Daily Mail part 3

[StealthBearWipesBumOnDailyMail]

Just to respond to

"You were at just as much risk of being quoted by a journalist before"

I really don't understand that - please explain how the odd one off is exactly the same risk as a weekly column that will definitely be quoting an MN thread?

There were risks both times but they are not the same - surely that's obvious?

[StealthBearWipesBumOnDailyMail]

It's the same as saying anyone you meet in casual contact could have swine flu so the risk of catching it is exactly the same as if you visit someone who definitely has it once a week



Anyone impressed by my topical example?

[StealthBearWipesBumOnDailyMail]

PLease can someone explain how the risks are the same?
I don't want to have it explained to me how there were risks before - I know that. I want to know how they are exactly the same.

[KingCanuteIAmAndTheDMCanFOff]

Loving the topical example stealth

I can't explain it though as I think you are right, sorry!

[BitOfFun]

Sorry, but may I interject at this point and just say this?

[BadgersArse]

king a - were you quoted in it? Is that why oyu is so bothered?

[bigchris]

cos if you google any parenting query mumsnet is most likely to be top of the results list

[LilyBolero]

In response to whoever it was said I didn't understand risk, I really really do!

But it is my opinion that the risk of being identified hasn't changed much. I think the stats are being manipulated.

We know that 800k unique users read MN each month.

We know that 1.5 million users read DM each day.

But that probably means that there are about 1.5 million DM readers per month as well - each day isn't going to be unique users.

Of those 1.5 million, many may already be users of MN, and therefore not be added to the mix. Some will be utterly uninterested (my dad for example - would be fascinated by a motoring article, wouldn't glance at an article about MN). So there may be a few extra readers.

In the DM, they are printing 1 thread per week. With about 4 or 5 posts. So your chance of being quoted in the press is very small. You then need to ask yourself how many of the people who read the article are then going to focus on that article (as opposed to all the other articles in the paper), and take the time to log into MN, and whether they are then, within the massive number of posts, going to focus on your post, and then take the time to identify you.

I think it is far more likely that someone will find your MN posts via google - especially if it is a specific situation - for example like the pregnancy/sacking tribunal.

But my point throughout has been that you should treat MN as a public broadcasting service - because that is what it is essentially. To be truly private you need to use MSN or email, or a private board/room.

I totally agree with Soupy when she says "I don't think the actual level of risk/publicity has changed at all, it's just more obvious now. You were at just as much risk of being quoted by a journalist before, some simply didn't realise it. Now they do."

[bigchris]

to expand

mrs journalist wants to write about blw

she googles

a mumsnet thread comes up

she quotes at will

exactly the same

i thank you

[BadgersArse]

no am home
see cat thread

[anyoldDMfucker]

really bigchris what about the topic of this weeks daily garbage article. and ive found its hardly ever at the top maybe somewhere on the first page but not top.

[KingCanuteIAmAndTheDMCanFOff]

BA, sorry, I hadn't realised that you had to be in it to have an opinion - sorry

No, I am bovered because the last thing on my list of things to do before I die (and in fact pretty far down the list of things to do after I die) is be published in the daily freaking mail. Previously there had seemed to be a very small risk of this (with the whole MN owning copyright thing) now there seems to be a much higher risk of it. Face? Bovered... well yes actually.

[bigchris]

i'm glad mumsnet is getting so much publicity
i have been on here since forever and i'm happy for mumsnet to get all this attention, publicity and revenue

[anyoldDMfucker]

she googles baby led weaning and mumsnet doesnt even come onto the radar. blw and yeah its there but after a forum about baby led weaning and the baby centre

[LilyBolero]

I also disagree that 'exposure' has changed - there are constant mentions of MN in the media - everytime a new book comes out there are articles promoting it, usually quoting from the site, the SWMNBN debacle was GLOBAL in its coverage, even the MOLDIES stuff made the national press (which included the, shock horror, Daily Mail!!! ) See here - lots of posters quoted by name (and mistaken name iirc). Mumsnet has been on the Today programme lots, and Justine and Carrie even had their own tv series where they helped mums with parenting problems, using the site to get ideas. I really don't think this is increasing media exposure that much.

[anyoldDMfucker]

but how come links with formula companies are baaaaad but links with the daily garbage are goooood surely they both as bad as each other.

[anyoldDMfucker]

but howm any of them was a regular thing with MUMSNET in the headline.

[BitOfFun]

And now the threads are popping up all over the place - it's like getting mogwai wet or something

[LilyBolero]

doesn't need to be a regular thing. Mumsnet is very much in the public eye without a 'regular' column.

And the tv series was on EVERY DAY!

[anyoldDMfucker]

sll publicity good ok lets get a link made up with nestle and aptimal then hey its all publicity

[HalfMumHalfBiscuit]

Aren't the people who dreamt up Mumsnet annoyed about this? Is there some copyright issue? Do they / we want to be associated with the DM?

[bigchris]

my dh thinks i waste time on here
BUT it was so satisfying to show him my post in the mumsnet book

[anyoldDMfucker]

wot tv series i never saw it would have spootted a fucking great MUMSNET in a daily garbage headline though