Why do people have a problem with journalists conducting research via Mumsnet?

[JosephineClaire]

I'm a regular mumsnetter (more a lurker, than a poster tbh) and I am also a journalist. Today I'm writing a piece on the loss of childhood and the impact of celeb culture on pre-teen girls (inspired by the Primark bikini debate)

I will not be posting on here for comments/quotes for this particular article as I already have too much material to know what to do with, but I often see people writing "Don't reply to this one, it's just a journo"

I was wondering why people had a problem expressing their opinions to journalists on here, especially as most have anonymous usernames?

Or is it just a problem when a journalist pretends to have a genuine issue, rather than saying, "this is what I'm doing, I'd love some quotes from anyone who is willing?"

Just interested to know really, as a mum-to-be and a journalist :)

I think it's because in the past journos have raided threads on here for stories - not even initiated a thread themself asking for help.

It's a source of stories for the media - but those 'stories' are people's lives.

So a bit lazy and seen as intrusive. I think.

Is this a cover for another story?

You've identified the problem yourself.

If you are doing research have the decency to say so and ask politely for assistance, don't make up some elaborate plot to draw people in just so that your piece gets written for you

Posters have to be able to decide whether they want to reply to a thread and get involved in a discussion which may mean their views are then repeated verbatim by journalists so its fundamentally dishonest.

Also, people may be outed by opinions which are repeated in the press and they should have the choice about whether or not they want to be.

I would be more that happy to contribute if I knew I was talking to a journalist but really unhappy if I was "lured into it". I just that journalism by stealth on here (or elsewhere) is a bit underhand and I don't like it. If you want views, just ask openly.

And even if they are anonymous, people have had their MN names quoted in the press, which has caused offence.

i think with honesty its fine, basically asyou described
lying then stealing quotes is quite different

I hate it when they post as a genuine Mnetter with a problem then you see the whole thing re-hashed in the press. It's snide and underhand and vile.

If a Journo comes along and says 2This is what I'm writing about - thoughts please", I don't have a problem.

There's also a Media section where journos can request help and comment in a more formal manner.

I think the problem comes when they don't say they are a journalist but try to post as if they are just another mumsnetter starting a thread.

Thanks everyone - it's good to hear some feedback. Will always let people know if I am doing research - so if you see me post as me...it's just me :)

Requests should go through MN and be posted here

Posing as someone with a problem to get opinions is pathetic. Just because people have usernames doesn't mean they should be quoted when they don't know they're talking to a journo who's too lazy to do proper research.

There was also a huge debacle last year (??) where there was a complete cut and paste job done from the boards and published in the DM - the comments were taken out of context (and IIRC sometimes incorrectly attributed to some posters) and done without prior permission ....

If you were following the thread on the Dr Pepper debacle, you would have seen exactly what lazy journalism is about. The "reporter" who published an article (which was syndicated to other newspapers) appeared to have done no research other than read part of the thread. He referred to the OP by her user name without mentioning that it was her user name, causing confusion (I don't want to rehash, so I'll leave her name out of it). He ignored the most salient parts of the discussion and failed to provide any analysis of the story.

Furthermore, some of what journalists will read on here is a mere sharing of ignorance, opinion, gossip and apocryphal anecdotes. What ever happened to journalists checking the source of their information? E.g. I could come on here complaining about the treatment I had received at the hands of . I could be making it up to gain attention, sympathy or for more cynical reasons. If the journalist reports this???

Finally, I am suspicious of journalists who quote out of context, or paraphrase in quotation marks in the finished article. Or the other trick of saying something, asking the "interviewee" if they agree, but quoting the journalist's words rather than the "yes, I suppose so" that the interviewer actually said.

I think journalists, as part of the wider mass media, no longer realise/take responsibility for the effects they have when they reach a huge audience of readers who trust them to report the information in a correct and unbiased way. Using discussion boards is only slightly lazier than direct plagiarism and should be reserved for trashy gossip magazines.

The Dr Pepper debacle is the perfect example of why journalists aren't entirely trusted here. The user neverpush is referring to had groups set up wishing harm on her IIRC

I stopped posting quite as openly as I used to on the TTC boards after a spate of articles lifting quotes directly from threads. Obviously anything you write on here is in the public domain but it's easy to forget when you're discussing emotional issues, and sharing experiences. Being 30+ and TTC, I felt I was low-hanging fruit for certain publications looking for anecdotal evidence of selfish career girls putting off babies, and so held off a bit, for fear of revealing something that might identify me to my mother . Which is a shame, because the TTC threads are some of the funniest and warmest on MN, but they're understandably very personal, and it's not nice to feel that what you write might suddenly appear, out of context, under a banner headline about the plague of older mothers having IVF as a 40th birthday present, or whatever the Mail's KnickerTwist of the Week is.

I wouldn't have a problem responding to a direct question posed by a journalist, but I'm reluctant to supply them with copy for free...

I don't mind helping journos if they ask.
It is lying/creating a fake thread to get a range of responses that is shitty and conniving.
It seems unprofessional and lazy and does little for journo's reputation

Because they lie . They don't ask for an opinion - they make up a situation and LIE!
Like others have said, if you ask a question honestly then that is different.

I agree, it's just about openness and integrity... just general courtesy, really. If I know I'm replying to a journalist, I can decide whether or not I want to say something that will potentially be published.

it's no good to lie, but no one should post anything here they couldn't bear to see quoted in the press. It's a public forum, whatever you say is ripe for the picking.

I've been quoted (in the daily mail ffs) thankfully in a previous name. I didn't sign up to MN for journo's to trawl my highly intelligent rantings (arf) for snippets to stick in their dubious rags.

And I agree with breastmilk. (thats not a ff v bf debate btw before you misquote me)

"(thats not a ff v bf debate btw before you misquote me)"