Please vote in our "What do you think about the On Mumsnet This Week column in the Daily Mail?" poll

(1001 Posts)
JustineMumsnet (MNHQ) Wed 02-Sep-09 12:54:44

Hello all,
So am back in Blighty and have caught up on everything posted and all the ongoing correspondence with the DM that's gone on while I've been away. (Sorry very poor communications on hols so haven't really been in the loop but Carrie and team have filled me in now.)
Thanks all for the input as ever.

There are a few things you've raised that we need to address and clarify. So, as ever, apologies in advance for the long post.

The first I think is MNHQ's attitude towards this column and why we didn't try and put a stop to it earlier, i.e. the moment we found out about it. (Recap for those who may have missed: we didn't know in advance that it was going to happen, the first we knew about it was when we saw the first column being discussed on MN and initially we didn't think we had any legal grounds to contest the DM's use of MN quotes. We subsequently established some time after column 2 that the DM is, in fact, most likely infringing MN copyright).

As I said early on, a weekly column in the DM is not something we'd have sought. We share many Mumsnetters' misgivings about the views and general tone of the paper - particularly it's attitudes towards working women, immigrants etc. And as I've also said we've as yet detected no noticeable increase in visitors on Thursdays when the column is published (or on any other days for that matter). Nor is it a column that fills us with pride because it adequately represents the joy and wonder that is Mumsnet. So why - as some have understandably wondered - are we not banging our fists about stopping the darned thing and have we not fired off a barrage of legal threats? Why instead do we at HQ seem a bit ambivalent about whether the column exists or not?

The main answer is this. Like it or not, the Daily Mail is a very influential beast, probably one of the most politically influential institutions in the UK. So, irrespective of the content of these columns, the very fact that the Daily Mail have decided that Mumsnet is prominent and interesting enough to base a weekly column around increases our clout. Clout when it comes to asking government ministers to consider things like our miscarriage campaign, clout when we try to persuade Gok Wan's PR that he ought to pay us a visit, or when the Tories are thinking about environment policy or what they're going to do to increase breastfeeding rates.

We also have a distinct reluctance to "go legal" with anyone after our experience of GF going legal with us - the legal system and lawyers (particularly opposing lawyers) have a way of eating up all your resources, not to mention your will to live. And call us lily-livered if you like, we'd rather not be at the top the DM's hit list if there's a way of avoiding it.

Plus, from the correspondence Carrie's had with the mail in the last couple of weeks, it's clear that they would are prepared to take steps to minimise the privacy risks.

That said, we accept many of the reservations argued well here and in previous threads about the imperfect nature of the association.

In short, those of you who've accused us of residing on the fence are probably right - we are a bit and tbh it's not very comfortable!
So where next?

We think perhaps it would be best both to help us get off the fence and, if it comes to it, to lay the column to rest, to put the matter to the vote. We recognise that it's not a perfect solution but there have been a number of objections raised about this and we'd like to see exactly what it is that folks are objecting to - MN in the Daily Mail per se. MN in the Daily Mail without MN control over content. MN in the Daily Mail in its current guise/format - for example would it be OK if it were it a funny weekly column written by someone like MorningPaper (they'd never have she's far too rude of course)? Or perhaps you don't object at all (and you have an aversion to posting on this thread grin).

Hopefully they'll be a clear conclusion and we promise to abide by it and to do our darnedest to put it into action as quickly as possible.

We're sorry this has dragged on a bit - it is a bit tricky to conduct this type of negotiation in public, particularly when there's a whiff of the legals about - and as we all know (if we didn't already) MN is a very public board, open for all to see and easily searchable etc. At some points we do sometimes have to just hope that you trust that we are not the bad guys who are trying to manipulate, exploit and mislead you all for our own ends (many thanks to those who have said as much). If you think that we are then there's nowt much we can say I suspect to ever sway you otherwise - but you're welcome on MN all the same because it's not really about us, after all.

It also doesn't help that it all kicked off in holiday season which is how it always is (GF the same) - sod's law and all that. Anyway humble apologies for not being a bit more accessible/on the ball in the last few weeks. We are almost all back at full strength now and generally at your disposal smile.

So here's our very quick poll - please fill it in (just the once please). It won't gain you entry in any competitions to win a family holiday outside of school holidays grin but it will most certainly influence what we do next.

Many thanks.

StripeySuit Wed 02-Sep-09 13:05:07

Done, agree with increasing clout but it needs jazzing up a bit, it's very dry.

done

bibbitybobbityhat Wed 02-Sep-09 13:09:34

Thank you for this Justine. I think the poll is a good idea.

LadyStealthPolarBear Wed 02-Sep-09 13:10:42

Thanks for the update Justine!
"for example would it be OK if it were it a funny weekly column written by someone like MorningPaper "
Yes, IMO it would be. I think someone like MP is known and trusted enough to do this - my problems have always been around someone publicising a particular thread when I'm not clear about her intentions. TBH when I saw the second one with the anonymised names I was less bothered.
Not keen on it being in the DM but can see why that's a good thing
Well I'll go and do the survey!

LadyStealthPolarBear Wed 02-Sep-09 13:12:31

BTW "to put the matter to the vote...
Hopefully they'll be a clear conclusion and we promise to abide by it and to do our darnedest to put it into action as quickly as possible."
That's really impressive, thank you!

morningpaper Wed 02-Sep-09 13:12:48

I must admit I think that MN needs to retain editorial control - basically, then if it is crap then we know who to humiliate.

So I reckon that I'd like MN to have editorial control and perhaps a stickie for KICK JUSTINE HERE permanently at the top of chat?

beanieb Wed 02-Sep-09 13:14:51

So what you're saying is

a. although the stuff they cover in the Daily Mail is not the kind of thing Mumsnet or mumsnetters would want to be associated with, you are prepared to overlook this because the column gives mumsnet 'a bit of clout' for mumsnetty kind of campaigns.

b. You're too scared to take them on legally and unwilling to use money to do so.

but you're putting it to the vote and will do what the majority say? isn't the vote going to be spread with all those different options?

Anyway - aside from that - do you have any more news about why the column was pulled last week (Apart from teh internet running out of space) and do you know what this week's column will be?

Also - why did the DM use an old thread for their column last week when this goes against what they agreed to?

ZephirineDrouhin Wed 02-Sep-09 13:15:00

Thanks for this, Justine. Take your point about increasing clout - although it is a little hard to see what common ground we might find with a paper that today screamed from the front page:

A NATION OF BAD PARENTS

grin

StripeySuit Wed 02-Sep-09 13:17:38

How else do we counter it Zeph?

StripeySuit Wed 02-Sep-09 13:21:28

Or rather, what better way to counter it?

beanieb Wed 02-Sep-09 13:21:31

by not jumping into bed with a racist, mysoginistic newspaper at the first opportunity?

StripeySuit Wed 02-Sep-09 13:22:25

How are you going to influence the opinions of those who read it if you don't engage with them?

said Wed 02-Sep-09 13:23:36

If the results of the vote said No association under any circumstances, what would MN do?

I do feel for you though Justine et al (after GF) and appreciate your honesty.

harleyd Wed 02-Sep-09 13:24:39

ah bugger, really can only vote once grin

morningpaper Wed 02-Sep-09 13:28:06

The poll result truncates the results and puts them upside-down so you can't see which one is winning <frown> - can you fix it?

Buda Wed 02-Sep-09 13:29:40

Done.
From Buda the Daily Mail reader.

said Wed 02-Sep-09 13:31:31

I can't read the options now - number 3 and 4 (reading downwards say the same thing)

beanieb Wed 02-Sep-09 13:44:02

I can see who's winning.

20 people want mumsnet to have Editorial control - would a paper like the DM actually agree to this!

15 people don't want a column in the DM under any circumstances - would this mean Mumsnet might need to take legal action to stop the column?

9 people don't give a monkeys - well only enough to actually bother to vote which suggests they might really give a slight monkeys.

Only 1 person wants it to continue as it is - maybe that's LH voting?

JustineMumsnet (MNHQ) Wed 02-Sep-09 13:49:58

Nikita Tech's looking at making the results page a bit clearer as we speak.

Threadworm Wed 02-Sep-09 13:53:04

Would it really give MN more campaigning clout with ministers, etc., if they knew that the Mail had the right to select from millions of threads on random subjects at their own discretion and in keeping with their own priorities? How would that work, then? Even if that was true, it would be a sacrifice of MN's parent-support role to its probably far less significant campaigning role.

I can see that it might give MN more clout, though, in attracting Gok Wan, Jim Davidson, etc. to do webchats. Looking forward to that.

MamaG Wed 02-Sep-09 13:57:36

Maybe, just maybe, a funny Morningpaper style regular column in the DM would be a Good Thing. It might just make a couple of their readers open their eyes and get sucked into MN and start to change their views?

I think its shit that HQ has been put in this position, and its easy for us all to shriek "bastard HQ how dare you refuse to get into another costly, stressful legal battle over something that may not even continue past a few months anyway"

I think with the name changing and if HQ had editorial control, we should just let it be, really.

Threadworm Wed 02-Sep-09 13:59:26

Is a column with MN editorial control even a remote possibility, realistically?

beanieb Wed 02-Sep-09 14:03:01

I very much doubt it but am sure MNHQ wouldn't offer it as an option without having checked it out beforehand, surely!?

As pointed out earlier, DM are not the only mpaper lifting threads and publishing - why make an issue of DM - surely, that will also be a factor if trying to legally prevent the paper from running the column???

Keep your enemies closer ...

beanieb Wed 02-Sep-09 14:12:44

Isn't it because the Daily mail have lifted a whole column without going through the usual media channels and asking permission where other papers have saught permission?

I think people are a bit pissed off that the column was written by a mumsnetter and she attributed some of the quotes to the wrong person and also last week she used a really old thread which went against what they agreed to do.

but I could be wrong.

Was there an MP round-up this week? I don't seem to have got it?
<<sorry for slight hijack>>

JustineMumsnet (MNHQ) Wed 02-Sep-09 14:42:32

We don't know what the DM will or won't be happy to do but we thought we should find out what Mumsnetters want before going to them. If they won't do it the way we want it done then clearly the next step would be to say we don't want it run at all.

I'm in the 'don't give a monkeys' camp, though what I really mean is: I don't want MNHQ to have to get embroiled in a legal battle with a very big and powerful opponent over something that is not really that big a deal. Given that the column seems to be mainly concentrating on what is (in a newspaper) Polly Filla stuff like what to put in a packed lunch rather than the domestic violence threads, it will probably disappear fairly soon anyway.

Though I personally think it would be far funnier if the Mail was obliged to print out things like the Zombie Plan threads...

beanieb Wed 02-Sep-09 14:48:07

Does anyone know why it was pulled last week yet, or what this weeks column will be?

As the DM has a MN column, I would quite like to see MN columns in other papers and magazines, so that it is interpreted through a wider variety of editorial styles/political opinions/social attitudes and is read by a wider cross-section of people.

MN is public. Unavoidable. Don't post what you're uncomfortable for your next-door-neighbour to post. Or, if you do, namechange!

JustineMumsnet (MNHQ) Wed 02-Sep-09 15:00:05

No idea why the column was pulled Beanieb - sorry.
<<Maybe we should do a this week on the Mail column - could be quite fun...>>

abra1d Wed 02-Sep-09 15:03:33

'I'm in the 'don't give a monkeys' camp, though what I really mean is: I don't want MNHQ to have to get embroiled in a legal battle with a very big and powerful opponent over something that is not really that big a deal.'

For the second time in 24 hours I find myself in total agreement with Solidbrass.

Zut alors!

ZephirineDrouhin Wed 02-Sep-09 15:09:01

Am having second thoughts. Maybe "A Nation of Bad Parents" could be MN's new tagline.

<<asks again really nicely and says please and everything>

Was there not a round-up this week ?

Acanthus Wed 02-Sep-09 15:16:20

I can't get onto the poll. Maybe the internet has run out of space again?

notwaving - this may help

Acanthus Wed 02-Sep-09 15:20:29

I can't get onto the poll. Maybe the internet has run out of space again?

morningpaper Wed 02-Sep-09 15:31:43

Here is this week's Roundup

Thank you MP!

HelenMumsnet (MNHQ) Wed 02-Sep-09 15:50:15

Acanthus: try this link

MmeLindt Wed 02-Sep-09 15:53:22

Done.

I think that a Roundup style funny column would be good.

Obviously we would have to wash MP's mouth out with soap beforehand.

CrypticCrossword Wed 02-Sep-09 15:55:16

I don't think MN and the Daily Mail should be linked. I think MN is already so well-known and unique that it doesn't need the DM to increase its clout. Have confidence MN, you don't need the Daily Mail! Please don't sell out on your ideals and values.

If you do want to increase awareness of MN and the discussions here, there are so many other types of publicity you could try, before a regular newspaper column. And although I don't think a MN newspaper column is a good idea, if you want to do this then there are so many other newspapers (or magazines) which could be more suitable than the DM. Why should the DM have first call on this just because they did it without asking?

For some, a DM column could work the other way (reduce MN's 'clout'). If I wasn't already here at MN I would be put off joining this site, if I thought it was allied in some way to the Daily Mail. Likewise, people in positions to change things who are not fans of the Daily Mail may take less notice of MN if you appear to be endorsing the DM.

If you write to the DM and tell them they are breaching your copyright and are thinking of taking legal action, they may decide to take the column no further. However, if it comes to legal action then I think it would be worth it to protect MN in the long term. If you are clearly in the right then isn't it less likely to be difficult or expensive?

Please don't let the DM bully you. MN is worth so much more.

What CrypticCrossword said.

zisforzebra Wed 02-Sep-09 16:10:27

I've voted for the MN editorially controlled column because I don't want MN to have to get into a very expensive, protracted legal battle with the DM. I am very uncomfortable with MN having any links to the DM because it's a hate-filled rag.

However, if I were to win the Euro lottery anytime soon I'd personally fund the legal campaign to drag that sorry excuse for a newspaper through every court in the land.

sydneysuze Wed 02-Sep-09 16:17:32

I have a real problem with the Daily Mail as I find it poorly researched, ignorant, inflammatory, often inaccurate (with no attempts at apologies or effective corrections afterwards), scare-mongering and judgemental. In other words, the direct opposite of Mumsnet! That's why I would much prefer Mumsnet not to be linked to the DM.

I also don't think it has as much political clout nowadays as it did perhaps 5 years or so ago - although this is just my perception.

If MorningPaper or anyone else is going to edit content you might want to have a look at this headline generator for inspiration wink

Tortington Wed 02-Sep-09 16:19:32

i dont really give a shit

i am so glad there was that option on the poll

StripeySuit Wed 02-Sep-09 16:21:12

But people buy it/read it as they do The Sun in even bigger numbers. We can ignore them or we can try and educate. I don't like hate-filled invective either, although I don't actually read it, not even online, so maybe I don't quite get the discontent with it.

morningpaper Wed 02-Sep-09 16:33:54

Hmm I'm not really sure of the difference between the two MN-edited options: it seems to be "Would you like us to do it a bit shitly?" and "Would you like us to do it properly?"

beanieb Wed 02-Sep-09 16:41:27

bravo CrypticCrossword, I agree! particularly with this bit "Why should the DM have first call on this just because they did it without asking?"

Why should they indeed.

" If I wasn't already here at MN I would be put off joining this site, if I thought it was allied in some way to the Daily Mail" another VERY good point.

said Wed 02-Sep-09 16:57:50

Agree with Cryptic. Especially on the "if I wasn't here already I'd not look at mn if it was featured in the DM" point. But then I'd never see the column anyway if it was in the DM hmm

Buda Wed 02-Sep-09 17:15:04

I read the DM and I am nice. And reasonable. And normal. And capable of thinking for myself.

I agree with some things in the DM. I don't agree with some things in the DM. I am sure I would agree and disagree with things in the Times or Grauniad too.

But I have to say I am not overly keen on the MN column in the DM. I think they were damned cheeky. And I think it is lazy journalism.

margotfonteyn Wed 02-Sep-09 17:26:49

I agree with CrypticCrossword. If I had seen mention of Mumsnet in the Mail before I had ever been on it, I would automatically assume it was Daily Mailish in its content and it would put me off.

HelenaBonhamCarter Wed 02-Sep-09 17:32:19

Justine, I've just read the OP to this thread, after voting.

i can see your argument re influence but tbh I don't think it's necessarily going to pan out that way.

It's almost like advertising MN on a packet of cigarettes, becuase the tobacco companies have a lot of influence.

What the DM has done is unethical and it relies on its power exactly for the reason that people won't fight it over this kind of issue. Much of the premise of the DM itself also appears unethical.

I don't know about you lot but I'd rather stick pins in my eyes than allow a publication which is so far removed from my own ideology (and that of many of my members) to behave like they own us.

I do understand your position and don't want any trouble for you, but I sincerely believe this is a Bad Thing and hope that you can at least ASK them nicely to desist. Can you get the Guardian to do a column instead? Or are they less influential?

franklymydear Wed 02-Sep-09 17:33:42

oh ffs

HelenaBonhamCarter Wed 02-Sep-09 17:33:42

Plus motive wise what makes you assume that they are not doing this to align themselves with US due to OUR existing political clout?

HelenaBonhamCarter Wed 02-Sep-09 17:41:32

Right back at you, Frankly!

gorionine Wed 02-Sep-09 17:44:26

done

paisleyleaf Wed 02-Sep-09 18:10:03

I'll vote in a bit.
I'm still deciding between having a column like our talk round-up, with MN in control, or not having one at all.
I'd really like someone like MorningPaper to do a column for a different publication.

sophable Wed 02-Sep-09 18:12:39

OMFG sydneysuze that link is hilarious!! and all real headlines from the DM...

MN surely surely not? surely not?

sophable Wed 02-Sep-09 18:14:03

they're not real...but you know they could be!!!

sophable Wed 02-Sep-09 18:15:22

this is hilarious as well DM classifying objects into those that cure or those that give you cancer.

MmeLindt Wed 02-Sep-09 18:21:09

I don't think that the column is interesting enough to become a permanent fixture anyway. It was very much "I said, she said, then he said, and then I said..."

Like listening to two auld wifies gossiping across the washing lines.

lankyalto Wed 02-Sep-09 18:21:22

Voted.
Please get the DM to publish morningpaper's roundup if they have to publish anything at all (names changed obviously). Then it is a) funny b) properly reflects Mumsnet c) mp does the work already unlike the DM's "correspondent" who just cuts and pastes, and d) we can bribe ask MP to put anti-DM sentiments in.

I realise that this is unlikely. But hey I can dream...

Threadworm Wed 02-Sep-09 18:22:42

I really don't give much of a monkey's about this -- just a very small monkey's.

But the idea of MN having to accept this for fear of a huge legal battle is daft, surely. This is a v unimportant filler for the DM, they won't give much of a monkey's about having to pull it.

And if they do give a monkey's and decide to continue despite a clear statement from MNHQ that the column is a breach of copyright, then there is no obligation on MNHQ's part to take it to court but at least they will have made their position clear (and avoided compromising their position badly in future copyright disputes).

Also, as MP says, the distinction between two of the poll options is slight (the diff between a shit and an effective use of editorial control), and also the prospect of an article in DM written under MN control is not a likely one. So two of the poll options are spurious distractions from the question 'do we want the column or not?'.

The column isn't the end of the world but it is a bit pants and I don't really like to see spurious post hoc justifications for what seems to me to be a sellout in return for free coverage that will boost MN advertising revenue.

EccentricaGallumbits Wed 02-Sep-09 18:28:51

So even if the column does carry on in whatever format would it be frightfully bad form to continue to post useful comments on the DM site?

Portofino Wed 02-Sep-09 19:05:57

I LOVED the comments on the DM site. Most fun I'd had in ages. grin. My thought is that the column as it stood was very dull! I agree with changing names to respect privacy, but surely the column would be much better coming FROM MN, rather than a journalist presumably being paid for copy/paste.

I like the MP suggestion. All sorts of things get debated on here. Why not give them a real taste of it. A summary of REAL parents thoughts/worries/political concerns/bumsex trivia. Surely that would be more appealing to anyone than the inane pap served up so far?

alwayslookingforanswers Wed 02-Sep-09 19:16:15

does seem a bit like closing the stable door after the horse has bolted this poll business.

NoahFence Wed 02-Sep-09 19:22:03

******** this week in teh daily mail******

POSh spice wears some clothes

Katie Price has big tits

Middle aged woman puts on weight/loses weight/talks abotu her weight

Minor celebrity has a baby and talks abotu it as if no one else ever has

Diana is still dead

FOrriners still "take jobs from our lads in Iraq"

There is weather in England

Ithankyou

And don't forget

Swine flu caused by single mothers aka benefit scroungers ...

sophable Wed 02-Sep-09 19:37:48

"I don't really like to see spurious post hoc justifications for what seems to me to be a sellout in return for free coverage that will boost MN advertising revenue"

the thing is much as i do adore you mntowers...threadworm has hit it on the head hasn't she there?

beanieb Wed 02-Sep-09 19:41:33

"Please get the DM to publish morningpaper's roundup if they have to publish anything at all"

what does MorningPaper think of this idea? Writing for the Daily mail shock though presumably she'd get paid?

policywonk Wed 02-Sep-09 19:55:19

But it's not about advertising revenue (according to Justine's post) - it's about clout. Government and opposition politicians go to bed wondering what the Daily Mail is going to prioritise; Justine's point (I think) is that if they see the DM giving prominence to what this particular bunch of women on the internet think - as opposed to the many other groups of women on the internet - it will contribute to MN's profile.

And, given the amount of money MNHQ regularly turns down in advertising from companies like McD's, Nestle and formula companies, it's ungenerous to imply that the relentless pursuit of ad revenue is its guiding motivation.

NoahFence Wed 02-Sep-09 20:01:28

morning paper woudl bite their hand off grin

I promised myself I wouldn't comment any further on this but hmm

Look Justine, there is no way on earth the DM are going to give you editorial control, nor allow you to write it yourselves in the tone currently on MN. Frankly they are totally different audiences and much like you could not come on here and post 'what about those scrounging single mums then, should they be deported to somewhere more suited to them eh' yet you could probably see that on any given day in the DM.

I worked in newspapers for a few years, if I was a DM sub I'd be chomping at the bit to give you 'editorial control' ie send you the copy four minutes before deadline with a 'well it's either this shitty story or this story about how all mumsnetters like to take it up the arse with vegetables to get one of their five a day - your call' hmm

You cannot expect to control a media giant. Which puts you somewhat in a quandary. I would suggest you do absolutely nothing except go to the Independent Newspaper and tell them that for free every week you will submit an article about 'this week on Mumsnet' which will be funny and educational (and no bumsex included).

You know there are a load of us who have done this sort of thing in the past, it's not such a stretch. Once the DM no longer has exclusivity they will go back to their pit and pick on someone else.

Hazeyjane Wed 02-Sep-09 20:12:47

I think the image of Mumsnet can be presented in a very twisted form, (bunch of twittering women, for example) and I don't think that would help in the 'clout' department.

Great post from CrypticCrossword.

Threadworm Wed 02-Sep-09 20:13:26

I do accept utterly that MN is an ethically minded business and that they turn down some advertising for ethical reasons (as well as for the sound commercial reason that accepting it would really undermine their brand and consequently compromise advertising from more brand-consonant companies).

But 'ethically minded business' -- not 'commercially minded good cause' -- is the right phrase.

lankyalto Wed 02-Sep-09 20:20:41

I was being slightly tongue in cheek about publishing the MP roundup instead of the turgid cut and paste efforts we've seen. Personally I would prefer not to have any DM association at all but if there has to be something then I think MP would be far more interesting and indicative of MN than anything I've seen so far.

Quite accept that MP might find the DM too misogynistic and twattish cliche-ridden xenophobic drivel.

whoisasking Wed 02-Sep-09 20:29:45

Heh! I have always sincerely enjoyed the section of a poll which reads "I don't care"

The irony is so delicious, it MUST be fattening!

Threadworm Wed 02-Sep-09 20:40:59

Sorry for sounding so dogmatic. I know from fuck, really.grin

It just always strikes me that because the usership is a community, there is naturally always a little opacity about the fact that the site itself is a business.

And it is a bit chicken-and-eggy, isn't it, as to whether the high profile is there to aid the campaigning, or the campaigning is there to boost the profile. I dunno.

beanieb Wed 02-Sep-09 20:46:04

well, the bottom line is that the members don't run mumsnet, mumsnet HQ do and ultimately they can change the site in whatever way they want to.

There is the copyright issue though, which doesn't seem to be clear.

It always amuses me that people think a poll on an online forum is actually really going to change anything. grin

All it is is a meeting about a meeting about a meeting. Wastes time and achieves nothing.

IMO

PaulDacresCrackWhore Wed 02-Sep-09 21:02:06

Voted on the poll, and Voting Here for Whomoved's fabulous idea grin

Nancy66 Wed 02-Sep-09 21:05:16

Realistically there are only two options:

1) keep it as is

2) ditch it

The Mail won't agree to having somebody that is not in their writing fold compiling a column for them.

scottishmummy Wed 02-Sep-09 21:24:16

DM and MN already inextricably linked.daily someone links the DM and discusses its contents.so no surprise they link MN and discuss its content.

see no benefit or rationale to MP writing for DM on MN behalf.if DM wanted such an arrangement they would have asked MP and not their own journalist to write piece.

have had good think and i think the main objective is to protect poster anonymity if post is lifted from MN.so change names

gigglewitch Wed 02-Sep-09 21:24:25

WMMC's idea is really the perfect solution. Pure genius. Do it smile

AbricotsSecs Wed 02-Sep-09 21:28:43

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

morningpaper Wed 02-Sep-09 21:42:15

Aw I love you all

I feel like the prom queen grin

The poll is interesting as an indication of feeling - although really you need to add the votes for options 3 and 4 together because they are really saying the same thing.

However we are just voting for what colour to paint the lounge while the house is on fire <or something>

It's nice to be consulted though eh?

(I've just been to a governor's meeting and had THE MOST fun. You must all become governors - it is GREAT)

morningpaper Wed 02-Sep-09 21:42:52

(there was sandwiches and cake and boys and everything)

oopsagainandagain Wed 02-Sep-09 21:43:41

it's done, and it's broken for alot of us now.

I think that the DM doing the column has made a number of people, MN included, realsie that the internet is a resource fro profit.
And MN threads are just another way of somebody somewhere mnaking money...

DM/no DM, it doesn't matter- there will be anpother reprter/column etc which may well raid more upsetting areas of MN.

And if MN stands back and doesn't challenge the DM then a precedent has been set and it is pretty much indefensible i reckon.
Ie they let DM take whatever they like- and then it's all fair game.

Sadly, i think MN either stand up against the DM, or we all accept that there is absultely no protection at all for any thread on any topic on here, and in the past.....

So my vote is NO NO NO nO.

sorry MN- please stick up for us and yourselves...

jamandjerusalem Wed 02-Sep-09 21:44:19

I think the Daily Mail is the worst paper out there. And Mumsnet one of the best websites. So tis pretty clear cut for me - why would we want to be associated?

boyraiser Wed 02-Sep-09 22:04:56

Haven't got a chance to read this whole thread (although read most of the previous ones on this issue), so not sure if this has been suggested before, but...

...if you have to do a deal with the Devil, err, I mean DM, could you specify that only threads in certain topics could be "harvested" by their slack journo for use in their print/web articles?

That way, MNers who are posting for support in abusive relationships, after miscarriages, through loss and bereavement, etc., - in other words, in all those areas of life in which it would be particularly nasty to come across your own words, reproduced, rehashed and 'spun' to meet someone else's agenda - could continue to use MN without the creeping uncertainty of whether their posts will be reproduced en masse & out of context?

beanieb Wed 02-Sep-09 22:09:20

boyraiser, this has already been done I think. Was also agreed gthey wouldn't use old threads - then they did.

ho hum.

boyraiser Wed 02-Sep-09 22:10:53

OK, just a suggestion. Talking of clout, MN got a mention in the Guardian today (can't find it now!) - who needs the DM?!

hazeyjane Wed 02-Sep-09 22:12:14

I think the trouble with that is that people use incidences from their rl to inform all sorts of posts on all sorts of threads.

bibbitybobbityhat Wed 02-Sep-09 22:23:38

My memory is hazy because it was quite a long time ago but I think I first joined Mumsnet as a result of reading all the press coverage of swmnbn's mighty pr machine cranking into action and threatening to obliterate mumsnet in legal action. I'm pretty sure I would have read about it in the Daily Telegraph as dh is a sports journo and often gets the Telegraph for vg sports coverage.

Surely the newsworthy story here is what has happened/what changed/what will change on Mumsnet as a result of the deal between LH and the Daily Mail? Or, indeed, on any other openly accessible internet forum where a contributing member then decides to sell out to the press? The bigger picture, including the argument about copyright ownership, would make excellent copy for any other publication.

said Wed 02-Sep-09 22:35:03

Excellent, option 2 is now in the lead. I really do like WMMC's suggestion though. Very good.

<takes out campaigning hat and bashes it to remove dust>
[winks]

oopsagainandagain Wed 02-Sep-09 23:08:51

boyraiser- so what's to stop an other publication raiding those boards if MN lets the DM "get away" with what they have done???

that's the point, not whehter or not the DM should keep off those threads!!

oopsagainandagain Wed 02-Sep-09 23:13:55

and can the poll link be posted in all topics so that the pushchir gang, all the ante natala and postnantal groups and all the lone parents etc know what is going on...?

I reckon if you actually look at the whole site then only a small proportion of people posting on all thses boards know what is going on.....

there's been 300 odd votes do far- and how many registered users???

all post AIBU re MIL threads etc.
and ex is a nobhead threads- none of them aware that thier posts can get lifted wholesale by anyone who once walked past a journalsim school and put into a totally different publication...

what safeguards has MN put into place/will put into place to advise /protect those people???

bibbitybobbityhat Wed 02-Sep-09 23:17:48

Yes, I am sure the majority of Mumsnet is unaware that this poll is going on. They may not care, fair enough, but is there a way to draw more attention to it? I know there's a sticky ... is there anything else? big claxon? more direct thread title??

scottishmummy Wed 02-Sep-09 23:19:09

nothing stops any media perusing or citing MN because it is open access site

it isnt a wee chat with friends
it isnt a therapeutic community
many posters but considerably more reading

maybe do consider or be more circumspect before posting

we educate our children about internet savvy and perhaps as adults we should have internet savvy too

oopsagainandagain Wed 02-Sep-09 23:28:37

yes, Sm, you are totally right.
we all learn that sooner or later on the internet.

It would be dreadfully sad if another publication, or the Dm took stuff out of the archives that was written some time ago and printed it- when a poster was less aware of how open the internet would become, would it not, though?

CrypticCrossword Wed 02-Sep-09 23:29:25

Is it possible that DM readers or staff might join MN en masse to vote on this poll and sway the result? (or even in small enough numbers to sway the result) hmm

oopsagainandagain Wed 02-Sep-09 23:31:58

I have said this on all of the threads so far...

if MN decide NOT to persue the Dm legally, this leaves the whole site now and in the past open to anyone else doing the same thing for any publication.
Any agreement with the DM is just not important and IMO is a total red herring...

but i feel that alot of smokecreen is around about how the DM should behave.

I ask Mn again to explain why they won't allow people to ask for all their old posts to be removed at this stage.
without having to beg and beg and beg for them to be taken away, as has happened to a number of people, myself included.

scottishmummy Wed 02-Sep-09 23:34:41

LOL oh a conspiracy theory.given the amount of MN who already link and yak about DM i think the DM is well represented on MN by all the folk who dont read it but find it in a cafe - DM dont need subterfuge plenty MN links with DM already

fortyplus Wed 02-Sep-09 23:53:47

The Daily Mail is a bad joke...
Send all the immigrants back home...

I'd rather see an MN column in the Sun, frankly!

oopsagainandagain Thu 03-Sep-09 00:02:45

there was a headline this week about how eating and drinking causes cancer-

i kid you not....

oopsagainandagain Thu 03-Sep-09 00:05:00

i honestly think that as a social enterprise, MN has aan ethical obligation to let vulnerable posters know on a very basic level that what they are posting is public property from now on... if they don't challenge the Dm, then it is effectievly an admission that they can and will do nothng to prevent others doing the same.

morningpaper Thu 03-Sep-09 07:23:47

Nah you have to add both the "Mumsnet should edit" options together to get a fair picture because they are the same thing

Who designed this poll <tut>

GentleOtter Thu 03-Sep-09 07:37:23

This piece of nonsense makes us out to be a right bunch of airheads.

HelenaBonhamCarter Thu 03-Sep-09 07:51:29

Which would fit right in with their editorial and readership requirements....

HelenaBonhamCarter Thu 03-Sep-09 07:54:38

I know I said it earlier but I think they want you to feel grateful, when in fact they wouldn't be doing this unless there was something in the association for them. I think WE have the clout and they want a bit of it. Don#t fall for the spin.

beanieb Thu 03-Sep-09 07:57:51

there's lots of mumsnet in the Mail today but I can't sea leah's article.

what not to wear on the school run

beanieb Thu 03-Sep-09 07:59:43

oh, sorry GentleOtter, see you have already linked. It's horrible isn't it.

Am glad not to have been quoted as I posted in that thread.

sad

Does anyone know why there is no 'this week on Mumsnet' this week. Does anyone at MNHQ know or have the lines of communication with the DM been closed?

I notice Carrie has given them a comment in the first article I linked to but could have been from ages ago?

GentleOtter Thu 03-Sep-09 08:04:30

I find it highly offensive that we are painted as being so vacuous that the biggest decision of the day is Boden or Tesco basic.

BonsoirAnna Thu 03-Sep-09 08:16:09

GentleOtter - don't worry about it. Lifestyle journos are far too dim to actually understand the more in-depth threads on MN.

Yesterday I took a look at Sally Brampton's Agony Aunt column in The Times. Her advice is so crap superficial compared with the sort of advice given on here.

beanieb Thu 03-Sep-09 08:34:25

well, I have to say I do think the whole 'school run fashion' thing is a bit vacous... isn't it? Granted thought, it's not what everyone on mumsnet wants to talk about.

Buda Thu 03-Sep-09 08:58:52

beanib - my take on the article today is that they know full well how MNers feel about the regular Thursday article under Leah Hardy's byline and this is instead of.

In my charitible moments I wonder if LH deliberately gave them an old and boring thread for last week's column so they have asked someone else to do it OR LH felt guilty (given that she still posts apparently) and is not doing it anymore. We will have to wait and see I suppose.

beanieb Thu 03-Sep-09 09:07:28

I agree Budu. if only someone would talk to them! I might mail them myself from my work email - apart from the fact that the DM detests the organisation I work for!

Botbot Thu 03-Sep-09 09:14:11

That 'definite no-nos' bit is lifted entirely from a blog that was linked to on the original thread, isn't it?

LIZS Thu 03-Sep-09 09:19:59

The column is in the paper today, if not online - the "How your kids have betterd themselevs over the summer" thread.

morningpaper Thu 03-Sep-09 09:30:49

AHA a cunning plan - they publish, not not online, so we all have to buy it and can't add sarcastic comments

booo

Buda Thu 03-Sep-09 09:48:36

Really? How odd that it is not on line.

I was on the thread too!

Bucharest Thu 03-Sep-09 10:28:07

After reading the first few columns in the DM I thought it was so "meh" that I was tempted to vote "don't give a monkeys"...I didn't, as I'm wondering if they are starting off "gently" and will do the bitchslap on MN in due course.
I really don't like the idea of a new banner "sponsered by the Daily Mail" at the top of the page, but I lurve the idea of MP writing a column in the nationals. grin

I read it sometimes as well, to remind me how lovely I am compared to them.

StripeySuit Thu 03-Sep-09 10:37:51

Perhaps Leah could be a love and pop on here and post it for us.

bibbitybobbityhat Thu 03-Sep-09 10:40:58

Excuse me, MNHQ, I've said it before "surely the news story here is what has happened/what changed/what will change on Mumsnet as a result of the deal between LH and the Daily Mail? Or, indeed, on any other openly accessible internet forum where a contributing member then decides to sell out to the press? The bigger picture, including the argument about copyright ownership, would make excellent copy for any other publication" ... especially something like The Guardian or The Independent.

If none of the journalists associated with Mumsnet want to write this piece then I have suggested it to DH, who is a freelancer, who says that would be an excellent way to "spike" the story and he would love to write it himself and try and get it published.

Any objections?

StripeySuit Thu 03-Sep-09 10:42:43

LizS - who 'wrote' it? What page number is it so I can have a quick look at shop later or maybe someone could scan and link to it, as long as that doesn't breach copyright of course.

MNHQ, bet you get all the papers, scan and linky, linky wink

LIZS Thu 03-Sep-09 10:46:44

p48 - written by LH again with a bit more comment than previous. Still not sure the quotes work well out of context

wotzy Thu 03-Sep-09 10:53:56

The Sun could follow suit in their Suns and Daughters? Um.
MP could be as rude as she liked then..... grin

wheresmypaddle Thu 03-Sep-09 10:54:28

Having completed the poll I am wondering how practical it would be for MN to approve the content and have editorial control of any DM article?

With the best will in the world MN HQ will not be able to do this in such a way as to please everyone- there are bound to be differences of opinion as to whether they should have approved a particular thread/post or not. This in turn has the capacity to turn into a long running problem between MN posters and MN HQ.

sophable Thu 03-Sep-09 11:06:41

god you know what? fuck you emily andrews (auther of the what to wear at school pick up 'article') get a proper fucking job you leech.

angry

pofacedandproud Thu 03-Sep-09 11:12:43

I dreamt about MorningPaper last night. I had been released from prison and she was my probation officer. And she kept breaking into song. As you were. [Hi Soph]

midnightexpress Thu 03-Sep-09 11:14:02

Hear hear sophable.

Unfortunately we are all probably doing wonders for the DM online circulation figs by clicking through to see what horrors they've committed this week.

morningpaper Thu 03-Sep-09 11:14:14

"And God knows I want to break freeeeeeeeeeeeee"

I DO burst into song all the time

You know me so well blush

pofacedandproud Thu 03-Sep-09 11:17:30

grin You were a very, er, uplifting.

How many journalists are now making their living from copying and pasting MN now? MP you are desperately needed in the tabloids broadsheets, it is true.

HerBeatitude Thu 03-Sep-09 11:31:17

I find Emily Leechperson's article rather more shocking in that she doesn't credit MN at all, she passes it off as her own stuff.

Anyway I don't really care. Would prefer DM journalists to cut and paste directly, rather than put their own spin on it.

beanieb Thu 03-Sep-09 11:35:28

"That 'definite no-nos' bit is lifted entirely from a blog that was linked to on the original thread, isn't it?"

is it? Hmmmm - now that's not very nice.

beanieb Thu 03-Sep-09 11:36:25

We get the Daily Mail in work, am I legally allowed to type it all out onto mumsnet? Or is that breaking the Daily mail's Copyright?

HerBeatitude Thu 03-Sep-09 11:37:42

oh is it?

Still not her then is it? I'm not sure she's made that crystal clear (though i did just skim it, I don't usually read the DM that carefully wink)

TheEgoHasLanded Thu 03-Sep-09 11:42:41

i honestly can't believe you are still talking about this....?

the world could have been invaded by aliens and i swear you wouldn't notice....

beanieb,...you are obsessed!

beanieb Thu 03-Sep-09 11:45:52

I'm just irritated and annoyed at the overall stupidity shown by several people over this whole thing.

End of the day it makes no personal difference to me except that I would stop posting here if the Daily Mail became mumsnet sponsors, but I like a good 'ishoo' and when people are being particularly dumb over an isshooo then I can't help myself grin

stillfrazzled Thu 03-Sep-09 11:50:05

Wot got said pages ago:

"Why should the DM have first call on this just because they did it without asking?"

"If I wasn't already here at MN I would be put off joining this site, if I thought it was allied in some way to the Daily Mail" another VERY good point."

Vote to send out an approved version to ALL papers to spike the DM's guns. But if that can't be done, then vote to tell DM No Thanks.

JodieO Thu 03-Sep-09 12:09:47

I voted under no circumstances

sandcastles Thu 03-Sep-09 12:10:17

That latest article has painted us all as shallow, self obsessed women who have no idea how to raise children.

The comments are awful...how much longer are we going to be fodder for abuse?

JodieO Thu 03-Sep-09 12:12:56

I voted under no circumstances

Botbot Thu 03-Sep-09 12:22:34

Arse, can't find the link to the 'definite no-nos'. Definitely saw it in a blog though, exactly as it appears in the DM article. Unless it's Emily Andrews's blog, of course (giving her massive benefit of the doubt there).

I have voted. But I do not think the column should be written or controlled by somebody employed by MN. That would be pretty pointless, as it would just be like a roundup printed in the daily mail. By all means, run the content through MNHQ, but if it should have any value or interest for the reasons given by Justine in her OP, it has to be instigated by the DM, and not let DM just be a mouthpiece for Mumsnet.

They should of course publish the zombie plan thread in its entirety. wink

I have been sitting on my hands, but really, Th Ego, you are surprised that beanieb still cares? The issue is still current, it has not been resolved, so engagement is still necessary.

And do try not to be rude, the tone of the threads has mostly been very civilised, and this is not AIBU.

TheEgoHasLanded Thu 03-Sep-09 12:35:13

you're right MD...sorry beanieb...

while i'm here...

i think it's sad that some of you would be put off MN because of its association with the DM...mumsnet is a parenting forum first and foremost, parents read the DM, it would be a shame if they were made to feel unwelcome on here

beanieb Thu 03-Sep-09 12:42:11

aw, honestly I don't mind people saying I am obsessed. I AM! I have always been called 'a dog with a bone' over these kinds of things. blush and I do cringe when I catch myself banging furiously at the keyboard grin

I do agree that DM readers should be welcome here but at least on here there's the opportunity to properly challenge prejudice from posters. As a forum it does a good job of pulling people up when their views are extreme or unfair. I don't think mumsnet would get the opportunity to do that in the mail or in response to what they steal from here.

The only people who can do that is MNHQ and they don't really want to I think.

TheEgoHasLanded Thu 03-Sep-09 12:54:17

smile beanieb...you are cool..

i'm your typical DM reader....believe women should stay at home until their dc are at school...etc..etc....

infact, until i came on MN i'd never spoken to a lesbian....and now i've spoken to her ...i really like her!

you see...you have changed me...

preggersplayspop Thu 03-Sep-09 12:58:12

Done, thanks for opening a vote on this.

I don't think MN needs the DM to provide clout. MN is getting, and capable of getting, media coverage from plenty of other sources if it wants it (G2 article was good example this week) without relying on the DM.

I also think formal legal battles would be the last resort, and that this issue could be resolved through a discussion/letter with the DM outlining your position re copyright. I can't imagine the DM would want to have a battle over something like this, its surely not in their interests to do so either. Its basically only a page-filler for them, even though it feels more personally important for the MN community.

I have also had that experience, albeit in the other direction, I have a certain fondness for a confessed DM reader with, um, forthright tendencies....

alchemillamollis Thu 03-Sep-09 13:00:54

People seem to have overlooked Nancy66's post earlier - and she works for the Daily Mail. There are really only three voting options:

Under no circumstances
Carry on as now
Don't give a monkey's

Editorial control is a red herring, because you won't get it.

alchemillamollis Thu 03-Sep-09 13:02:19

And the editorial control red herring is splitting the 'no' vote.

StripeySuit Thu 03-Sep-09 13:12:00

<sniffs at being left out of the lesbian love-in>

beanieb Thu 03-Sep-09 13:19:26

completely agree alchemillamollis. it is splitting the vote.

Anyway - today's offering in the Daily Mail pretty much drums it home that they can and will take anything they want and use it how they want regardless of whatever copyright issues there may be; a precedent has been set.

Reality is as individual posters we may as well give up and just hop MNHQ does something RE the copyright issue.

Tinfoil Thu 03-Sep-09 13:20:54

Won't it only set a legal "precedent" if it goes unchallenged?

"today's offering in the Daily Mail pretty much drums it home that they can and will take anything they want and use it how they want regardless of whatever copyright issues there may be; a precedent has been set."

aw, stripey, I love yoooouuuu!

morningpaper Thu 03-Sep-09 13:23:58

The two Mumsnet-controlled options actually need to be added together, along the lines of:

"[[optionA]+[optionB]]% want Mumsnet editorial control, of which [optionB as a percentage of A+B] would like the column to be in the style of the Newsletter"

<gets back to Real Report she is writing>

beanieb Thu 03-Sep-09 13:28:46

I didn't mean a legal precedent really. I think they should be challenged though, if they will be is another matter. I think MNHQ are scared of them, and to be honest the DM know this too as MNHQ have basically posted about how they are scared. sad

LoveBeingAMummy Thu 03-Sep-09 13:31:28

I still think the best way forward would be for them to post a weekly question for discussion in the media section and then anyone who wanted to comment could do.

Fluffypoms Thu 03-Sep-09 13:38:45

d6ne

Threadworm Thu 03-Sep-09 13:43:11

"The two Mumsnet-controlled options actually need to be added together" -- yes. But then they need to be subtracted altogether, because they are a fantasy.

morningpaper Thu 03-Sep-09 13:50:04

ah well, they are a valid reflection of opinion, whether or not that can be actioned is a different matter altogether

thumbwitch Thu 03-Sep-09 13:56:57

done it - it is definitely better with names changed, but I would still like MN to have some editorial control, especially over which topics are covered. That would certainly increase the "clout" - being able to ensure that things that really matter to us are brought to a wider audience (albeit DM readers).

I do appreciate your points re. the legals, Justine, especially the backlash and the money side of it - could it actually bring MN to its knees? But if the majority wish is to stop the column entirely, how else can you achieve it?

TotallyAndUtterlyPaninied Thu 03-Sep-09 14:00:50

If I get quoted please could someone let me know? I find it a little weird that someone's reading our stuff and quoting us.

wotzy Thu 03-Sep-09 14:07:09

Searched for Nancy66
So I see there are only 2 options

thumbwitch Thu 03-Sep-09 14:07:52

Have just looked at the last linked cut --&-- paste job "article" and am much tickled by the fact that "xesmub from Davidtennantshire" is commenting freely and unmoderatedly...grin

WebDude Thu 03-Sep-09 14:13:29

Having seen the 'cut and paste' (which is about as far away from 'journalism' as one can get, more like a 12yo cribbing bits from an encyclopedia to put in some school work) effort, I would heartily support the suggestion from WMMC (but I'd go further).

Offer "This week on Mumsnet" copy to 3 or more other papers (each getting different content) so any idea of exclusivity for the DM is lost, and by providing wider coverage, readers of other papers also get to see the discussions and breadth of topics.

MN gets some editorial influence, ensures a degree of anonymity, and can warn those on threads that have been selected, even if MN selects a few and then doesn't submit all they shortlisted.

People on MN would know that any thread might get the spotlight, DM might/might not continue, 'clout' level might increase more than with just DM column (and any suspicion of a link with DM is demolished).

Lords/MPs and/or partners/ constituency staff would get a weekly dose of MN even if they had never seen it mentioned {OK, only someoen reading the FT exclusively might be immune!}

StripeySuit Thu 03-Sep-09 14:23:19

<feels and returns the love from MD>

Oh, I dunno, I've got a headache. Off to find something else to chat about now.

WebDude Thu 03-Sep-09 14:25:44

Have to agree that a letter critical of breaking copyright is definitely in order, even if no legal action is threatened / considered.

Just to get a response would be useful - they may claim 'fair use' but copying several posts in a single thread is far from one post being quoted to illustrate a viewpoint (good/ bad/ indifferent).

It is sloppy journalism to do this, and while some would say "nice money for doing nothing" I'd have thought some pride in one's abilities would block that approach.

I'd be ashamed to take money for spending 15 minutes doing copy and paste and adding maybe a sentence or two as intro (I'm guessing sorry, and didn't look for 'article' today).

Amazed (a) at a journalist doing this in the first place and (b) a newspaper being willing to pay for this approach.

StripeySuit Thu 03-Sep-09 14:34:24

Fan Jo Menarche - take a bow, especially for the use of slothage! Can't believe they are letting your comments through.

weegiemum Thu 03-Sep-09 14:34:24

<<snurk>> at Xesmub turning up nekkid with a Cath Kidstone bag....

The DM are not really on the ball, are they?

thumbwitch Thu 03-Sep-09 14:48:07

ssshhhh - don't let on, they'll be moderated! And they're so funny....grin

CrypticCrossword Thu 03-Sep-09 14:59:21

I think people here (and in general) are more likely to want to be positive than negative. I read somewhere that people are more likely to vote "yes" and agree to something, than to say "no" and object. In this poll there are three options where people can be "positive" about the MN/DM articles, one where we can be "negative", and one neutral "don't care".

It has been suggested that the results for the the "let the Daily Mail use MN stuff" options should be combined, making the total result in favour of MN/DM articles somewhat higher.

However, IMHO, the fact that there are there are three options in the poll which would let the DM use MN stuff, but only one option which wouldn't, makes the poll unequal in favour of allowing the DM to do this. If people see several options and only one is a "No, whereas three are variations on "Yes", then this gives the "Yes" idea three times the exposure compared to the "No" idea.

CrypticCrossword Thu 03-Sep-09 15:06:03

... ... so by the time it gets combined, this bias has already been there during the poll.

Blu Thu 03-Sep-09 15:27:36

Does ANY newspaper give editorial control to any organisation - or even journalist? Not that I know of. generally even the writer of the piece does not have editorial control or veto over how their feature is edited.

And if MN makes a play at a legal position over copyright, what happens to every other mention of anything from MN in every other publication? MN was quoted in Time Out last week, about days out in Southend. And somewhere else, I can't even remember - it's so common, now.

MN can hardly attempt to silence one newspaper over reproducing material while allowing others - and that sort of thing smacks of censorship anyway.

I understand why people feel uneasy about anonymity, but trying to silence material from a wide-open publicly accessible site, to one publication only - when numerous other publications regularly copy large chunks from other message boards seems like Fantasy Lawsuit to me.

I suspect that if there was no close relationship between this journalist and the site, the offer of further anonymousing the posting names would not even be on the table.

Guess how I have voted
(No goody-bag from Jo Malone or year's subs to the DM for the correct answer)

alwayslookingforanswers Thu 03-Sep-09 15:29:35

Blu apart from the one Indepdent article linked to from a few months back no other place has used MN to entirely make up an article.

VeryHungryLennipillar Thu 03-Sep-09 15:29:57

As someone who designs a lot of polls for professional purposes I'd say that was a pretty poorly thought out one as they go. For a start we should only be voting on options that are actually available in RL - what happens if we all say no we don't want DM association under any circumstances when legal action has been all but ruled out? Secondly how can MN be sure that they are reaching a representative sample of MNers? And how can a triple positive, single negative, single neutral response poll be interpreted? Surely it would have been better to ask us yes, no or don't care if we want the DM column to continue in it's current format. Being as those are the availble options.

Have voted though, and thanks for taking the time to give an explanation and the opportunity to vote on this.

weegiemum Thu 03-Sep-09 15:31:12

oh Blu, "Fantasy Lawsuit" sounds good - so much more intellectual and Mumsnet than Fantasy Football!!

grin

blu, there is a difference between "fair usage" and lifting whole threads. This has been discussed again and again on here.

As for censorship, it is not censorship to protect your own property.

StripeySuit Thu 03-Sep-09 15:40:21

Oi, are you dissing our FF League? dp and my DP are streets ahead of me though, might have to delete them.

alchemillamollis Thu 03-Sep-09 16:40:52

Friends of LH should declare themselves.

scottishmummy Thu 03-Sep-09 18:19:46

and then what y'all get your glistening torches and go down her house?

grow up

I'm with SM on this, LH is irrelevant in the bigger picture.

<<sal volatile alert for SM/DM agreement>>

scottishmummy Thu 03-Sep-09 18:40:22

look i dont read dm,dont link DM and am not in an incandescent thread about it as many on MN are

this is an example of group histrionics and how very dare they.with a wee splash of paranoia

<<and as for what you may or may not have said latterly haven't a clue what that was...nor this brackety thing on MN>>

<<brackety thing very useful for asides>>

scottishmummy Thu 03-Sep-09 19:02:57

asides?just say it then.spit it out.either it is pertinent or not?<<wee brackets dont change that>>

still dont know what you were on about though - Sal?what?....

Blu Thu 03-Sep-09 19:06:29

Pointy brackets are stage directions.

<<tiptoes out backwards before getting drawn back into thread>>

Blu Thu 03-Sep-09 19:07:40

But like many things on MN, sm, they have been misunderstood.

sal volatile - smelling salts - bring me round from shock of agreeing with SM!

I have to say though, a handful of threads on a board of many hundreds hardly counts as mass hysteria.

There are issues that vex people, and they have debated them. Quite reasonably, sometimes heatedly, but they are all valid points.

If that is something that vexes you then why not just stick to threads you feel comfy with?

Hang on, its MN, so you have as much right as anyone else to post on any thread to air your views. So Mn democracy is a marvellous thing.

scottishmummy Thu 03-Sep-09 19:22:07

i am bemused at strength of feeling given at any time on MN someone has linked DM and is discussing its contents

i have no desire to censor or curtail anyone else opinion. i do have every desire and shall continue to express whatever my opnion is though

Exactly SM. you support the MN ethos of everyone being able to express their point of view. the DM does not support everyone being able to express their point of view. So not a good match for MN.

If you were a journalist, writing about something important to you, or something you thought of as worthy of comment, you could not sell it to the DM without putting the DM spin on it.

That's just the reality of journalism, and the DM.

And actually, I do have a desire to at least protest or engage with someone elses opinion.

I personally a buggered in DM terms. A single mother. what a scrounging sad slacker I must be! Want to stay at home with my child? Scrounger! want to go out to work and support my family? Evil bitch!

These are the kind of polarised attitudes that make the DM at the best unhelpful and at the worst pernicious in our society.

What am I supposed to do, whip my exp back into line so I can stay at home while he supports me and ds? Like that is ever going to happen?

Just because their attitudes don't affect you, doesn't mean they aren't foul and obnoxious. So count yourself lucky you are beyond the touch of the DM.

StripeySuit Thu 03-Sep-09 19:32:50

Had a gander at the article, thought it was good actually.

policywonk Thu 03-Sep-09 19:33:12

I am completely bemused by the strength of feeling about this (I know that's a tremendously irritating thing to say and I hope I get Brownie points for not coming on and posting 'Are you all still going on about this' wink). Like SM, I never read the Mail. I can recommend this as a way of keeping the blood pressure under control.

I'm also a bit surprised, given the pop-will-eat-itself nature of this whole episode, that nobody has yet seen fit to write a 'mumsnet explodes in horror at Daily Mail's appropriation of content' story. <Starts timer>

<serial pointy-bracket offender>

policywonk Thu 03-Sep-09 19:35:29

Which article Stripey - the one about what to wear on the school run?

Policywonk. I am kind of surprised at that. There are all sorts of principles at stake here. Fair usage, copyright, brand alliance...do these mean nothing to you?

Ok. They don't have to mean anything to you, but you must see that they mean something important to quite a lot of people, and not just on MN, and, oh yes, in the realm of law.

And is has not exactly been resolved yet, has it? I would have been much happier if all this nonsense had been put to bed two weeks ago, as it should have been. But then I am not in control of MNHQ.

<<loving the bracket action, btw>>

Stripeeee! please don't say you loved the school run clothing thang!

<<bitter tears>>

Hobnobfanatic Thu 03-Sep-09 19:43:18

Sorry - being a dunce. What's does GF refer to in Justine's op?

policywonk Thu 03-Sep-09 19:44:36

I do see that there are legal issues here. I wouldn't say that copyright, fair usage and brand protection are things that I personally give a fig about, no. I also accept MNHQ's explanations about the need to wait for sound legal advice, and unwillingness to stake MN's entire future - not to mention, probably, MN founders' personal assets - on a bitchfight with Associated Newspapers.

I also have the following query, to anyone who thinks that MNHQ have deliberately connived with the Mail, or are secretly delighted by this whole affair: if you think MNHQ is staffed by venal liars, why are you still here? I sure as hell wouldn't be.

beanieb Thu 03-Sep-09 19:46:41

Hobnob, It's Gina Ford.

bibbitybobbityhat Thu 03-Sep-09 19:47:50

PW - I have asked mnhq (earlier in thread) if they would have any objection to my dh writing such a piece for a DM rival publication.

Hobnobfanatic Thu 03-Sep-09 19:48:59

Thanks, BeanieB - must have been before my time!

policywonk Thu 03-Sep-09 19:50:35

I look forward to reading it Bibbity - am amazed the Media Guardian has not yet got on to it...

Having posed a bad-tempered rhetorical question I shall now attempt to withdraw semi-gracefully and clean my kitchen floor.

Duh, I have never said that sort of nonsense, but there is certainly a case for saying no action amounts to complicity. by default. I would not have liked to have been in their shoes at the start of this, but I like to think I would have at least have protested the use of my intellectual property.

And it is precisely because I don't think they are venal liars that I am still here.

But I do think, as a business and marketing professional, that is has been very badly handled, and that they have not protected their own Interests.

So, shoot me for actually giving a damn.

policywonk Thu 03-Sep-09 19:54:56

MD, I don't mean to imply that people who do care about this are weird - just that I personally don't get it. Just like some people don't get SAHM/WOHM debates.

Threadworm Thu 03-Sep-09 19:55:29

I certainly don't think MNHQ is staffed by venal liars. But one of the earliest MNHQ comments was something to the effect that most talk sites like theirs would give their right arm to have this kind of coverage for free in a major paper and I imagine that that was their intitial preponderant reaction at least, despite their also having also a range of misgivings. That would be an entirely reasonable and unsurprising reaction for MNHQ to have to the coverage, wouldn't it?

beanieb Thu 03-Sep-09 19:59:23

who's calling them Liars hmm? shock

PolicyW, its not a debate such as SAHM, WOHM mums. Its encompasses a lot of issues 1) we hand copyright in the tcs and cs over to MN, therefore they own the content. If this content is abrogated by a third party, it is infringement of copyright. Now this might not mean a lot to you, but

1) to all the writers/musicians/filmmakers etc out there, it means a fuck of a lot. If you cannot collect royalties on your work, you cannot earn your living at your profession.

2) the DM is not a natural bedmate for MN. It has a particular worldview which espouses values directly in opposition to those of MN.

3) People are understandably unhappy at being cut and pasted to promote some mad DM agenda. And possibly expose themselves in the DM, which is not what they signed up to.

policywonk Thu 03-Sep-09 20:02:47

Thready, I suppose my interpretation of that was not so much 'we're cock-a-hoop that the Mail is doing this' as 'it was a reasonable assumption on the Mail's part that MN would feel like this'.

I interpret most of MNHQ's actions as having been motivated by the desire to resolve this in a cordial way - hence the failure to run screaming to the lawyer's office on the very first day.

You know, I think what is very apparent is that MNHQ would be more than happy to be associated with the DM. That has become apparent. Just bloody well tell us that you are fine with it! At least then we could make up our minds about using MN, instead of using a poxy 'MN poll" to pretend you will be guided by the MN majority.

This sort of coy prevarication stinks. You want us to make up your minds for you? About your business? ffs!

In fact policy, several very mild ways of dealing with this were suggested over the last couple of weeks, including a letter just asking for them to hold the column while they discussed it. Instead we were just told that nothing could be done while everyone was on holiday. Sorry. not my idea of doing business while someone harvests my product.

beanieb Thu 03-Sep-09 20:18:21

PW... when you say 'resolve this' what do you mean? What is the this?
is it the original 'this' or the resulting 'this'?

They didn't really do anything about the original 'this' except suggest that all journalists would bite off an arm to get this kind of gig, and to suggest that it might be a good thing for mumsnet.

policywonk Thu 03-Sep-09 20:21:07

MD - as someone who has spent hundreds of hours getting embroiled in SAHM/WOHM threads, I must insist that they too encompass many important issues wink

1) Fair enough.
2) I think this is one of the points I don't really get. Anyone who comes on here with a pure DM line on working mothers or immigration gets shot down very quickly (quite rightly). I don't understand why people think that having MN material reproduced in the DM would produce some sort of reverse-contamination in which we'd all start talking bollocks about latchkey kids and how horrified we are by Judy Finnigan's thighs. Conversely, there are also plenty of posters on here who have very DM-style views about selective and private schooling, state benefits and Gordon Brown's government, and we seem to be able to rub along with them. The Daily Mail isn't a disease from which we need to be quarantined.
3) To repeat what's already been posted lots of times - we're in public. You have to post with the full knowledge that your posts could be reproduced or read by anyone, any time, any where. I really think this episode has done some good in making some people wake up to this. As for the DM agenda - people's posts can't be twisted to suit a DM agenda. They either do support the DM's agenda (lots do) or they don't.

I agree PW. I don't have much truck with the 'oh but I only posted on MN" thing. Its out there, and can be cannabilised at any time.

The difference in this case, for me, is the DM are flagging a relationship with MN that has been forced, and that MN, who own the copyright for the content, have been strong armed into not fighting it.

And the fact that The DM is not above the law, especially as they are reproducing MN content (with copyright attached) in their print versions of their paper, means that they have absolutely trampled over MN's copyright. And can be held to account over it, By doing nothing MNHQ has just added to the overweaning power of the DM to do exactly what they want.

And at no point did Mn say to us that they had said to the Dm "stop it". That is what is puzzling so many of us. Saying stop it does not engage you in a big legal battle, it just draws a line in the sand.

which makes me think that they personally would have welcomed the publicity and exposure, because they don't actually share the feeling that the Dm is the work of the devil.

Fine! Just tell us! Then we know where we stand!

Okay, now I'm mad. I come on here and write stuff to entertain you lot - not the cretins who write and read the fucking Daily Mail. I don't like being quoted extensively by a rag which frankly I wouldn't wipe my bum on. angry

If it's open season to take anything from here and publish it so long as it aids the MN publicity engine I intend to pinch Expat's blowjob tips (anonymously naturally, I'm scared of her wink), and sell them to Knave magazine (if it still exists, if not I'll find another). I'll be sure to link back in so you get some new registrants on Dadsnet and maybe it'll liven up Friday nights too!

I'll then nick entire threads of suffering, blend them together as one person's tragedy and sell it to the trashy weekly tabloids and hey hum for good measure, use Mumsnet to 'plant' a few rumours which I'll then quote widely as true online to see how far we get. I have a few cool leads based partly on fact that would run and run - and I know you lot will jump all over them because I know you can't resist replying to certain thread titles.

But that's okay right? Because it'd be fair use. hmm

Is this the sort of publicity MNHQ is after?

whomovedmychocolate..

In the words of David Cassidy (fair usage) 'I think I love you"

policywonk Thu 03-Sep-09 20:42:01

Well, as I understand it, MNHQ only established the copyright position to their own satisfaction quite recently. It's great that so many people were prepared to post their professional opinions on here (I don't mean that sarcastically, I happily take legal advice from anon MN posters) but MNHQ wanted their own advice from their own lawyers. It is their business, and their responsibility. I think it's unrealistic to expect them to take advice from nameless internet sprites whose legal qualifications might consist of framed certificates from the Institute of Crazy, OH.

As to how delighted they are or are not with the DM association - you are kind of calling them liars, aren't you? I think Justine's OP puts it perfectly clearly: 'a weekly column in the DM is not something we'd have sought. We share many Mumsnetters' misgivings about the views and general tone of the paper... Nor is it a column that fills us with pride because it adequately represents the joy and wonder that is Mumsnet. So why - as some have understandably wondered - are we not banging our fists about stopping the darned thing and have we not fired off a barrage of legal threats? Why instead do we at HQ seem a bit ambivalent about whether the column exists or not? The main answer is this. Like it or not, the Daily Mail is a very influential beast, probably one of the most politically influential institutions in the UK. So, irrespective of the content of these columns, the very fact that the Daily Mail have decided that Mumsnet is prominent and interesting enough to base a weekly column around increases our clout.'

So they are ambivalent about it. You might not (you obviously don't) agree with that position, but it's not one they're being coy about.

PW. How patronising. MNHQ got a lot of good advice from real professionals on here, any one which they could have called upon privately to back up their assertions.

Strip the shit. MNHQ are saying a) they don't want to take them on in court (noone ever said they had to, there are plenty of other options available) and b) that they think an alliance with the DM will improve their clout re issues.

Yeah, right.

Can't wait for the joint headline DM and MN campaign for improved support for single mothers/people of another country trying to build business in the UK

So, Like I said. Have the courage of your convictions.

And just tell us.

bibbitybobbityhat Thu 03-Sep-09 20:53:58

I do not understand the "clout" argument either. The DM just want cheap copy. Makes them look cheap and Mumsnet look mad, I fear.

I don't personally see where the ambivalence comes from,

forge an alliance with an entity who quite literally would spit on many of your core clients.

Or not.

Well I personally am quite mad bibbitybobbityhat but perhaps not in the way you meant wink

<fumes>

hazeyjane Thu 03-Sep-09 21:19:07

" As for the DM agenda - people's posts can't be twisted to suit a DM agenda. They either do support the DM's agenda (lots do) or they don't. "

Maybe not individual posts, but I would say that the school run article is presented in a way that supports the DM agenda of showing what a bunch of superficial, clothes obsessed fluff-heads women are, until the voice of reason (A Dad - of course!) comes in at the end.

eaxactly hazey. Taking quotes out of the thread context, stringing them together into some kind of MN consensus.

It betrays everything that MN is, and stands for.

As for the 'male voice of reason' , oh please.

daisy5678 Thu 03-Sep-09 21:25:36

The anonymous names don't help and I can't think why anyone thinks that they do, because all you have to do (having read the article and seen a situation that you think might be someone you know in real life) is put the direct quote into 'advanced search' on Google and then search 'exact phrase' and it will find the person's original post on MN.

So the anonymity thing was just, well, pointless really. And she picked crap names.

StripeySuit Thu 03-Sep-09 21:25:42

No pol, the kids improving themselves in the school holidays one. It caught the humour on here well and again had the right message.

StripeySuit Thu 03-Sep-09 21:27:45

mD, like I'd give a toss about clothes - I'm banned from S&B shock.

StripeySuit Thu 03-Sep-09 21:28:58

...until i came on MN i'd never spoken to a DM reader....and now i've spoken to her ...i really like her! wink

Actually, I think you have hit the nail on the head. In terms of not representing MN. The kids on holiday learning things thread, it would actually be better to just lift a section and reproduce it, rather than edit it like they did for the school run clothes one.

oh, it just stinks all round.

StripeySuit Thu 03-Sep-09 21:33:31

mD - I do actually give a toss about IP in other spheres - music, etc and never illegally copy or share. This is different - I don't own my words on here as such, or at least I don't care about them particualrly, so they are fair-ish game.

monkeysmama Thu 03-Sep-09 21:40:35

I had no idea about this Daily Mail thing until someone on my post natal thread mentioned it. I am really irritated. I know that MN "own" what we post on here but there's a major difference in having the vague idea that something might appear in a book about babies say and knowing the DM are selecting their best bits to publish. I would say I hate the Daily Mail but know they hate people like me more. I think MNHQ need to put a strap on the home page saying loud & clear what's happening. What threads are they interested in?I am deeply unsettled. I thought this was an online forum by parents for parents. Not an online forum being reprinted in a racist, homophobic newspaper by journalists for whoever wants to read it parents or not. MNHQ surely has a duty to make this particular relationship very clear.

Stripey,<<inconsequential snog moment>> is that in the tcs and cs I agree to when signing up to MN, I had copyright over to MN. Therefore, they own copyright on my posts. Now, I am well aware that the internet is public, but then so are newspapers, books, music etc. Most people respect copyright, A print newspaper should above all respect that copyright,

I have had articles published in national newspapers, and have been surprised to see them published elsewhere, but realised that I had given copyright to that newspaper (not realising, I add, no real contract). But I respected their right to sell on their content.

Therefore it means that MN content should not be reproduced (without MN consent, fair usage not withstanding) in any other publication, especially one which can be tracked down so easily! And to held to account under British Law.

oh, yes, Stripey! what's not to love about DP?

Don't answer that!

MrsEricBanaMT Thu 03-Sep-09 22:04:03

I have no issue. I'm with Justine - keep your friends close^...and your enemies closer still wink

Well MrsE. if you fancy Paul Dacre at your breakfast table you are a braver girl that I.

Starbear Thu 03-Sep-09 22:08:52

I would hate to think that if someone knew I posted on MN that I am am DM reader. Anyway, I will never ever buy the paper, so they and their advertisers can't have my money. Best way of voting IMO.

LadyStColumb Thu 03-Sep-09 22:19:42

Interesting that in over 24 hours only 780 people have bothered to vote. Out of how many posters.

I dont want this column and have practically stopped posting on MN because of it, but perhaps some people genuinely arent bothered by it.

MrsEricBanaMT Thu 03-Sep-09 22:20:36

Why would he be at my breakfast table?

I think theres a bit of overestimation here. He's the editor of a conservative newspaper. Not a facist one. A conservative one. he isn't the anti-christ

MrsEricBanaMT Thu 03-Sep-09 22:21:56

"Interesting that in over 24 hours only 780 people have bothered to vote. Out of how many posters."

What? So are they somehow morally deficient becasue of it?

In poll of opinion, one would expect a low percentage of responses. But those responses are held to be representative of the whole. That is how polls work.

If you see a MORI poll being quoted in the news, the amount of people asked will actually be quite small.

No one in a poll expects everybody with an interest in in to respond.

Otherwise elections would be null and void if you did not have 100% attendence at votes.

He might not be the anti-christ, but then again I am an atheist.

What he is is a man who is employed to disseminate various hateful ideologies.

One, I am a slack, wickd drinking tart for being a single parent, and if I claim benefits, I am a total scrounger, two, I am an evil bitch for going out to work to support my child, three, anyone foreign is here to nick our jobs (even though every economist on the earth stresses the need for economic migration to support our economy)

need I go on?

scottishmummy Thu 03-Sep-09 22:43:27

oh ffs take that big ole cross off yer back you'll get a skelf

talk about personalising media schlock and personalising journalism to the the self. don't think DM has eye on the minutiae of your life or you/MN in mind every post

it is high circulation
oh my very golly gosh
easily forgotten schlock

scottish mummy, you have made it very clear you think anybody who gives a toss about these issues is a deluded, hysterical, no-life twat.

Fine.

Leave us to it then.

scottishmummy Thu 03-Sep-09 22:52:30

md that is your interpretation not mine but your post was melodramatic me me me. i faer you are both demonising and personalising a newspaper as mass agent of social control and you attribute greater influence to the DM than it actually deserves

it is hardly an enduring social commentary paper

it is schlocky alarmist guff, with minimal longevity or influence

If you seriously believe that, then I fear you are deluded. MNHQ would not be wary of, and also at the same time keen to appease the DM if that were the case.

catch yourself on, media informs our culture almost universally. A paper with the DMs circulation necessarily informs a huge amount of of the populace.

pickyvic Thu 03-Sep-09 22:58:54

ive voted no, am a relative newbie to mumsnet but i draw the line at getting identified in the bloody DM of all rags. if i ever appear in print i will be off mumsnet as fast as my little legs will carry me....it does make you more guarded about what you can say on here.

scottishmummy Thu 03-Sep-09 23:01:38

i do not fear the printed word.nor do i quake about DM.i can differentiate shite from fact. i dont think any UK newsapaer is so pervasive that it subverts truth

this OMG DM said... is somewhat alarmist and bitty paranoid.so if you all read it (purely to know thine enemy and all that...)why aren't MN DMreaders as a critical mass corrupted but the hoi polli are

daily MN has DM links-does that make MN polluted by DM spurious truths or can people differentiate and make choices?

elkiedee Thu 03-Sep-09 23:02:51

I voted against any involvement but actually think that I might have voted for a different option had it been listed - but any article about mumsnet shouldn't just raid the talk threads for juicy quotes, whether that's done by mumsnet staff or DM journalists. I'm sure journalists could get ideas for their articles and openly ask in an appropriate way on mumsnet if we would like to contribute our opinion to an article. I hate the Daily Mail but even for that paper would express my view (but would it be DM friendly?) for an article.

But I really object to the way in which copy for the column was just lifted from this forum, especially in the case of someone asking for advice on her employment.

Would you like to rephrase that so it makes some kind of coherant sense?

I meant my last post for SM

scottishmummy Thu 03-Sep-09 23:05:30

i think you understand well,but for your own motives seek to digress

No SM, your last post was incomprehensible. I fail to understand your point.

NinjaRain Thu 03-Sep-09 23:41:01

Ok i put what i want in an ideal world but would settle for MN control and less direct quote style.

oopsagainandagain Thu 03-Sep-09 23:52:05

po;icywonk

I'm not here any more....I object to this completely for most of the reasons madamed has mentioned, and all of those i have siad in the past.

And on an earlier thread I belive justine said that they are certainly happy for more publicity for the site- and then went to chenge the terms and conditions such that MN were allowed to pass on our names and locations (ie real names and real locations) to whomever they felt they wanted to.

Sorry- that did make me and a couple of other people raise an eyebrow.....

But it is in the middle of a whole heap of shit about the DM.

it's very veyr important because all the archieved threads where people have posted stuff years agi when the internet was smaller, and MN t and cs were different- these threads are now completely ungaurded by MN as they have done nothing to stop the DM take whatever they want thus far.

Not sure hiow much sens that makes.
But it will chnage massively how i personally use MN>
i'll aks how to make an apple crumble- but i sure as hell won't discuss my ds1's behaviour or feel able to offer any professional help to anyone on here any moore.

Mn say this caught them out....
and I belive that they are being very lax in not making more of an issue about it to posters on all of the board...

I've made this point on many threads but have had bo answer from MN, and pickyvic sums it up completely- the rest of MN is bibbling around as ever...

oopsagainandagain Fri 04-Sep-09 00:03:04

justine did then change the t and cs back so that we hadn't all retrospectively agreeed that they can pass any threads and our real names and addresses onto people- once thredworm and I had asked her baout it.

I'm not sure if MN are lying about anything- but I'm afraid after all that has happened, i don't trust their integrity any more, nor their ability to run the site as an ethical enterprise....

MrsEricBanaMT Fri 04-Sep-09 00:31:19

"What he is is a man who is employed to disseminate various hateful ideologies."

As a fervant supporter of democracy I disagree. Because you personally find the conservative ideoogy hateful and would rather earse it from your calculus isactually more dangerous that anything the DM publishes.

I am no fan of one-party governments.

MrsEricBanaMT Fri 04-Sep-09 00:31:57

and I say that as a liberal

Oh for Heavens sake Mrs E, no one is saying ban the daily Mail and flog Paul Dacre, just don't play smoochie smoochie with them.

StripeySuit Fri 04-Sep-09 07:32:47

Actually the latest school holidays one was a little strip down the side of a page with a few (funny) direct quotes and a few paras of commentary. So less of a rip off and more like the other press stuff we see anyway.

StripeySuit Fri 04-Sep-09 07:33:40

Good morning mD, would reciprocate snog but haven't brushed my teeth yet.

TheEgoHasLanded Fri 04-Sep-09 08:35:15

sauve-moi de la folie

wink

MrsEricBanaMT Fri 04-Sep-09 09:07:01

No one is saying ban the DM? Maybe not outright, but I get the feeling that a lot of people think the world would be a better place without it, when the opposite is true.

scottishmummy Fri 04-Sep-09 09:15:50

MN and DM are inextricabily linked and MN are happy to have that brand association.

i dont see the ethos or moral fibre of MN as changed by dm association. i do see that the MN brand wants a higher coverage and is willing to do so by going with a high circulation paper

and to all you who hate and deride the DM - well dont read it!
dont link it - links generate revenue. every click= revenue for DM

morningpaper Fri 04-Sep-09 09:23:21
scottishmummy Fri 04-Sep-09 09:26:11

if you no likey it,why link
MN Links= DM revenue

morningpaper Fri 04-Sep-09 09:31:16

It isn't revenue fgs

If clicks=revenue then newspapers wouldn't be in the financial crisis they are in

scottishmummy Fri 04-Sep-09 09:34:49

if you hate DM so much why habitaully yak about it? and yep revenue from links so each time someone links dm they strenghen the bond between mn and dm

you all read it and oh and ah - so you are consumers and part of its high readership

Threadworm Fri 04-Sep-09 09:34:50

Three lifts from MN in two days, plus a prospect of at least a column a week?! I really hadn't been that bothered by the DM think but that level of lifting really is enough to make me think twice about posting. The site is as muuch copy-fodder as it is parent support noiw. Much too much of a not-very-good thing.

monkeysmama Fri 04-Sep-09 09:35:06

I don't understand why DM & MN are "inextricabily linked".

I don't read the DM and never will. But that is not the point & to suggest that those of us who don't like MN's association with the DM simply don't buy it is very simplistic. Comments we post may be in there. That is the point.

The majority of women who post on here are supportive to other women be they single mothers, on benefits, "immigrants", gay, lefties, etc. These women read all kinds of newspapers and no newspapers. It is for the support and advice of these women that most people post not to see themselves thinly disguised in print in the DM. Whether we then read it or not is more or less irrelevant.

scottishmummy Fri 04-Sep-09 09:37:56

clicks on link=advertising revenue for DM.the ads and hits generate DM revenue

dm charges an advertising rate for companies to be on the page as it has such high traffic

scottishmummy Fri 04-Sep-09 09:39:46

inextricabily linked because daily links and the incandescent huffs about it. MN posters link dm daily and yak about it, so no suprise they link us and yak about us

morningpaper Fri 04-Sep-09 09:58:07

I suspect the charge is utterly minimal SM, if noticable at all

Unless lots of MNers are buying cruises off the page

Don't do that will you laydies? <frown>

scottishmummy Fri 04-Sep-09 10:03:35

advertising revenue is lucrative and profitable.so yep each MN click=DM revenue as DM charges the advertisers on the hits/traffic site receives.high density sites can have higher charge rate to advertisers

MN talks about Dm incessantly
no suprise they talk about us

monkeysmama Fri 04-Sep-09 10:08:57

This is not just DM "talking about us" - it is DM being given the permission to lift whole threads and print them in their newspaper. There is a major difference.

scottishmummy Fri 04-Sep-09 10:14:47

lifting content from a public access site,visible and accessible to many. the other papers do it too

telegraph
independent
guardian

MNHQ have clearly chosen their allegiance to DM and are compliant in the relationship

beanieb Fri 04-Sep-09 10:45:10

I notice that there's a comment about her being child free and telling her she shouldn't be commenting hmm

I think that's a bit unfair, she (the journalist) may be using this site to help get info about TTC (As I am) and has happened upon the thread while reading the boards or maybe even read the peice in the DM yesterday? I read the thread and also commented - something along the lines of not understanding the whole school gate fashion parade thing - and I have no children yet.

Or am I being too kind. End of the day she's still someone who has regurgitated a thread from here to make money. Which is, I suppose, not breaking any laws but is just irritating. Even more so if she is using this site for support whie TTC.

What are the chances she is though? Or maybe just another hack with no imagination who trawls the internet for 'good copy'.... sigh!

beanieb Fri 04-Sep-09 10:56:42

oh - actually have re-read it and they are commenting on another person's comment grin

doh!

alchemillamollis Fri 04-Sep-09 10:59:06

Damn, I really fancied a long cruise in the company of a load of Daily Mail readers, MP.

Threadworm Fri 04-Sep-09 11:12:08

Today's article in Femail is very offensive. It works up the old cliche that women hate each other, are in permanent cometition over trivial matters of appearance and status, and are victims of one another who have only themsleves to blame. The same sort of slant on MN would be readily understood as ironic -- or jumped on.

I really do think it is unrealistic to suggest that raising MN's already very high profile by tolerating a presence like this in Femail will do anything at all to increase MN's 'campaigning power'. But clicks through from a women's style and beauty page in the Mail will of course be attractive to advertisers on MN.

There have been lots of harsh claims against MNHQ here, many of them offensive and OTT. I don't for a second think that they have 'connived' or been dishonest, and it is very brave and generous of them to discuss the issue so fully on the boards. But, but, but they post as real people and as representatives of the company that makes their living. There is bound to be a little gloss and spin -- we all do that in professional communications. I feel a bit tainted by the suggestion that any claim that MNHQ are happy with the Mail coverage because of their business interests amounts to calling them venal liars.

Also, do you think that the strategy of saying to the Mail 'Don't do this unless you put certain restrictions in place' has had the effect of saying 'Sure, you have our absolute permission to do this, subject to the restrictions'? That would explain the explosion of coverage in the last couple of days.

If MNHQ wanted to stop the coverage, would it have been better to have written and just said 'no' -- even if they had no capacity/prospect of going to court whatsoever?

AbricotsSecs Fri 04-Sep-09 11:12:29

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

beanieb Fri 04-Sep-09 11:18:53

"Today's article in Femail is very offensive. It works up the old cliche that women hate each other, are in permanent cometition over trivial matters of appearance and status"

yes, but, where on earth did they get this idea from .... the thread on Mumsnet is very real. Mumsnetters (Some) were talking about it ...

It's not like they made it up.

Arrghh, I am not defending the Daily Mail honestly!

Threadworm Fri 04-Sep-09 11:27:25

I haven't read the thread it was based on but I certainly don't want to deny that there are plenty of Daily Mailish posts on MN. I don't think the DM has any agenda to distort MN. I never bought the idea that MN is exclusively full of Guardianistas and Mailhaters.

But there is a context here that challenges the slant in that article. Whereas the Femail context probably endorses it.

policywonk Fri 04-Sep-09 11:34:36

Thready, I can't read half your post cos it's going all over the ads on my browser for some reason, but the 'venal liars' thing wasn't aimed at you - as you say, some of the posts on these threads have made pretty explicit accusations.

I do think, though that Justine has said quite plainly that MN aren't happy, they are ambivalent. I just don't see any reason to disbelieve that. Ambivalence seems a perfectly reasonable response to me (possibly because it's my response too).

And with that I really am off (to IKEA - even with the train fares, the station car park fee and an IKEA cafe lunch for three, their roman blinds still work out cheaper than John Lewis's).

pofacedandproud Fri 04-Sep-09 11:37:07

why don't they go and poach from netmums for example? Why consistently poach from MN and consistently take posts out of the context to which Threadie refers so that we all sound like a bunch of s hallow rivalrous cretins? How many bad journalists can now make a living out of copying and pasting MN?

pofacedandproud Fri 04-Sep-09 11:39:04

I bought a lovely rug there just yesterday wonk. [considers pitching an IKEA vs John Lewis article to DM]

beanieb Fri 04-Sep-09 11:44:55

the thing is, there ARE plenty of people on here who can make us look like "a bunch of shallow rivalrous cretins" anyway - The Daily mail is just highlighting that, no?

Arrgghhh - I really am not defending the Daily Mail!

pofacedandproud Fri 04-Sep-09 11:46:55

but here beanieb you are always going to get other people who deflate pretentions and point out hypocrisies/bigotry/vanity etc. In the DM you don't get that balance.

onebatmother Fri 04-Sep-09 12:25:57

Ach, I don't know - so many issues here.

I tend to think that privacy is dying if not already cold, and that circumspection is required both here and elsewhere. Copyright and IP - important and v much issue of the day in terms of tech and culture etc - but realistically not a hot potato for many MNers.

Which leaves us with the impact of the association between MN and DM - a difficult thing to nail.

I loathe the DM - would never read it myslef and would attempt to dissuade others from doing so. But, as it stands, are we really appearing to condone the DM-ness of it? Not sure. It is they who are writing about us, and I think that most people would see this as their attempt to ally themselves with MN, rather than the reverse. In some respects, an MN-approved roundup would indicate a less neutral, more cosy association between Us and Them.

The people who read LH's column are already DM readers: it's too late for them, poor souls. So we are not, I don't think, bumping the DM's circulation by our presence; nor are we being asked to read it ourselves.

And there is the possibility that we might exert some influence in the opposite direction. We should remember that the simple idea of women talking to one another unsupervised edges revolutionary for many DM readers - weekly exposure to that fact alone, regardless of the content, might conceivably broaden some horizons in a, you know, empowering kinda way.

I agree that there is, potentially, a huge amount of real good to be done with MN clout, and the more of it we are perceived to have (including but not limited to media profile), the better for those whose lives might be improved by that clout being wielded.

As PW says, the DM wields huge heft of its own - we don't like that, but it's true. It would be grim indeed to snuggle up - but it might not be a bad thing if there is not the perception in Westminster that if one placates MN, one necessarily alienates the DM demographic.

Christ, I've got splinters in me Janet Regers.

As an aside, I'm v late to this and haven't combed all the threads, but the OP seems completely clear to me - not coy in any way. And I don't share the feeling which has been expressed, in these threads and others, that there is an ongoing and cynical elision of the community and business aims of the enterprise. Of course MNHQ don't continually remind us 'we're a business and we need as much traffic as poss' - that would be both rude and self-sabotaging. But it doesn't follow therefore that we are all being manipulated. All elements - the community, he business, the profile, the ad revenue, the clout - are interconnected and impossible to unravel, and if one element were removed there would be negative consequences for the others. It seems - sorry - churlish and rather undergrad to be always detecting the hand of The Man in MN. It just is what it is: complicated.

WebDude Fri 04-Sep-09 12:32:02

scottishmummy - regarding DM (and any other online newspaper)

I don't think there are (m)any which are confident in their online versions making money.

From a recent Media Show (discussing the plans by News Corp to make their content chargeable) pretty much every paper is subsidising their electronic versions from income on the printed copies, and that income is dropping (See this article about cover price increases on printed papers.

When Mr Murdock indicated that NewsCorp online sites would be charging for content, the rest of the online papers sat up, only because they've all been thinking about it, but none wants to be first.

Partly that's because it is (mostly) untried on a daily (archives of financial papers are not uncommon, where an annual subscription gives access) and the 'how to' is another aspect.

Do they charge a flat fee for a day's access, or some micro-payment system to charge per page viewed ?

Some sites like the Guardian and Sun get around 25 million unique visitors, so maybe the Sun might be able to charge a few pence a day, but my guess is the income that keeps the trashy page3.com site going is from gullible fools younger men paying silly high prices for dubious "get a sexy girl video on your mobile" services (WebDude has an old mobile, so cannot enjoy view soft porn at high cost)

Back to the DM and "visitors equating to income"

Also, it looks to me (viewing the source code for that article mentioned a few posts back) as if the DM is (a) linking to its own 'store' as much as anything, to make a profit as a retailer (ie 20-40% margin on goods) and (b) uses Google ads

I haven't gone through all their javascript code yet, and as I use Firefox with advert-blocking add-on, I only saw one 'advert' to their fashion store, but there was a link using DoubleClick, which is part of Google to track someone clicking a link.

Now, "per click" ads can be very costly to the advertiser (eg 15 quid a click), but I don't think the website displaying those clicks get much. As for the 'adverts by Gooooooogle' type lists, again, doubt the website owner gets much - the cost for advertisers can be as low as 10p per thousand displays, so even with 10 adverts shown, it takes thousands of displays for Google to charge a pound, let alone pay out a pound!

(I don't run any websites using Google display ads, but do have clients that pay Google for advertising, some with low bills, some spending hundreds a month.)

If the DM is using Google, then it may not have a system to link to advertisers which pay the DM directly. Seems like many other sites, they offload the sourcing of the ads to another (Google) and will therefore only get a slice of the income Google is making.

It's less risky, as Google will be responsible for providing ads, and takes away need for staff (while small radio stations and papers are probably hassling every firm in their locality about paid ads, at about the worst time to be trying to get new advertisers).

Threadworm Fri 04-Sep-09 12:49:53

Churlish and undergrad to think that a business whose (presumably?)main source of revenue is advertising might be preoccupied with increasing advertising revenue? Not sure I get that.

WebDude Fri 04-Sep-09 12:55:36

onebatmother - while MN isn't constantly saying it wants hits etc etc, in the current situation it is far from clear what contact has been made (if any), whether there's even been a "hey, this material is copyright, stop copying chunks now, please" type letter, or anything to say (to the DM) that MN is less than happy with the situation, as far as I can tell.

That's poor, if the situation of a column being produced, from MN quotes, hasn't been challenged. It's interesting that someone did ask about the fact the DM 'pulled' the article a while ago, and got a (daft) reply, yet we're still not being told what discussion (if any) there has been over the copyright issue.

Sure, can understand MN not wanting a costly legal fight, but if no 'concern' is even expressed, they may as well scrub the T+C saying they own copyright, so everyone knows (and MN users can extract from whatever threads they want and publish their own books if they want, without challenge from MNHQ).

It seems pretty clear that if MNHQ cannot stick up for themselves over them holding copyright, and requiring media and others to get permission then the DM and anyone else is free to do what they want with "copy and paste" of content.

That's not in MN's commercial interest, and makes a mockery of stating copyright passes to MN when someone makes a post, if they are unwilling to challenge multiple infringements, "because the DM has lots of clout". Sounds like a case of "DM says 'jump' and MN would say 'how high?'"

So, MNHQ, has anyone made formal contact with the DM saying something on the lines of "you are infringing copyright by publishing, in print and online, large sections from threads that have appeared on the Mumsnet.com website" ?

If not, why not ? (Agreed, holidays get in the way, but getting legal advice and writing a letter isn't going to take a week, let alone a month, is it!)

FabBakerGirlIsBack Fri 04-Sep-09 12:59:38

I object because the column in no way represents MN imo. It doesn't show it's funny, clever or caring side and just makes us look vapid at times.

onebatmother Fri 04-Sep-09 13:01:26

No of course not, Threadie, that's simple realism - and that's my point. Presumably the only way MN can survive is ad revenue, but there is sometimes the implication that there is something intrinsically sinister in that, and I don't believe there is.

Threadworm Fri 04-Sep-09 13:05:08

Plus, even if this very extensive presence in Femail does improve a campaigning position (which is really an arguable claim), it does so at the cost of to some degree compromising the site's primary social role as a source of parenting support. We are all accustomed to everything said here being in the public domain and useable (and used) by the press. But three threads cannibalised in two days? Plus one a week hereafter? It is too much; it does undermine the forum.

Whether MNHQ can do anything about it is another matter -- it may well be that they can't in the end. It is just another of the many sides of the whole issue copyright on the net, which is terrorising the music industry and (today of all days) book authorship -- last day to opt out of Google owning your sorry asses all you authors out there.

StripeySuit Fri 04-Sep-09 13:07:02

Fab the latest one on holiday activities (or lack of) really was quite good, honest!

StripeySuit Fri 04-Sep-09 13:08:52

Yes, I do think it's odd that a journalist can pass off an article as their own research when it's essentially already in 'print' in a slightly different form - re: the school run dress thing.

onebatmother Fri 04-Sep-09 13:09:39

I agree, WebDude and Threadie, that the copyright question is crucial - both in this, and more broadly.

Are there really three MN threads in the DM? I'd thoguht the plan was one a week? How odd.

FabBakerGirlIsBack Fri 04-Sep-09 13:17:49

It was okay, StripeySuit, but I still don't like it and the names she uses are stupid too imo.

There was an article yesterday on the school run uniform for mums too.

WebDude Fri 04-Sep-09 13:21:09

onebatmother - seems three this week, but visit newsnow.co.uk and enter mumsnet in search box (it only allows one keyword unless you have a subscription) and it will pull up headlines with that in article title)

(NB the first 27/08 was zapped by the DM "website running out of space" !

On mumsnet this week: Are family holidays worth the hassle?
The Daily Mail - Femail 00:48 27-Aug-09

On mumsnet this week: Can I be sacked for being pregnant?
The Daily Mail - Femail 00:56 13-Aug-09

On mumsnet this week... Should I let my daughter use fake tan?
The Daily Mail - Femail 01:29 6-Aug-09

Search for mumsnet on the DM site and it shows
What SHOULD we put in our children's lunch boxes? (20/08)

Plus a number of others (2nd, 3rd, 4th Sept), not naming Mumsnet in the headline (ie "On mumsnet this week" seems to have been a 4-5 week thing)

said Fri 04-Sep-09 13:24:30

Agree completely with WebDude re the copyright issue. I would like MNHQ clarification on this point.

smallwhitecat Fri 04-Sep-09 13:28:09

Message withdrawn

TessOfTheDinnerBells Fri 04-Sep-09 13:36:21

There doesn't seem to be any options about publishing only with the consent of each MNer involved in the discussion they wish to publish. Do they not have the most to loose?

Really have been very reluctanct to post on MN since this started, particularly on the SN Education board - despite reassurances and a namechange and deletion of past posts. At times, other posts I make are influenced by the SN aspect of my personal life, or just a release from it.

The fact is that I used MN for support far more than any R&R and I no longer feel able to do this, at least not until this whole issue is resolved and the Mail pull out of this altogether.

My own life is not for general publication, to be used to entertain DM readers. I accept that there has always been a risk of a web search spurning out one or two of my posts to any individual that chooses to search but to put it in a national paper...!!!

The fact that it is the DM is not the issue, for me any national paper would have been just the same. However, the DM's perspective on the role of women and minority groups really is something to be avoided. MN is supposed to be about supporting, connecting and empowering women and all parents. Do you really think this association really reflects these values?

TessOfTheDinnerBells Fri 04-Sep-09 13:40:01

Just for our information, Justine, could you tell us whether there has been a "lull" in mn posts since this started?

JustineMumsnet (MNHQ) Fri 04-Sep-09 13:43:30

Hello all,
The commissioning editor of the column at the Mail has just called us. She's been following the discussion on the site and the poll.

Based on the results of the poll so far we've said that it's looking like either MNHQ comes up with the idea for and writes the column or it needs to stop.

She's suggested we therefore have a crack at doing one for next week and MP (for her sins) has just agreed to give it a go. The editor of Femail is on hols until Tues and it will be her who has the final say over this - and she may say it's not want she wants in which case we'll ask them to stop it altogether. (I've no reason to believe they won't comply).

Obviously if the poll changes markedly, or we all hate MPs efforts grin, then we can have a rethink. Nothing is yet set in stone, but we wanted to keep you in the loop as to what's going on.

Thanks to all who have voted so far.

Threadworm Fri 04-Sep-09 13:49:05

Surprisingly generous of the Mail. Very good news for MP, and for all those who abhore the first past the post voting system.

JustineMumsnet (MNHQ) Fri 04-Sep-09 13:50:40

Hi TessOfTheDinnerBells,
Visits were about 6% down in August from July but it is traditionally a bit quieter for us because of hols. So far, though, Sept looks like being back to normal. Year on year comparisons don't work really because our visits are around 70% up on last year.

TessOfTheDinnerBells Fri 04-Sep-09 13:52:24

Would this not affect your own legal case?

Would the actual posters be consulted individually?

Who would have the final editorial say, DM or MN?

Would the agreement come in some formal, cast-iron guarantee form?

Threadworm Fri 04-Sep-09 13:52:38

What will happen about the proliferation of other Mail liftings of MN threads, outside of the 'This Week on Mumsnet' label?

TessOfTheDinnerBells Fri 04-Sep-09 13:52:58

Will MP charge them a fee? To be used for a charity?

morningpaper Fri 04-Sep-09 13:53:04

right

so

what they want is 300 words on Emmeline Pankhurst

and a topless shot

am I understanding the brief correctly?

Threadworm Fri 04-Sep-09 13:54:37

Will there be a rush of 'Yay! I didn't get a mention in MP's roundup' threads?

Blu Fri 04-Sep-09 13:56:26

So is MP now going to 'plagiarise' large chunks of MN passed off as journalism (etc etc, threads passim) and run the wrath of outing people?

Sounds like a poisoned chalice to me.

Oh well.

morningpaper Fri 04-Sep-09 13:57:38

I knew I should stuck to the Guardian Unlimited Talkboards

Katisha Fri 04-Sep-09 13:59:50

I'd love the editor of Femail to come on here and justify the DM position on the role of women in our society.

TessOfTheDinnerBells Fri 04-Sep-09 13:59:57

As I said in previous post, it's not an issue of which paper does it, therefore not an issue of who "writes" it. I just really wouldn't want anything I post on MN to be published in any national paper.

so let me get this straight in my mind...mumsnet is willingly and with full knowledge getting into bed with the daily mail-the most right wing, mysoginistic, racist rag on sale?

really?

well-i don't quite know what to do with that.

Threadworm Fri 04-Sep-09 14:02:40

What will happen about the proliferation of other Mail liftings of MN threads, outside of the 'This Week on Mumsnet' label?

JustineMumsnet (MNHQ) Fri 04-Sep-09 14:02:51

TessOfTheDinnerBells B Fri 04-Sep-09 13:52:58 D Add a message | Report post | Contact poster
Will MP charge them a fee? To be used for a charity?
Mn will pay MP her usual pittance hourly rate to come up with something. If it's published she gets the fee and can refund us. If not she has to live on the pittance.
(nb if it works out there's no reason why other writers can't also have a go at it)

By Threadworm B Fri 04-Sep-09 13:52:38 D Add a message | Report post | Contact poster
What will happen about the proliferation of other Mail liftings of MN threads, outside of the 'This Week on Mumsnet' label?

I think it's been an unusual week for that - suspect a few colums were submitted and used around the paper. But in general nothing will happen about lifting of quotes to support articles - legal under fair use.

By TessOfTheDinnerBells B Fri 04-Sep-09 13:52:24 D Add a message | Report post | Contact poster
Would this not affect your own legal case?
I very much doubt it - we have merely tried to reach an acceptable compromise without resorting to litigation - Judges tend to approve of this. And besides I doubt, as I've said, that the DM would contest it.

Would the actual posters be consulted individually?
We could do that - see no reason why not other than time and logistics but we could certainly say we'd contact everyone who's quotes we planned to use in advance if it helped.

Who would have the final editorial say, DM or MN?
Well they would have to send the thing to print - we are equivalent to a freelancer - but if they mucked about with it too much then the thing wouldn't work - so we'd be back where we started asking them to stop.

Would the agreement come in some formal, cast-iron guarantee form?
I really doubt that's necessary, again if it doesn't work for MN then we're back to asking them to stop.

scottishmummy Fri 04-Sep-09 14:04:04

tbh i dont think MN co-authoring DM column alleviates any concerns.

still DM
still have a groundswell of posters unhappy at association with MN and DM

TutTutter Fri 04-Sep-09 14:05:38

good heavens

<<wrinkles nose>>

justine-why aren't you just saying NO?

apart from the free publicity thing?

really-the daily mail?

beanieb Fri 04-Sep-09 14:06:47

sounds about right themildmanneredjanitor. Just because one or two people said maybe MP should write something for them it seems this is what is happening. Completely ignoring the other many concerns from many posters about MN being somehow tied in with the Daily Mail.

It STINKS!

plus the Poll is pointless then, not that I didn't know that already!

I am appalled. However - if MP is going to be taking stuff from threads maybe all we now need to do as individual posters is put a disclaimer on every post we write asking MP not to use what we have written in the DM?

Threadworm Fri 04-Sep-09 14:07:52

Just informally, with no legal backing whatsoever, I hope MP will allow unwilling posters not to be quoted?

JustineMumsnet (MNHQ) Fri 04-Sep-09 14:08:19

By TessOfTheDinnerBells Fri 04-Sep-09 13:59:57
As I said in previous post, it's not an issue of which paper does it, therefore not an issue of who "writes" it. I just really wouldn't want anything I post on MN to be published in any national paper.

I'm afraid it's a risk of a public forum Tess - if you post here legally you can be quoted in the national press.

By Katisha Fri 04-Sep-09 13:59:50
I'd love the editor of Femail to come on here and justify the DM position on the role of women in our society.

We can ask!

TutTutter Fri 04-Sep-09 14:08:50

i assume posters could sign up to a list requesting NOT to be quoted?

sign me up

TutTutter Fri 04-Sep-09 14:09:31

oh

right then

<stops posting>

easier all round hmm

dinosaur Fri 04-Sep-09 14:09:43

I'd be quite happy to have LH using a quote of mine, but not MP, tbh.

Irrelevant as I rarely post here now, though.

but justine-the chances of being qouted in a national newspaper increase a thousand fold when you invite that paper to come on in and take whatever they want.

daftpunk Fri 04-Sep-09 14:11:32

TMMJ;

the daily mail are not racist, they print factual info...they can't just make things up...

congratulations MP...hope it all goes well.

i really think that if mumsnet can still claim to have ANY principles at all they should say stop to the daily mail. we all know what that paper's attitude to women is like-how can we have any associatin with them?

the daily mail are not racist, they print factual info...they can't just make things up...

are you shitting me daftpunk?

morningpaper Fri 04-Sep-09 14:13:05

Mmmm I am leetle confused. The poll says:

4.4% - column to stay as it is
42.9% - Happy is Mumsnet have control (of which 75.63% happy if it is the usual style of in-house newsletters etc.)
39.1% - don't want the column
13.6% - don't care

Therefore the (small) winner is that people are happy with MN control

Is is bad to go with that option?

JustineMumsnet (MNHQ) Fri 04-Sep-09 14:14:03

beanieb Fri 04-Sep-09 14:06:47
sounds about right themildmanneredjanitor. Just because one or two people said maybe MP should write something for them it seems this is what is happening. Completely ignoring the other many concerns from many posters about MN being somehow tied in with the Daily Mail.

It STINKS!

plus the Poll is pointless then, not that I didn't know that already!

Not one or two people and not a pointless poll - the majority so far have voted this way.

By themildmanneredjanitor Fri 04-Sep-09 14:05:51
justine-why aren't you just saying NO?

Because we said we'd comply with the vote and so far it's

565 (yes with controls, don't mind current sitch, don't care) v 363 against

obviously that may change.

beanieb Fri 04-Sep-09 14:14:07

Congratulations MP on becoming a journalist for the DAily Mail - Yay hmm

The overwhelming vote on the poll was in favour of "I don't want there to be a mumsnet column in the Daily Mail under any circumstances'

Justine, can you confirm then that the poll was pretty much pointless and 363 people have wasted their vote?

beanieb Fri 04-Sep-09 14:16:14

"Because we said we'd comply with the vote and so far it's

565 (yes with controls, don't mind current sitch, don't care) v 363 against"

Snort!

I see, so you spread the vote over two options. Clever or ridiculous. Whatever it is it still stinks.

Really it does. It just seems to suggest that MNHQ had every intention of cotinuing this association with the Daily Mail and don't give a hoot about the many many people who are shocked that mumsnet would willingly have any association with such a horribly mysoginistic paper.

What a shame sad

daftpunk Fri 04-Sep-09 14:16:33

TMMJ...the DM print facts..it's up to you how you interpret those facts..

JustineMumsnet (MNHQ) Fri 04-Sep-09 14:16:50

themildmanneredjanitor Fri 04-Sep-09 14:10:25
but justine-the chances of being qouted in a national newspaper increase a thousand fold when you invite that paper to come on in and take whatever they want.

We haven't invited anyone to do anything. We've said to the DM we're not happy with the column running as it is.

Threadworm Fri 04-Sep-09 14:16:58

MP on those grounds we should have a Conservative/Lib-Dem alliance govt, not a Labour one. PRmight well be a good thing, but you can't just distribute one option over two spuriously distinguished possibilities and then declare silver+bronze to be gold.

Threadworm Fri 04-Sep-09 14:18:27

(I'm sure that MNHQ didn't distinguish the two deliberately in order to manipulate the result, though)

sorry-i have just looked at the poll.
363 people are saying they want no part in this AT ALL.

and only 302 people are saying ok if there is mumsnet input.

and the poll doesn't finish until the 7th and yet-a deal has already been struck with the daily mail for mp to write an article?

JustineMumsnet (MNHQ) Fri 04-Sep-09 14:19:35

beanieb B Fri 04-Sep-09 14:16:14
"Because we said we'd comply with the vote and so far it's

565 (yes with controls, don't mind current sitch, don't care) v 363 against"

Snort!

I see, so you spread the vote over two options. Clever or ridiculous. Whatever it is it still stinks.

No, it's just maths really. Even if you take out the don't cares - there's a clear majority (so far) who say they don't mind the column with content control and written in mn tone.

Now you can argue that polls are imperfect because they don't represent strength of view - I'd agree with that actually, but you can't argue with the maths.

saintlydamemrsturnip Fri 04-Sep-09 14:21:06

Erm I was a don;t care. But if an option had been for MP to write a column I would have said no as I would prefer LH to write it.

So remove my vote from the yays please.

JustineMumsnet (MNHQ) Fri 04-Sep-09 14:21:13

By themildmanneredjanitor Fri 04-Sep-09 14:19:32

and the poll doesn't finish until the 7th and yet-a deal has already been struck with the daily mail for mp to write an article?

As said - this is not set in stone - it's subject to the poll results, the DM editor actually being happy to run a column written by us and us being happy with the column.

datpunk-if you seriousl;y belioeve that then you are desperately misguided

if that is how you are interpreting the poll-then that is laughable-truly laughable

saintlydamemrsturnip Fri 04-Sep-09 14:24:28

so column to stay as it is should perhaps be recorded as being AGAINST MN to have control. Perhaps that is a vote FOR LH/any other DM journalist.

Of course you can argue with the maths if you just lump ill defined categories together however you please. Safest way would be first past the post in which case according to MMJ's latest figures more as saying they want no part in it.

beanieb Fri 04-Sep-09 14:24:54

"I'm sure that MNHQ didn't distinguish the two deliberately in order to manipulate the result, though"

yes I am sure it asn't set up deliberately like that. Really I am.

there is a clear majority of people who say they do not want a column in mumsnet under any circumstances. Taking out the don't cares makes no difference to that majority. The I don't care was basically just the comedy oprion - no?

JustineMumsnet (MNHQ) Fri 04-Sep-09 14:26:10

By themildmanneredjanitor Fri 04-Sep-09 14:21:39

if that is how you are interpreting the poll-then that is laughable-truly laughable

I don't understand how else you could interpret it? Option 2 is clearly a subset of option 3.

Would you argue that the majority are anti a MN column in the mail in which mn had control over content and tone? Really? If so, I'm lost.

JustineMumsnet (MNHQ) Fri 04-Sep-09 14:28:57

beanieb B Fri 04-Sep-09 14:24:54
"I'm sure that MNHQ didn't distinguish the two deliberately in order to manipulate the result, though"

yes I am sure it asn't set up deliberately like that. Really I am.

there is a clear majority of people who say they do not want a column in mumsnet under any circumstances. Taking out the don't cares makes no difference to that majority. The I don't care was basically just the comedy oprion - no?

I just can't agree with that beanieb. Would you argue from these results so far that the majority are anti a MN column in the mail in which mn had control over content and tone? Really? If so, I need to re-do my Maths A Level. Seems like anything we do will be interpreted as a cynical move tbh.

justine i think it would be far more honest of you to say 'it's our business we will run it the way we want' than to pretend to care what people think.

daftpunk Fri 04-Sep-09 14:29:50

TMMJ;..this isn't Ian Hislop and Private Eye we're talking about...do you think the DM want to be in court every week..?
they have to be careful, they can't put too much of a slant on things.

i haven't read half of these DM threads...but from what i have read some people are completely hysterical..

saintlydamemrsturnip Fri 04-Sep-09 14:29:56

You can't ascribe subsets to each option as you haven't defined them sufficiently. Option 1 for example could be an equivalent to not really caring, or it could mean that someone doesn't want MN to have editorial control, it could mean that someone sees the DM column as a positive thing in it's current format. You can't just decide oh they must have meant they wanted MP to write it.

I voted that I didn't care. If I'd know that was going to be lumped in with MN writing the column I would have either voted for current format or no part in a DM column.

bibbitybobbityhat Fri 04-Sep-09 14:30:11

Aaaaarrrrrgggggghhhhhh.

I thought the poll closing date was 7th September!

Now the options appear to be MP does a column in the Daily Mail or she doesn't.

Not a we wish to disassociate ourselves from the Dail Mail altogether (even if we cannot afford the legals to fight a case) option.

So what is the bloody point of the poll?

saintlydamemrsturnip Fri 04-Sep-09 14:32:18

And had I known that current format was going to be lumped in with MN having editorial control I would have voted no part.

If you wanted the choice to be between MN have editorial control or there being no column then the poll should have said that.

morningpaper Fri 04-Sep-09 14:35:27

I'd just do the first one and then there would be a pool of various MN ppl doing it (if it was taken up)

we could do a poll on whether to redo the poll

JustineMumsnet (MNHQ) Fri 04-Sep-09 14:37:13

themildmanneredjanitor Fri 04-Sep-09 14:29:27
justine i think it would be far more honest of you to say 'it's our business we will run it the way we want' than to pretend to care what people think."

Sigh. We said we'd follow the results of the poll - these are the results of the poll. Of course we care what you think do you really think we'd have gone through this exercise if we didn't?

Maybe it was a bad idea to have a poll because it kind of assumes people will accept the outcome - which of course, I can see, in this case could be hard given the strength of feeling.

Anyway all I can say is that there's still a good chance it may never happen imo. Will keep you posted.

LilyBolero Fri 04-Sep-09 14:40:30

I am even less happy about it being formalised for someone here to write a column each week for the DM than I was for a random journalist to lift ideas (which has always happened).

I think it is open to manipulation by people who 'know' posters on here, and is going to end in tears. And I don't like the idea that we supply the DM with material (which is different to a journalist finding info for themselves from the site).

morningpaper Fri 04-Sep-09 14:41:16

PERSONALLY I voted for MN having editorial control - because I think that MN has always maintained copyright/IP of our posts and we trust them to use them wisely...

In terms of where a column appears - well, MN don't get a vast amount of say over that. But if we DON'T do a column for the Daily Mail - well, nothing changes, does it? And if we do - well, then there's this column out there drawing attention to lots of clever, strong and funny women which imo can only be a good thing.

I really don't mind who writes it from the MNHQ team, although a pool of people makes the most sense.

saintlydamemrsturnip Fri 04-Sep-09 14:41:43

But the most recent results of the poll based on single categories are that more are against the column than for it.

If you start lumping categories together then you are putting your own interpretation on what people meant when they voted. You've misinterpteted mine on the basis of your category combining.

I don't understand why you can't just look at the biggest single category when the poll has finished.

beanieb Fri 04-Sep-09 14:42:42

Why is ther only a subset for option 3 and not a subset for the other options?

because that wouldn't give the result they want beanie

saintlydamemrsturnip Fri 04-Sep-09 14:43:59

Biggest single category being 'I don't want a MN column in the DM'. Which wasn't what I voted but as it's the biggest category then fine, am happy to go along with it. If you start combining to make a category with fewer votes bigger then it looks like manipulation.

beanieb Fri 04-Sep-09 14:46:10

don't bother with the Maths A Level. Get yourself a copy of this instead. grin

longwee Fri 04-Sep-09 14:46:52

Surely the point of the poll should be to go with whichever option gets the most votes ^by itself^. You can't possibly add up the other options and claim that combined they beat the winning option - that is laughable