, I feel.

(goes back to search for original threads)

Well, I wasn't. But I think some people were. MN does have a bit of a kneejerk 'How very dare she!' response whenever someone writes anything at all about parenting, I think. Even more so if the writer has the temerity to be famous/rich.

Ooh, fascinating, policywonk.
Were we? Mean, nasty and spiteful?
Oh dear.
(searches conscience)

Sorry. Went out for dinner, drank some wine, late train back (nice 25-minute wait at Vauxhall) and had a small-child-related nocturnal disturbance, so had to have a little nap in front of Wimbledon today.

It was very Westminster-focused - a whole swathe of blogs that aren't about high politics were pretty much ignored. I think there are highly informative specialist blogs that don't fit neatly into the distinctions that were developed by the panel.

There was some four-star willy-waving between Iain Dale (Tory blogger) and David Aaronovitch, who hate each other. (The ostensible issue was the Times's unmasking of Night Jack, but this was obviously just a pretext.) It honestly looked as though there might be a punch-up at one stage. So that was nice. Dale also had a big go at Polly Toynbee and Jackie Ashley, both Guardianistas, for being inconsistent (Anne Spackman took him to task for this, asking why he had chosen to name two women.)

To be honest, I don't think much was said that hadn't been anticipated on here really. There were a few interesting themes though:

Economic model: John Lloyd (who introduced) pointed out that newspapers worldwide are dying or gravely ill, and he blamed the internet quite squarely. (He talked about all the papers that are failing in France, the NYT being propped up by a Mexican entrepreneur, and the Independent being in trouble over here.) He pointed out (as onebat did below) that nobody knows what economic model will replace the current print-based newspaper. Anne Spackman, who runs the Times's online comment section, echoed this. She says that although advertising money has fallen away from printed papers, it hasn't migrated to blogs or to online sites, other than Google (AdWords, I think she meant).

A further consequence of the failure of the print model is that there's no money available for old-style investigative journalism, which is time- and money-consuming. Bloggers are not a substitute for this.

Print journos tend to earn more than bloggers, who often have day jobs; the exception is Guido Fawkes, who is apparently as rich as Croesus. (Aaronovitch responded to this by saying 'In that case I'll tell my lawyers that it might be worth suing him after all.' Aaronovitch reckons he is regularly libelled by Guido's comment-monkeys.)

Do papers still have the power?: when Guido Fawkes wanted to make a big splash with his Damian McBride email, he had to go to the papers. Martin Bright (probably the only panel member you'd want to be stuck in a lift with) said that the truth was a bit more complicated. He pointed out that telly trumps both print and online platforms in terms of reach and power. (Mick Fealty pointed out that although the big story with Obama's campaign was that he raised loads of his money online, most of those funds went to buy television spots.) Bright also said that Downing Street is much more interested in his Spectator blog than in any journalism he ever had printed in the New Statesman. (But I guess nobody in the Labour govt reads New Statesman, do they?)

Unique attributes of blogs: a few people spoke about the 'peer-to-peer' tone of blogs and online comment, as opposed to the me-journo-you-idiot tone of some print comment pieces. Another feature is that bloggers tend not to come from insider Westminster (or other co-opted) circles. This makes them more approachable; their sources tend to be junior-level staff rather than senior officials, and their readers feel confident that bloggers aren't spinning messages handed down by party hierarchies. Blogs also don't have to 'guard' any brand, in the way some paper journalists might have to.

Aaronovitch alluded to male domination of blogs and comment sites, and wondered whether it's related to their lack of civility. He called blogs 'democratic but unreliable, as democracy often is', which I thought was a nice line. Iain Dale said that 85 per cent of his readership is male, but that this 'reflects levels of political participation'. Surely this is bollox? I mean, I know men tend to participate more than women, but not by that sort of differential.

The legal position The print journos are very pissed off at the legal mismatch between print/newspaper journalism, which has to get past stringent legal guidelines, and the current freedom of often-anonymous bloggers and (ahem) talkboard users to say hugely libellous things without being sued. They are particularly exercised (understandably) about the nasty things that are said about them when their articles are discussed online. Aaronovitch said 'accountability, to someone who is posting online, means being able to call someone a cunt'. (I think he gets called a cunt a lot.) Conversely, Mick Fealty reckons that the legal threat hanging over print journos makes them too cautious. Everyone agreed that a big-name blogger is going to get very, very sued sometime soon, at which point the sands will shift a bit.

Julia Hobsbawm is still very upset about the kicking she got on here when her book was published. She said that when the book came out, she went to 'the only online site that it was particularly relevant to' (that's us I think) and that we were being 'mean, nasty and spiteful'. I had been wanting to make a point about the wisdom of crowds, and how sites like MN can help you to refine your thinking and become better informed on the back of other people's wisdom and experience in a way that can't happen in a newspaper column, but at this point I thought better of it.

There were lots of journos in the audience - many more than there had been for the expenses panel, which surprised me. This issue exercises print journos a lot, I realised. Suzanne Moore was there. <considers legal position> She has interesting hair.

I've never been compared to a football hooligan before...I rather like the idea.

David Aaronovitch slips a quick ad hominem point into the corner of the net. The Waitrose fish bloggers complain that anything caught in a net should be disallowed because of the threat to dolphins.

The crowd holds its breath ...

Oh yes, Wittering. The away supporters are invading the pitch, while PW tries to calm things down with her whistle and a plate of orange-quarters.

MT, I did say I didn't want to carry on the argument on this thread....

I used it here as an example of one of the downsides of blogs. Could apply to any extreme opinion, not just AS. If you have read my final post on the final page, that sums up my position pretty clearly, I think.

Perhaps it went to extra time and then penalties.
They might still be at it.

Too many question marks

Yes another thread definitely. Where's policy? I'm on tenterhooks wondering whether the commentariat or the bloggertariat are winning?

Do you think it might be better to start another thread for this?

I have scanned up to page 14 and still not really seen any explicity racism, IMHO.

Belittling religion (any religion), making fun of it, exclaming FFS, offending people by doing these things is not racism or antisemitism. No one has exclaimed 'death to the jews', made references to money lenders, Zionist conspracy - so far, if these come later then yes, things are becoming racist (sic).

And I think LisaLisa's post about tolerence on MN for other religions is disengenuous. Rev has had some pretty robust debates on here, as have I on Islamism.

The right to offend if part of free speech. As is the right to ridicule. What isn't is the right to single out people from races or creeds as 'rats' or 'pigs' who should be exterminated. That is hate speech, not 'FFS'. There is still enough of this real anti-semitism around for us to be able to distinguish it from what was on that thread.

You can still argue with 'ffs' and the 'oi's' and say they are cheap and distatesful - especially the latter, but they don't constitute antisemetism imho.

I did only go as far as MP's lists - will have a further look.

Don't think there is a problem with two discussions happening at once on this thread.

MT, I don't want to drag an argument onto another thread, but if you look up my comments you will see quite clearly where the line IMHO was crossed.

There are several lists, I think you only saw the first.

That's absolutely true about fashion mags I suppose -- that most of the copy is more or less advert-driven in one way or another. Good point. I'd been thinking of the bloggertariat vs. commentariat thing in terms of web forums vs newspapers, and the reliability or otherwise of the content in each. Perhaps the proper parallel for MN is more the fashion mag thing.

andof course the ad/editorial content has always been fuzzy in magazines, though its usually always weighetd towards the ad

Wittering, as long as people are entertained, who cares? We live in a commercial world now, we depend on capital growth for our quality of lives. I will be sure to know if I join a thread on Waitrose that it may well have been started as part of a 'viral' ad campaign. This is part of our culture now. It's not all bad.

Well I just had a flick throu the first 3 pages and didn't see any direct antisemitisim either - and as you all know I am Israels bulldog these days

That list you posted MP was pretty generic - they could have been describing anyone they thought petty or silly (which I am not saying they were - I have no opinioin on the matter).

I suppose the disturbing thing is that 50% of the livechats have been bought, zeitgeisty or otherwise. In an intuitive sense that makes them adverts. Naturally you aren't going to take adverts that don't fit with the Mumsnet brand -- because you respect the community's shared values, but also because Mumsnet is itself a brand and for commercial reasons you need to preserve its brand identity.

The depressing thing is the lack of clarity. There isn't the distinction I had imagined between talk on the one hand, and the adverts funding the talk on the other hand.

But Swedes they're not mutually exclusive! We rule out about 2/3rds of chats on the basis that they don't work for us...
So really it's 50% of 30% ie 15%!

It is surprising, isn't it Swedes. Though I suppose you could make the point that the payers are all businesses -- you wouldn't expect them to have free access to the talkboard on the same terms as, say, a zeitgeisty charity.

"But I take the point about clarity and maybe we should add a sponsored by button to all paid-for webchats so you know which ones are and which aren't (it's about 50-50)?"

Really 50-50 of the webcasts are paid for? I thought Mumsnet only had people who were a good fit and captured the Mumsnet zeitgeist- by parents for parents?

You'll post here to let us know how it goes, won't you policywonk? It is an interesting set of issues.

<scrambles to retrieve sensible, well-informed opinions before thread expires>

Who's Daisy Goodwin?

We're going to unsticky this one now, in favour of Daisy Goodwin who's on tomorrow. (Won't surprise you to know she's not paying though).

Folks can of course always choose not to see stickies in customise Talk...

Oh, yes, product tests too. I'd forgotten them. And things like the O2 survey thread.

Not sure that 'sponsored by' is the best terminology. It suggests nurture, support (like a sponsored walk). These are adverts.

Yes, it was Rhubarb, but it's all right now, we are congratulating Quattro on her business plan.

Oh dear, is this about the religious thread?

I could see that people had been offended before I joined in, but then it seemed to go alright again. UQD, onager and I were having quite a good discussion about religion. Poppity too, Lucia and loads of others. But then the earlier incident was brought up again which was unfortunate. I don't know what was said to Olympede, I didn't delve into it too deeply. But it was a shame as I was enjoying the thread, it's been a long time since I've had such an interesting debate.

And whilst plenty of people disagreed with me, none were personally offensive to me.

Yes I can see that Wittering but we only do webchats if we think the subject/ person involved is going to be of interest/ useful. We have turned down an awful lot of folks either on the grounds that they are dull or just wrong (eg Macdonalds).

Having said that we think companies who get the chance to engage should pay a bit for the privilege precisely because, as you say, they are getting air time. It's the same principal as product tests really, which we also do on Talk. Ideally we are always looking for a happy combination of interesting subject matter, something for you (eg Jogglers or Dysons) and a wee something for us to meet the costs. It's a fine balancing act of course and we are very aware of the risks of messing with the sanctity of Mumsnet Talk believe me!

Thank you Justine. That is a very full answer, and the 'sponsored by' tag will be valuable. Great.

Im I being a bit naive, though, to be sad to have it confirmed that there are 'paid for' threads? I had hoped that I was wrong about that and that the distinction between forum content (main body of talk pages) and advertisements (flashing around at the side)was in fact well observed. I hope that the 'sponsored by' tag will be clear enough -- that it will be comparable in clarity to the kind of visual distinctions that newspapers are obliged to maintain.

Re louder voice, of course within the thread itself the paying guest takes her life in her hands with the rest of us. But, the livechat is stickied, it gets puffs on the homepage, and it gets a well-friendly op from MNHQ. That's all I meant by louder voice. It isn't a massive advantage, but it isn't nothing either, and more than a very few paid-for threads would surely distort the board. If the paid-for threads really looked like adverts it wouldn't matter.

OH i thought you meant to put it on the fish thread.
apols.

<winds neck in>

I don't think so - was responding to wittering's post earlier down?

is that the wrong thread?

Hello all - sorry for delay on getting back on this, I had to find out from Jules (sales) if it was indeed a paid-for chat or not! Turns out it is, but at a reduced rate (£1,000) intented to cover cost of admin of it only really - ie editorial time spent liaising, moderating, archiving and publishing (plus fruit shoots and sausage rolls for the chat itself). Strictly entre nous, and not to be shared with Waitrose PR people we would have had them on paid for or not because I think it's such an interesting subject and the movie End of the Line is so hot at the moment. But I take the point about clarity and maybe we should add a sponsored by button to all paid-for webchats so you know which ones are and which aren't (it's about 50-50)?

Nb with regard to louder voices being secured by payment, I'm not sure that holds when members are free to contribute freely to the chat and raise whatever opinions they have on the issues in hand. If we were in the business of deleting criticism then I could see that would be problematic but we make it clear to anyone who comes on for a chat that we have absolutely no control over you whatsoever .

Hope that explains things - we'll get to work on a sponsored by button.

Yes bravo, quattro

<steals idea and scurries off to Patent Office via Beth Din>

Yes, glad you got the last word, Quattro

Oh - Quattro - very very very funny last word on that other thread!

Fischfrau, good name.

It would be really really ^wrong^ of me to point you to this really really interesting blog with non-commercial commentary on, um, stuff, wouldn't it? It has no ^agenda^, nope. None at all. Nothing to do with profile raising, doing good --recruiting-- --students--



<how long do I get before MNHQ deletes, dya reckon?>

<or before you all complain how SHITE and badly written it is?>

Interestng point onebat about the bloggers that were paid.

If the Waitrose Fishchat is a paid-for spot (is it Justine?) and posts favourable to Waitrose get incorporated into Waitrose publicity material, then the creators of those posts might feel sewn up like a kipper very aggrieved that the terms of the discussion weren't clearer. It is one thing to find your gems of toddler-rearing info incorporated later into a book, as an incidental consequence of an online conversation in which participants gave and received support without any commercial structuring of the convo; quite another when the convo was set up explicitly to further the PR objectives of a major supermarket.

Again, I don't have a problem with ads existing. We all know that Mumsnet is a business, and from the owners' point of view the user-generated content is there to pull in hits and so make the advertising space profitable for them. In that respect the community is incidental, or rather it is a means to an end. But unless ads are clearly labelled as such its members will start to feel ill-treated and disappear.

(If the Fishchat isn't a paid-for slot it is still slightly uncomfortable. The livechats have always been about product placement but this one feels too corporate and makes me want to know a little more about the guest's expectations of the slot.)

no real conclusion Quatt - damp squib. Decided to first try and bullshit translate previous work into guest-lecturing, and got some responses, but all v vague - also RL got in way. Need to up my game again. Think have decided agianst phd but might do MA next year if I can join late.. So all still up in air. Have at least got general plan though so not totally downcast. Thanks for asking, myd ear.

I tried to get Fishwife but someone's already got it. And I doubt she's wearing Crocs.

V v good points wittering.

<onebat, what did you decide to do on the work/phd front? sorry have missed the conclusion.>

That's interesting Wittering.

Recently, this kidn of thing has been a hot topic in the blargasphere: bloggers have been paid (in cash or product) to post on the subject of certain brands/products, and haven't declared it.

Of course, everyone's saying that they've just been paid to give their entirely neutral opinion, but predictably it reflected very badly on both blog, and brand, both of which lost credibility.

This matters, I think. The line between Mumsnet as a community and Mumsnet as a private commercial enterprise is sometimes necessarily rather blurred; which makes it all the more important to be transparent about things like this, both from an ethical standpoint, and from a 'asset-protection' one, in terms of ensuring that the key demographic community doesn't start to feel resentful.

at 'fishchat'

I was pondering a new topic the other day (brought on by my clog-wearing proclivities): Am I Being Unfashionable?

In print media and on the television there are quite strict rules that allow us to delineate advertising from editorial content and actual programmes. Regulations such as these give us a little more confidence in knowing when to trust - they are a good filter aiding the reliability of MSM

The Guardian got into trouble with the regulators a while ago for some very right-on looking adverts that looked very 'newsy' and featured social enterprises, showing how their work had been supported by such-and-such a product/service (I can't remember the details I'm afraid -- can anyone else?) It turned out that some of the social enterprises involved hadn't been aware of how they were being used to create an 'advertisment promotion' rather than a straight news story. Guardian was reprimanded (as I recall???)

What similar regulations relate to blogging and give us reason to feel confident that commercial web content is distinct from straight user-generated content?

The reason I ask is the current Waitrose Fishchat on MN. It appears alongside all the other threads and is not marked as advertisement. Plainly everyone will know that Waitrose have an axe to grind and will be properly sceptical. BUT ... if Waitrose have paid for that slot (have they Justine?) is it right that it should appear on the board as just another thread? Should its commercial status be made explicit? Should posters be clearly informed that they are participting in a paid-for advertisement?

Are there any regulations or voluntry codes on this issue? The worry is that what looks like a neutral forum, which contributions standing or falling on their merits, might be one in which a louder voice is secured by payment. I've no problem with ads, just a little worried about ads dressed up as something else, both on MN and in the context of this wider discussion..

Ah, I see, gu.

The issue was more that she was accused of behaving nastily, onebatmother, AFAIK. I think that is what upset her most: she was, as you say, doing no more than defending her point of view.

I didn't seriously engage with UQDs posts in the second half of the thread, so I can't comment on the rights and wrongs of what he said. Mainly because I was trying not to get drawn into a cosy theological chat when I was still by the casual anti-Semitism (as I feel it) expressed by some earlier in the thread.

Also, in a spirit of absolute honesty, can I just say that I skimmed the last few pages of the lightbulb thread, and though I'm really sad that Ruty felt so attacked, I must say that I didn't see anything more unpleasant than heated debate. I didn't see anyone insult anyone else, I don't think. I don't think UQD was being actively rude.

I think people have to be able to challenge the fundamentals of any belief, don't they? However reductive (2nd time today) that might be within the context of a broader debate.

If we are simply discussing 'commentators paid by national newspapers' versus 'commentators who are self-funding', that seems rather reductive.

A good paid-commentator will be better than a bad self-funded-commentator. A bad paid-commentator will be worse than a good self-funded-commentator.

The former is more likely, since a reasonably high standard amongst the first group is likely, in that someone has already considered them good enough to pay.

A good self-funded-blogger will be more inclined to say the unsayable than one who takes Murdoch's (or anyone else's) shilling - until they start relying on advertising for income and have to toe that line.

Which is almost inevitable unless they are independently wealthy - and that circumstance would bring its own ethical questions.

So it's all much of a muchness.

<flips eggs>

True: that is the cross-over point between audience and mainstream media, is a comment part of the media or a "blog" itself? I dunno the answer.

(This thread had nothing to do with Israel, BTW, it was just about the religious practices of observant/Orthodox Jews)

Growing up - I agree re thye filtering, but you can get some pretty extreme comments about comment pieces which, as long as they do not break the law, stay - and I think this is in the best interests of free speech.

I genuinely think people should be allowed to 'say' anything - that's different from prothletizing, or coming up with a programme for putting abuse into action.

Many people will not think of themselves as anti-semetic, simply anti-Israeli, without realising that the thinsg they are repeating from the media are directly filtered from extremism and the worst kind of myopia. They don't check their sources, or the medias

In short, info please on what's meant by 'commentariat', bloggertariat' amd 'winning'.

'vs.' and 'who's' I'm ok with I think.

It would be helpful to post up some info from the organisers about the terms of the discussion. The distinction between 'commentariat and bloggertariat' suggests the debate is about the ralationship between opinion pieces in mainstream media and (opinion pieces?) by bloggers? Rather than between news gathering by maninstream media and by bloggers?

Is that right? We need to make that clear because otherwise we can't assess the benefits or dangers of the filtering that Justine mentions in her post. For news gathering we tend to think of filtering in terms of fact-checking for the sake of accuracy. (That's where MSM gets its sense of advantage over bloggers -- the trusted brands of accuracy.) For comment, 'filtering' would presumbably be a process of ensuring that opinions stated were favourable to the interests of whoever is providing the platform for the comment. E.g. newspapers have party political loyalties and commercial interests. Mumsnet (as the business hosting some blogs) has some ideological loyalties (fairly uncontroversial and fluffy ones) and of course commercial imperatives of its own. (So it is wrong to say simply that blogging is unfiltered and commentriat is filtered.)

Also, the term 'blogging' is a bit too vague. Does it mean much more than 'saying what you think on the internet'? Does it mean 'saying what you think on the internet in certain distinctive journal-like forms'? In either case it doesn't really set up who it is we are talking about in our contrast with the 'commentariat'. We need to think of a sub-group of (interesting? informed? significant? motivated? close-to-the-action) online communicators.

What is that sub-group?

I think if we look at the casual anti-Semitism on the thread that OG deregged on, it's very clear that opinions can be expressed in the blogosphere which no mainstream newspaper would allow. That is an issue I think for the tension between freedom of speech/moral boundaries - do we allow things that are derogatory and demeaning of minority groups because "it's just the Internet" whereas if it was a newspaper/media outlet there would be complaints?

Big problem there i think, although maybe not good to mention anti-Semitism on Mumsnet for Radio 4 audience!

If there is a distinction in my mind between commentariat and bloggertariat, it is that commentary is something that is informed, judicious and considered, while blogging is venting opinions which may or may not be well-thought through.

Of course that doesn't always work - Iain Dale is obviously more thoughtful than most tabloid newspapers, for instance.

Take a thread on here the other day about Mrs Thatcher. "Mrs Thatcher is evil". Followed by several definitions of the word evil. That's more of a visceral reaction than a balanced assessment, isn't it?

demos is a wanker's rhetorical word for the population

I think Unstrung Harp puts the controversy on the other thread v well. It's got a title about light sensors, monkeytrousers. End of hijack!

"in general spirit of meeting complete strangers, swapping cards and then not phoning them" - that is exactly what I do! Thought I was the only one who was so feeble, thanks for reassuring me.

what or who are 'the demos' <blindsided emoticon>

I'm not sure that's the most pressing problem facing the demos at the moment, MT.

WEell if that is so we'd be better off scrutinising the journos just as much as the politicians.

Who's for looking into their expenses and seeing what we find? Many mistresses homes and a shed load of coke is my first guess.

And that's not including the lap dancing gym recipts!

Disseminator, yes, but the media is being effectively HM Opposition.

It would be highly unusual to find the media was not a battlegroud for political ideologies. It is the main disseminator of all our information on the world.

I am all for freedom of the press, but think there should be a discussion about self regulation. The media is too important to leave completely self regulated. As the expensed scandal has shown, the system is only as uncorruptable as the people. And no political media pundit is elected, even though we get our political info via their interpretation.

Lupus - I wouldn't worry. Nothing you said on that thread would have offended anybody. There are a few Dawkins proselytisers posters who always come up on these threads and try to convince everyone that religious belief is no more worthy of serious consideration than a belief in fairies etc. Another set of posters (made up in roughly equal parts of atheists, agnostics and believers) invariably comes on to say things like "don't you think that's a bit reductive" or "that's bollocks" or "I find that very offensive actually" and it all goes downhill from there. Think this one was unusually unpleasant though, probably in part because of some quite dodgy comments about Jewish practices early on in the thread.

There are a lot of interesting discussions to be had about the role of religion in society, whether particular religious privileges should be tolerated, and how we should accommodate a range of religious beliefs and practices. On Mumsnet these seem to me to be hampered rather more by those who keep repeating "we shouldn't accommodate them at all because it's all rubbish don't you see" than by those who take offence at any criticism of their faith.

(Sorry this has absolutely nothing to do with bloggers and commentators - hijack over.)

Yes that made perfect sense OBM, and was very helpful.

I suppose the difference with the MSM now is that their news is filtered by political prejudice, and generally you know what their prejudice or slant might be, and choose accordingly. Similarly if you want your own prejudices challenged, you chose a different paper.

Your helpful post has made me wonder if what I'm thinking about is wherein lies the difference between opinion and politically prejudiced news?

I wonder too whether it is that distinction which is becoming blurred, rather than the truth / opinion news of my first post?

Your point about collective authority is v. good and I think you are right. I do hope PW reports back, I'm interested to hear what is said on this panel now.

Of course it's okay. The first part isn't even a question, it's an opinion. It's not a fact. It can be challenged.

Think it's OK to ask specific questions such as, 'why do you believe such and such' 'what does your belief/religion think about xxx' but not OK to say, 'clearly xxx is garbage. Why do you believe it when it's been proven etc....'

Free speech is not an absolute right as quality does come into it.

sorry, had to go off myself as DS was emtying a bottle of shampoo down the plug hole!

But my next point is that these dichotomies (false or not) are vital for debate, vital for progress. It's when people try to shut down debate that we should worry - always!

I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it - who actually beleives this now? How much has it (and free speech itself) been eroded by political correctness, arguments from which more and more resemble 1984?

I do not think saying anything shuld be a crime. How do you argue against and falsify malign ideas if they are not allowed to be expressed and legitimatley tackled? Those ideas won't go away.

this one MT

It started badly, got better, descended into bluntness, grumpiness and misunderstanding all round in the middle, picked up again, Lucia waded in, some of us decided backing off into stupid humour was the best way out. Olympe deregged.

I can't find the thread you are discussing. Has it been deleted?

OBM, as liberal as I am - though getting a bt neo-liberal more and more - I actually can see the benefit of the tabloids and their feircely nationalistic slant on things which is I think a vital correction to all the self-hating, anti-western stuff that goes on.

Some of us have been kicking around on here for years. Some have built up resentments, some haven't.

sorry, wrong choice of words. And apologies for making assumptions. It seemed like something that had a familiar structure/tone.

Lupus - I have no form with Rhubarb at all. But I have often voiced my opinion that Men take up too much elbow room on Mumsnet. And Olympede has no form with UQD. But UQD has form for being generally intolerant about religion.

Could I just ask/debrief about that other thread- since you're all here, and hello growingup ...

There's obviously some form between ODG and UQD, which I hadn't realised. And there was a bit of gang warfare going on, stirred up by strong feelings and hurt.

I kind of bumbled in, in my intellectual 'ooh here's an interesting thing to talk about way, let's try and sound like I know what questions to ask' cord jacket with leather elbow patches way. And then ODG was getting mobbed, and Swedes piled in in defence, and clearly has form herself with Rhubarb, and UQD seemed brusque but not as bad/offensive as people were implying, and oh my, it was my first religion thread. And I was very sad last night. It was another initiation into MN.

I - not being from polite society - was not brought up with the 'you don't discuss religion or politics' edict. Quite the opposite. So. How to discuss these things respectfully? Or just don't?

v briefly (god, I'm posting duirng a family lunch)

Totally agree 100x - but that has always been the case. People read tabloids, for example, which bear little relationship to the kind of News that you refer to. The Daily Mail presents the news through an almost opaque prism of prejudice.

The value - and also the failing - of blogs is that they are unfiltered. They have jolted teh MSM out of complacency, and those which come from areas where it is impossible for the MSM to get real access are invaluable. But they cannot replace 'The Press', for the same reason that Martin Bell can't replace 'Political Parties'. They have no real power because they individualized and not collective. There can be one-off successes, but no consistency.

I think there will be a period of adjustment; but I think that ultimately, that part of the public which values broadsheet reporting will continue to be prepared to pay for it, online. Perhaps that percentage will shrink, but it will eventually stabilize.

Yes, the 'news' part of news will be increasingly difficult to monetize, but it is the interpretation and contextualization of the news for which we pay.

The parts of a newspaper's business which can or must be given away free, as a kind of loss-leader, will be, and it will be only these elements - the interpretation and explication - which will be in genuine competition with individual bloggers. Exceptionally few of whose number are or will be financially viable as businesses. Only the amazingly-placed (and therefore anonymous eg the Iranian insider) or the outrageously-entertaining can really offer proper competition to the MSM

Sorry if that doesn't make sense, I'm trying to eat spag and maetballs at same time. And 'talk' to kids/dp.

Great posts ahundredtimes and monkeytrousers.

I would question, though, if our 'news' can ever be presented as 'fact' - the same story is so often presented with a totally different slant, depending on the (political?) perspective of the writer/broadcaster.

The thing I like about blogs as opposed to commentary is that you do get the variety of opinion - it helps to give me as a reader different perspectives on the same issue.

Sometimes I think I know my view on something, but when faced with a congtrasting opinion it can make me re-think/re-consider - which is a good thing, as I'm then forced to take a deeper view, rather than continuing to think/speak in a more shallow way.

Oh and I think it's a worry because if all we are left with is a cacophony of opinion - in itself 'soft' - then this leads to cynicism, disaffection and dislocation. Which isn't good in a population, and also leads to conspiracy theories and paranoia.

<predicts the end of the world>

<takes more sedatives>

God totally - we have just stopped watching the news becasue it's all opinion not fact.

PW, if they get onto Iran/Afghanistan can you ask them if anyone knows the fate of those 200 women who marched against familial rape in Kabul please??

A familiar cry in this house, usually directed at Nick Robinson, is - 'I don't care about what you think, tell me the NEWS'

I guess it's a general trend, rather than something particularly to do with blogs, but a bit of a worry, I think.

Oh dear, sorry, yes 'in a thoughtful or interesting way'. Apols.

Actually this sums up my problem, and I'd like to know if the panel discuss this. When I'm on MN offering an 'opinion' it's not usually one that I've thought about long and hard, or one that I even seek to express in a well-crafted, succinct or beautiful way. I give amateur opinion - and if I was writing in another format, I would endeavour to be all the things above.

The form is quite demotic, and it's instant and often the opinions of the lay community are 'in development'. In the same way I think the Guardian blogs are like this - as are the 'comments' which follow the blogs.

Which leads us to the weight and importance of opinion. Like the MN chats, anyone can sit down and say 'Oh I think that's rubbish, it's not true.' It's their opinion, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's one I have to take seriously.

I find it worrying if 'opinion' quite quickly becomes 'fact'. It makes me suspicious. I think I still take 'professional' opinions more seriously - especially if I 'know' the person writing, I like to know my sources, or to believe that there has been some professional rigour, some fact checking, applied to that process.

I worry that with the internet, we are all just going to drown in a sea of opinion, and because it is democratic, one person's opinion is just as valid as another persons and that there will then be a corrosion of any professional ethic or standards of 'truth' -especially if news people, try to keep up with freedom of the blogging community and any old professional standards are thrown out the window, in a bid to be engaging and newsworthy, and because they want to invite other people's 'opinion'. Soon there will no respect for properly gathered news.

This is a worry to me. I'd like to hear what people think about it please PW.

Bloggers have been instrumental in getting the story out of Iran.

Thinking about these things in zero-sum terms never helps. Like Onebat said, its a flase dichotmomy.

The chaff will sink (most of it) and the good stuff float to the surface.

I'm saying that as someone with a blog but no time to post on it.

Oh, and it's a tragedy about ruty. She was treated really nastily on that thread.

PS growing up is j u s t a

OOh. More FAME and FORTUNE for PW.

Do we get pics again? Are they going to be nude this time?

(lechs at the beauties of MN)

The thing I think about blogs, right, (drags over barstool and hijacks conversation) is that most of the time no one reads them, because no one can blardy well find them. So you need a sort of blog-signpost-thinggiemagjiggy, to say "this one is good, keep it on your favourites." But then that just creates editing and selection, supposedly the opposite of what the blogosphere is about.

(faints at her own lack of clarity)

So what I end up doing is reading blogs that are easy to find, e.g. on the Times website, not Good.

Oh no PolicyWonk, we didn't mean for you to feel pressganged! The nice lady who's organising this particular shindig told me not to worry when said I thought I couldn't come because they already had a MN person there - i.e. you. (Think they think of you as a MN bod cos we sent you along to the last jobby that they did). So we thought you'd been invited as a MN rep. Hate to think of you feeling exploited in any way - please shout if you'd rather go as a non-aligned PolicyWonk - it's not a problem.

I do think the broader subject is quite interesting from a Mumsnet standpoint, as it sort of mirrors the tension between solo "professional" experts vs the collective lay (i.e. non-charging) experts that was imho the real animus of the Gina Ford v MN case. As Onebat points out, the internet offers so much collective wisdom for free, it's hard to charge for it these days.

But I suppose the valuable thing for most people is a trusted filter. After all we now have access to so much information and opinion and there simply isn't the time to sift through it ourselves. So in a way trusted filters are becoming more valuable, whether they're commentators, bloggers or both.

En route to seaside, rented flat, we will be asleep before DS at this rate.

I think we should petition for a 'Cuntalinas' Corner', for those in possession of...

In hotel?

Lupus that is indeed a beautifully crafted sentence. 100x should get props [vomits] for being elegantly comprehensible, even while clearly under sedation.

Swedes, I imagine that the person who answers that telephone shouts 'fark off you farking cant' and slams down the handset, day in, day out.

Blogs, too long, too many of them. Discuss.

In hotel, 20/20 finished, been watching golf, DS still up, sigh.

I think blogs should come with reviews, or star ratings in case you don't have time to read the reviews. Although I can't imagine the depth of self-loathing that might come from having a career writing blog reviews. It would be a bit like having a career phoning those numbers on the back of white vans that say "How's my driving? call 0873 565456"

And can I just applaud the deliciousness of this sentence from 100x:

'...opinions which are rarely expressed in an usual or thoughtful or even dare I say it, well-written'

am loving teh insertion of MSM now

'cos I only learnt that word when someone told you that the world would end because you were asking questions of a man (or something)

I don't think Iain Dale is v bright. He sent me a surveymonkey survey v recently that was so clearly geared towards him getting advertising on his blog it was cringeworthy.

Hi Lenin -- where do you go on holiday that has cricket? Clearly not in Bristol as apparently the game is still on, according to DP

Policy, in clear English, please, what is the purpose of this panel?

Hello wankers, on hol, with free wi-fi on my phone. Cricket finished. Getting crosser and crosser about a few things on 'sNet.

<sticks egg to spoon with blutack>

that's very swede of you swedes. It is true that I am rather rounder, in several areas, than PW. But sadly, on the matter of blogs v commentators, I only have one thing to say on the matter and I accidentally said it just now.

Also I think PW's going orf her own bat as it were, and MN have sensibly grabbed her swishy coat-tails and are clinging on for the ride.

Also, I worked with David Aaronovich once and I'd worry that I would look humiliatingly crawly-bumlicky sitting in the front row trying to catch his eye..

I think OBM and Policywonk should go. They are both excellent in very different areasn - Mumsnet would look so freaking rounded.

Lupus - very happy to hang around on a Wankers' Corner, swinging my handbag. Just don't expect anything intellechoooal from me ...........

So no egg and spoon race then?

<disappointed>

And yes, I'm very sorry to hear about ruty. I hope she just has a bit of a rest and then comes back.

I can't hang around on here tonight as I'm going out with the school mothers for peri-menopausal squawking.

<develops crush on Fenella>

Well then, I should explain that I was going to go along to this panel in a personal-ish capacity (in general spirit of meeting complete strangers, swapping cards and then not phoning them), but Justine thought you lot might be interested and asked me to do it on here as well. I SAID that you are all utterly unimpressed by bloggers-talking-about-blogging - in fact someone on one of the G20 threads said it was the final stage of futility . But I am scared of Justine and tend to do what she says.

OBM, it would be impressive if I were on the panel, but I will be in the cheap seats. But I will definitely try to work in 'It's a false dichotomy wrapped inside a canard and served on a bed of hubris.' Actually you should be doing this, shouldn't you? It's more your area really.

I agree with Fenella's account of the distinction between bloggers and commentators - at least, I think that's the opposition that this discussion is based on.

I'm not going to be fighting any corner, I don't think. I'm not sure that blogging has many advantages over traditional media. It allows micro-specialisation, played out at great length - which can be a good thing, depending on how interested you are. And of course, in terms of news-gathering it's more immediate than traditional media - but that's partly because traditional journos have to do boring stuff like fact-checking and getting pieces past editors.

So if anything I prefer the MSM - I certainly spend more time reading it (well, the Guardian) than I do blogs. (I think the MN talkboard, and other talkboards, are something else altogether, and I find it a lot more satisfying than the average blog.) In fact that could be the MN 'angle' I guess, if we have to have one - why talkboards are better than blogs.

Loop! No, how awful re ruty! I will go and look, but I'm crap on those threads, for the reasons you mention.

sorry to hijack but...

Bat! (I never know if it's that or supposed to be Wombat...)

And all my other favourite people! Are we having a Wankers' Night in tonight, or do y'all have a life? I'm busy trying not to be offensive and out of my intellectual league on an UQD takes on Religion thread. And may need help, ecumenical or philosophical, or just in brow soothing. Ruty? Olympe has deregged because of it...

or they've mis-spelled 'whining"? Luckily PW will be there to slap legs.

Maybe they're going to have an egg and spoon race?

<lowers tone and intellectual calibre of the thread very satisfactorily on a Friday night>

I'm a bit confused at the distinction between blooger and commentator.

Seems to me that traditional meeja have hijacked thw whole blogging thing, so now their commentators are also bloggers, but I dont see what's changed except that they are now included in the online content.

I could well be missing the point, but I tend to think of a blogger as either; someone with a personal interest in a certain subject; someone with a professional interest, but is blogging in order to convey things they cant say in their professional capacity, or a fantasist.

Then I think of a commentator as, well, as someone doing a job I spose.

I always think of bloggers as being anonymous and commentators as wanting to be anything but! (I know thats not a real rule - but it should be)

Everything gets hijacked and diluted. Not sure that 'blogger' really means much at all now.

I think the ill-informed opinions daily become less important. Only the decent ones will survive, I think.

I suppose the big question is whether papers are going to start charging for online content as Murdoch indicated he was planning to do (and where he goes, they will all go) and the impact that this will have on the blargosphere.

DP, following the derivation of 'blog, has started saying 'are you on 'sNet again'? in his comedy Northern accent.

(Note: DP is a comedy Northerner - not saying Northern accents are intrinsically amusing )

Are we allowed to say we think it's important that there are still professional commentators? I think they are important.

Lots of blogs are just ill-informed opinion, opinions which are rarely expressed in an usual or thoughtful or even dare I say it, well-written.

Though I do like the Huffington Post, and I suppose that's a blog. Swedes is right, it has all got a bit blurry.

I might need a definition of what a represents the commentariat and the bloggertariat please. Then I might struggle to have an opinion.

My final question is: winning at what?

Hmm. Yes. It's one of those 'wither media' things which miss the crux, which is that papers are going to have to find another business model or perrrrish!

It's a false dichotomy wrapped inside a canard and served on a bed of hubris, as I once dreamt I said.

BoF, I now can't stop thinking of Pol as PlinketyPlonk. (Sorry Pol)

Jolly impressive to be in that roster, though.

Good point Swedes- perhaps Plonk should say that?

GerladineMumsnet - I don't understand the distinction. Most professional commentators blog now don't they? And Tweet? So the boundaries have become blurred.

Iain Dale is a professional commentator and a blogger and he Tweets like it's gong out of fashion.

Oh yes, v. pretty too.

And a gifted trombonist to boot <what are the odds?>

Any aspersions entirely deserved. Horrid, sloppy typing

It's part of a series of events called Media Today, Media Tomorrow. Organised by Editorial Intelligence, chair Julia Hobsbawm.

Presumably, do-we-still-need-professional-commentators-when-we've-got-bloggers sort of debate.

Hassled - Yes, I thought Policywonk possessed a MN rep. I hadn't imagined the specs - what I imagined was blur due to hyper-efficiency. Someone with a diary and a Mac, to tell Policy what media interviews she had that day and the fact that her eldest needs a packed lunch on Thursday.

<demands assistant MN rep for policywonk>

And pretty

Had to read that title several times (not castng aspersions on Geraldine, I'm fairly dim) but I think I understand now.

There is a panel, they are to discuss commentators Vs bloggers. Policywonk will be there as MN representative - presumably to fight the for the bloggers corner.

Ok - cant think of any Qs right now, but would like to say good luck to PW. She's a fantastic rep for MN, have read all the politicky stuff she's done the past few months and she's really quite brilliant.

I read it as Policywonk is MNRep ... iyswim.

Actually, it's the Ministry of Commentariat and Bloggertariat

Swedes, I've thought long and hard about the grammatical issues. At first sight it does look like the MN Rep belongs to PW and I did have visions of PW with a bespectacled assistant in tow, but actually it's fine . I think.

But has anyone ever heard of the words Commentariat or Bloggertariat before they saw this thread? Has someone made them up just for the event?

<backs slowly out of door>

<refers thread title to Pedants' Corner for examination>

Is there a website? I can't find much other than when and where on Google - who's organising it? Or am I missing something obvious?

I'm kind of hoping policywonk appears to explain it

I don't understand the question.

It's on Monday evening and the panel line-up is: David Aaronovitch (Times commentator), Martin Bright (New Deal of the Mind founder, and blogger), Iain Dale (political blogger and publisher), Mick Fealty (political blogger) and Anne Spackman (Times' comment editor).

Any points you'd like PW to make on your behalf?