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 agree, caffeinestream. Unfortunately, by far the most entertaining threads on Mumsnet are those that contain masses of personal detail about layabout husbands, spiteful sister-in-laws, insanely unreasonable mothers-in-law etc. Without them, MN would be a lot duller.

I am not surprised the OP asked for advice on a forum. After all, what is the likelihood of a family member or close friend able to give you practical advice in a situation like this? You are more likely to find someone with practical experience on a forum full of people.

The media have a lot to answer for and cause unnecessary angst to people who post threads.

The media are not about the develop morals. Perhaps this is where the MN forum should become visible to members only, with clear t&cs stating that journalists are not to use the stories in the media and that doing so may result in legal action.

At the time you posted your original thread I wondered why you didn't just Google 'how to cancel a wedding on the day' and use those results to help your friend. Google's a great resource and confidentiality is maintained.

I don't think asking for advice is the problem at all.

The original thread was very outing, though. Anyone attending the wedding would know who had written the OP, and who it was about. Anyone could have sent this link to the bride/groom without the media ever needing to get involved.

You can't have a public website and prevent journalists from taking stories from it. The internet is in the public domain. Whatever you write on here is public property - random terms and conditions on a website won't change that.

Incredible

Totally agree with Mrs Lupo.

I think OP posted on here because She was shocked! Like many many many others who post it was somewhere to turn.

The attraction of Mumsnet is that it does FEEL personal. That's THE WHOLE POINT OF IT ISN'T IT? This just rams home of course that it's not all. It's the internet.

We might 'know the score' but there is page after page of intensely personal content on here.
And it's a fine line between enough info and revealing.

The OP was obviously in need herself when she posted, let's not overlook that. She was totally non judgmental about those involved, non salicious, ( okay maybe Hyacinth Bucket) and kept it minimal. But it was a revealing event.

I don't want to read regurgitated stories from the internet on the BBC. I do expect better.Stories which remain total hearsay unless confirmed. We don't even know if the incident happened! Total gumpf and one up from fake news. I don't want to pay for that. I have just emailed and complained.

Totally get that journalists look for stories but unless a story is relevant and confirmed this is total bottom feeder journalism. Personally I don't expect that from the Beeb.

Also if they were really lazy journalists they wouldn't have bothered seeking your comments or checking that you were a real person!

I think it's lazy journalism.

Op (for whatever reason) shares the details of her friend's disastrous non-wedding on a widely read, completely accesable internet forum and then acts surprised and hard done to when it also appears on another widely read website. The issue isn't the platform it appears on, but the act of putting it out there in the public domain, for which the op is wholly responsible.

Your friend will hopefully cool off and see the funny side one day - you didn't say anything terrible about her or out her in any way, you were just looking for practical advice. I'd cross your fingers that the ex-bride's mother doesn't read it though!

i think its lazy if thats all thats rquired is to lift a story word for word we should all have a go at journalism!

The BBC didn't ruin your friendship, you did. As PP have said, you talked about your friend's private life on a very popular, public forum. It's the groom I mostly feel sorry for- just another blow to him if he reads it.

My biggest reservation about the BBC and the Mail etc using these stories is that they have no way of checking if they're true. Remember how we all got taken in by the £65 birthday cake?

Well don't worry about that - it doesn't matter at all. The only important thing is that it is a discussion that will interest their readers. It isn't lazy journalism. Most people read newspapers for entertainment as much as information. Not every article has to be breaking news or a uncovered scandal. A point of discussion is just as relevant if it's what the readership want, and presumably it gets read, or they'd stop doing it.

Oh take some fucking responsibility OP! Blaming the BBC for ruining your friendship when you are the one who posted on the internet as though it was an entertaining live update anecdote. In fact the light hearted nature made me think it wasn't even genuine.

The details you gave about your friend would have been enough to actually identify her, if anyone chose to put the work in to track them down, and if you were my "friend" I would never speak to you again, plus I would be telling everyone what you have done if they didn't already now.

You've been here long enough to know how the media nick stuff, where you posted is the most accessible and trawled portion of the site, you posted a click bait thread, with IDing details, "amusing" comments and live action updates.

If you're concerned about the level of public attention you've brought to your friend's situation, and she is understandably not happy about it, it seems a very odd decision to start another thread discussing the subject.

why on earth did you point it out to your friend? likely she wouldn't have seen it or known it was about her. this all sounds a bit attention seeking.

Don't renew your TV license.

Don't renew your TV license.

If you're concerned about the level of public attention you've brought to your friend's situation, and she is understandably not happy about it, it seems a very odd decision to start another thread discussing the subject.

Yes I agree, it is all very attention seeking and the original thread went way beyond a request for help and advice and became a running commentary on the situation complete with snide comments about other guests.

This is all the op's doing. All of it. I'd actually feel some sympathy if she'd a) asked for her first thread to be deleted b) held her hands up and accepted responsibility and said 'i fucked up, I hope my friend forgives me' rather than chucking blame around like a chimp flinging shite around its enclosure.

I think a little perspective is required here, by the time the Op's friend comes back from the US, this will be forgotten by those who have read it on the BBC website and are not involved.

What amazed me about this and other threads that appear on MN is the way people, in the midst of a crisis, have the time, opportunity to post all the gory details/progress reports on the internet.

Saying that I do get rather "gripped" by these threads

badlad: "Not every article has to be breaking news or a uncovered scandal."

No. I do think it matters whether something's true or not. I think it is slightly bad form to take anonymous stories from the internet without checking them.

I don't think the journalists in question are particularly lazy, though - it's just that journalism has changed. Journalists are under huge pressure to knock out lots of stories and to do so quickly. Look at how much the content on big news sites like the Guardian or Mail Online changes during the course of a day. So the pressure to publish new copy comes from managers - it's not a question of journalists thinking, "I can't be bothered to research a proper story, I'll just nick something off Mumsnet."

Sorry, first para of last post wasn't clear - I mean "No", as in "I agree with BadLad" and then should have written, "I do think it matters, however..."

They don't need your permission to quote something that's already public, and you don't need anyone's permission to find that annoying and be pissed off about it. Or to find it lazy journalism, which it is.

Also how is it lazy journalism? Where do you think journalists get their stories from? Trawling the new for stories isn't lazy it's what they do!

This really was a lazy story...pulled a few lines from here and got a rent a gob to tell us that cancelling a wedding on the day was a nightmare, you'll lose your money and there'll be lots of flowers and food to get rid of. No shit, Sherlock.

There's pages of total shite 'journalism/news' published everyday, on line and off. Maybe that makes it acceptable? Don't think so.