Please or to access all these features

Site stuff

Join our Innovation Panel to try new features early and help make Mumsnet better.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Journalists writing articles about MN threads

35 replies

VivDeering · 15/02/2017 10:27

What is the position on newspapers doing this? I think there's a difference between them writing about a humourous AIBU and a sensitive advice thread, but the journalists don't appear to agree.

Is it not a case that the content belongs to MN?

Or is it a case for MN that any publicity is good publicity? (Sorry I can't word that nicely, I'm hoping for transparency/honesty).

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page
CrikeyPeg · 18/02/2017 20:16

So was the thread about the OP whose husband was going out at night a have?

WannaBe · 16/02/2017 10:39

Well, turns out the last one was indeed a troll/pbp. And this isn't the first one iirc, wonder if they're the same poster in fact.

TBH, rather than getting outraged at the DM and its ilk posting threads from here, and talking about the (imagined) risk to posters in doing so, if people just continued to act as if nothing had happened when these posts appeared, maybe report to MN to get them to check out the poster to see if they have form, but just carry on on the thread with no discussion of the tabloids, they would soon realise that there is in fact very little to be gained by making up threads to post on their site.

I already had doubts about that thread anyway But I actually think that sensitive thread appearing in the dm/sun/ is more likely to be a troll than not.

GahBuggerit · 15/02/2017 19:22

personally i think those first time posters are probably nc'ers, its what id do, so even if it does get picked up its only that one poster history being seen by someone who potentially recognises the op iyswim Wannabe

GahBuggerit · 15/02/2017 19:18

i think its shit but whaddyado? i just dont post for any personal advice anymore, shame as ive got a lot going on in y life atm that i knowid get some good,but tough to hear advice but i cant risk it being picked up by lazy, 3rd rate journalists

WannaBe · 15/02/2017 19:07

If you made this paid subscription the site would be gone within a year.

People simply wouldn't sign up here, and one of the things that MN prides itself on is that it is available to anyone 24/7. And given the numbers of posts vs the numbers of threads which are copied across in the tabloids it's not worth doing.

And as an aside, I find it interesting to note which threads end up being taken for copy. Not the general aibu or chat ones, but the more sensitive ones. Interesting that tey're always from first time posters, often who post late at night or early in the morning, usually an unusual scenario.

Given the hundreds of threads which are posted every day, many of which run into hundreds of posts and sometimes even more than one thread, does no-one find this remarkable and wonder just how many of those threads are in fact planted there by someone in order to draw attention to the site?

It's never a well known poster's sensitive thread that is taken, or one which could really get the DM frothing. Look at the "builder scammed my autistic kids" one for instance. That thread is at part 2 now and yet it was never picked up? Why not? And yet a thread from a first time poster which may be sensitive is always the one to be grabbed and reproduced.

I think that, rather than getting outraged at the DM and the like and claiming that they are putting people at risk (they're really not,) people need to think more along the lines of that the DM and their ilk have plenty of members and new joiners here who are prepared to tell a story to gather supportive posts which can be reproduced there tomorrow.

I think that the idea of someone actually being at risk from having their post copied from one site to another is far less of a likelihood than the fact that most of the threads being copied across were probably just plants anyway.

CrikeyPeg · 15/02/2017 18:50

Copyright: This Web site and its contents are copyright Mumsnet, all rights reserved. Reproduction of all or any substantial part of the contents in any form is prohibited. No part of the site may be distributed or copied for any commercial purpose without express approval.

TiggyD · 15/02/2017 17:06

I'm sure there would be more legal redress for using stuff from a private site.

PigletWasPoohsFriend · 15/02/2017 17:04

journos could still join....

TiggyD · 15/02/2017 17:01

I'd pay a pound a year to make this a private forum and keep the journos out.

PigletWasPoohsFriend · 15/02/2017 16:27

People shouldn't need a warning on every page. Once you post something on the internet it's out there for all to see.

^ this

It is basic Internet safety tbh.

OneWithTheForce · 15/02/2017 16:25

Fwiw viv I agree with you 100%. What I posted wasn't meant as a "you know the score when you post" kind of comment. It was really just what I view MN as. Unfortunately there will always be vultures who seek to exploit whatever they can. We do need to accept this when we post here. It is how it is and MNHQ are very happy with that.

VivDeering · 15/02/2017 16:21

I think these kinds of attitudes let the press off to easily. We all overhear conversations that we know are private and none of our business and we know not to go around repeating them or bringing them to others' attention.

How somebody can see another in distress (in whatever environment) and think, "Hey, I could make money out of this" I can't comprehend.

OP posts:
Lancelottie · 15/02/2017 16:14

Ooh, that sounds fun, OnewiththeForce.

OneWithTheForce · 15/02/2017 16:12

Posting on MN Is like conducting a conversation in a city centre packed with people while wearing a mask and cloak. You have a false sense of anonymity and privacy but In reality anyone who wants to can record your conversation and find out who you are.

Sparklingbrook · 15/02/2017 16:07

If you don't want anyone to know, then don't post it....simple

They should put that at the top of every topic. Grin

Christinayangstwistedsista · 15/02/2017 16:06

How many times do we need to have the same discussion?

If you don't want anyone to know, then don't post it....simple

Sparklingbrook · 15/02/2017 15:26

YY and the ghost of Jeffgate still looms large. Be so so careful what you post online.

GooseyLoosey · 15/02/2017 15:13

I agree Sparkling. I have just returned after a break of several years and was shocked when I looked down the active topic list to realise that there were no posts in parenting and most were AIBU. I guess if people posted under more mundane headings it would make it at least a little harder for journalists to find their content.

Not sure that warnings are too necessary. After only a few hours back, I have most definitely got the message that we are not alone.

Sparklingbrook · 15/02/2017 15:00

People don't like posting in the correct topics unfortunately. They always insist on AIBU 'for traffic'.

53rdAndBird · 15/02/2017 14:20

MN presents itself as a site for support, including support on sensitive issues (or we wouldn't have board topics like 'Relationships' and 'Bereavement'). It's helped a lot of people. It would be a shame if that element of the site disappeared and all that was left was Penis Beaker stuff and three billion parking threads.

Sparklingbrook · 15/02/2017 14:10

I agree Nerr.

NerrSnerr · 15/02/2017 13:58

People really need to take responsibility for their own online safety and security. MN is a hugely popular site and comes up highly on google searches so even if a newspaper doesn't pick up a thread it is possible for non mumsnet users to find and read it. It is frightening how many people on here preach about internet safety for children when putting hugely identifiable stuff about their family on here.

Iggi999 · 15/02/2017 13:55

001, I don't think people are too bothered about MN owning their posts, and being able to put them into a book about parenting, for example. MNHQ repeatedly say they have no power over papers lifting stories from here, so I don't think it's true to say that they have copyright over all posts as then surely the Fail et al would need their permission. Though the terms and conditions do seem to imply that.

53rdAndBird · 15/02/2017 13:42

MNHQ, would you consider having some boards for support/sensitive matters that can only be viewed by logged-in users? It won't change the ethical standards of journalists but it would raise the energy bar for lifting stories, plus would limit the appeal if they couldn't post a 'read more here!' link back to MN so easily.

00100001 · 15/02/2017 13:34

But users should aslo read the terms of use closely: "By submitting User Content to us, simultaneously with such posting you automatically grant to us a worldwide, fully-paid, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, fully sublicensable, and transferable right and license to use, record, sell, lease, reproduce, distribute, create derivative works based upon (including, without limitation, translations), publicly display, publicly perform, transmit, publish and otherwise exploit the User Content (in whole or in part) as Mumsnet, in its sole discretion, deems appropriate. We may exercise this grant in any format, media or technology now known or later developed for the full term of any copyright that may exist in such User Content."