AIBU to say that Nikki Morrison and Sherrie Ryder of the BBC are lazy-assed 'journalists' and that it's possible that BBC have just ruined my oldest and closest friendship?

[RestlessTraveller]

Yes it's a TAAT, but it's a thread about MY thread. So for thise of you who haven't read my previous thread, I was due to be a bridesmaid on Saturday when my best friend decided she couldn't go through with it and I posted on here for some advice about what to do.

The MN massive provided me with some excellent advice and we got through an extremely difficult day. I received an email from MNHQ to say they had received a media request from the BBC who wanted to run the story, I politely declined. Now it would appear they have run the story and they have quoted me (and other posters on the thread) without my permission. Yes, I realise this is a public thread and that's they didn't need my permission but I'm still pissed off!

So I just needed to call the bride and tell her why her story in on the BBC website and needless to say she is not a happy bunny. Yes I know I deserve it but I REALLY needed advice!

Anyway BBC, YOU ARE CUNTS AND I WANT MY LICENSE FEE BACK! ( Bet they don't publish this thread)

I'm sorry this happened OP.

I posted something personal a while ago and almost had a panic attack about it being used elsewhere. I asked MNHQ to delete the thread and they wouldn't. Since then I've stopped posting many, many things. I start writing a new thread and then delete it. I want the MN take on things or advice at times, but really don't want to be reprinted. It's not worth it.

And I didn't think what you posted about the situation was that bad. You were looking for help in a very stressful and unusual situation. You have a few updates, but no actual personal info about her, other than the flight destination. At least from what I can recall. You didn't post to gossip, or provide sensational details, you genuinely wanted advice! Hopefully your friend will come to see that in time.

Lazy lazy journalism! She should be ashamed of her slovenly approach.
You said NO!
She could have written her own piece on how to cancel a wedding.

Oh and I also name change a lot now. It's not inconceivable that journalists start doing minimal work and start tracking different users' posts.

It's the internet. Once it's out there, it's out there.

Why are you starting another thread about it, if you don't like your friend's stuff being quoted?

I think people are being very harsh on you OP. You were clearly posting not to bitch about your friend but for advice on how best to help her, and you didn't post the kind of salacious details which usually hook the press.

You were a brilliant friend to her at the 'wedding', you didn't out her identity on MN, you stuck up for her. Frankly I think she would be mad not to hold onto you as a friend.

When I read your original thread I did think that it would probably end up in a paper somewhere and did feel for your friend.

It's a problem that could end up with MN full of boring repetitive threads that no one would ever publish but equally no one really wants to post on and MN might wither away.

There's no answer though, once you've posted it it's fair game for anyone else to copy.

You said your friend had left the country, it will have died down by the time she gets back but still a horrible situation for all involved

Awww thanks McTufty

Err it's a public forum viewed by millions of people. Journalists are perfectly entitled to pick stuff up from it, as long as they acknowledge the source.
And why all this journalist hate? I agree this story is hardly going to win the Pulitzer Prize and it smacks of click bait but the way you refer to people doing their jobs is disgraceful.
I think you have to acknowledge that forums like AIBU provide an element of entertainment to readers by providing points for debate as well as the opportunity for them to help out the op by giving advice etc.
in that respect it's not all that different from reading a newspaper or news website.
If you don't want to be identified change a few details or speak to a real person about your problem in confidence.

The hypocrite will be the bride if she thinks it was ok to leave her partner on the morning of their wedding but will stop speaking to the OP because she panicked and asked for advice on a forum she knew she'd get a response on.

Why the journalist hate? Because the unprofessional cut and pasted "a story". If the journo wanted to write her own helpful piece WITH RESEARCH on how best to cancel a wedding inspired by MN fine but the written piece should not involve cut and paste. Doing a cut and paste job after someone has said no to it being published as this seems unethical.

But the original post wasn't a whispered conversation in a pub that got picked up by a journalist in dark glasses at the next table, the story was already shared with thousands of people by the OP. Agree it's lazy journalism but it just quotes something that the OP herself had already put in the public domain, for thousands of strangers outside her control to see.

No sympathy from me either.

You share on mumsnet - a hugely popular wesbite - you take that risk.

Deal with it. YABU.

I agree with the poster above too. Why the fuck would you bring this subject up AGAIN if it being mentioned by other people/websites so much pisses you off?

While I do feel for you, you were warned about this on the thread and yet it went on with you updating. I did think it would be the fail rather than the BBC though.

I read your other thread, about an hour ago actually but before I saw this one. I thought it was a perfectly reasonable OP, and you were very clear about your request for advice and firm about the fact that you didn't want to get into the ethics of it all. If your friend has actually read the thread I would hope she has no complaints whatsoever about your behaviour towards her. I also assume you might have asked in due course for it to be deleted in case those concerned might recognise themselves and in view of the bunfight it turned into.

The BBC, on the other hand, should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. While they don't technically need your permission to quote your thread, they are nevertheless recounting identifiable details from the lives of people whose permission they haven't sought and almost certainly wouldn't get. And for what purpose? It isn't remotely newsworthy. There is no public interest argument here whatsoever. They asked for your cooperation, you declined, they went ahead anyway, causing god knows what distress. I thought it was shocking, an utter journalistic low, and I emailed and told them so as soon as I read it.

I hope your friend can look past it. You defended her admirably on the first thread. And I hope the losers at the BBC take the page down and fucking well apologise.

OP I'm really sorry to hear this.

I posted on your original thread.

I think your posts and behaviour during what was a hugely stressful time showed much dignity and restraint- especially given the amount of flak directed to your friend.

It's a sad state of affairs that we now see more and more threads picked up by media outlets. The truth is, it's cheap copy and the price we pay for not "paying" for news.

I understand you are upset and angry, as is your friend but don't forget the phrase "today's news is tomorrow's fish and chip paper" - it's true.

Yes it's out there on the internet but only identifiable to a very tiny amount of people.

Remember you did a good thing for a good friend

I really wouldn't worry too much about it, OP. I hope your friend realises that everyone will have already forgotten the story.

You were trying to do your best in a difficult situation and you did get great advice on your thread.

I'm disappointed in the BBC. You'd think they would have a higher calibre of journalism than that. But no, they're just the same untalented journalists as most other places, copying other people's work word for word and not a thought to the feelings of the real people behind the story. No talent required, it seems, to do that job.

That's a bit a lot tabloid of them.

I'd name and shame them too.

OP you already shared this story with a massive, massive audience. Given just how popular the thread was, probably a bigger audience than the BBC have reached with this one story.

People need to understand that this isn't some nice little group chat likeminded people come to for support, it's a massive, massive public forum. There's no privacy here, it's as public as it gets. It's basically Reddit, and like Reddit the media is here and ready to pull stories. And there's nothing wrong with them doing that.

kmc if they call and ask you permission and you say NO then it's not okay to run the story via cut and paste.
the journo should have had the ethics to make a story from the story without page by page snaps.

Don't renew your license fee and stop watching/listening to the BBC

I genuinely don't understand the problem. The article doesn't name anyone. This must happen reasonably frequently so no-one can really know who they are referring to. And I agree the chances of the real people involved reading this story are slim (or were before you publicised it for them). It's just filler content for the BBC website. Written in minutes.

Wtf ?

It's not like there is a shortage of news at the moment

I think that some people who post here think that it's a private support space.

It's not.

The journos are perfectly entitled to lift s story from here. And this is hardly the first time it's been done.

If you don't want that to happen then you will have to find somewhere else to post. This is a public website.