To be pissed off at the media/Mumsnet situation

[ASAS]

Long time lurker, cancel the cheque, you're the carcass etc. Joined mumsnet on the worst day of my life, you vipers saved me hence hold a soft spot in my heart (go on, admit you love it here too).

I was at a CIPR training event today and
although we MNers already know this is a prevalent issue, part of the training recommended trawling the forums for content. Mumsnet was the only source mentioned in this way.

Do I need grip or am I right to be slightly pissed off by this? On any given day we have the usual hilarity balanced with someone needing help as Women's Aid is engaged etc, so this place is part cultural phenomenon and part first stop when shit gets real. I just feel quite annoyed that journalists are now being trained to trawl here, and to be clear it was the carpark/hen weekend type drama that was encouraged to be used to create content rather than investigative journalism or, you know, anything we might actually find useful as a section of the population.

AIBU or no?

It infuriates me because there's no contribution from the "journalist", no attempt to fact check or explore things further.
Anyone can make up a story, set out to shit stir, exaggerate for dramatic effect etc and put it on mumsnet, those who respond to it could be lying as well.
Then the thread gets lifted by a journo and presented as if its true.

I'm fairly sure several "stories" are planted on MN just to provide easy copy.

Someone linked a bbc article where they used a mn thread as a jump off for a discussion about the topic- thats seems fair enough as it doesnt matter if the story was true or not.

People on mn seem to get themselves in situations i could never have thought of ...

I'm with pp who have suggested that the journos (not real reporters) could be used as a resource. Bearing in mind they love a dodgy angle I could, as an example, moan about a horrendous gas repair company that have left me and the poor bairns with no hot water or heating in the depths of January.

Promise to pose with daily mail grim face in an ill-fitting tight dress, blue looking kids, and Bob's your Uncle, gas repaired that very day, all sorted. On radio its called something like the Phone-In Effect. Shame is the spur.

Yes it's a public forum but there's no way of checking whether what is written on here is true or not.

So many threads are pulled for being trolls.

If a 'journalist' has used a troll thread as content without checking their sources then it's not just lazy but it's unethical.

I know it's a trumpism but this is where 'fake news' comes from. Some random writes something that may or may not be true and it's then reported as fact.

It's very dangerous really.

MN are just as bad for allowing it - plenty of forum sites force you to sign up and register before you can view forums, so they can't be linked to from a tabloid site.

But every click from the daily mail generates money for MN through advertising (number of click throughs, page impressions, unique visitors) so I doubt they have any motivation to do anything about it. But it's all about keeping it public as a 'resource for mum's, of course...

Moving

What do you think PR people promote? Some of them promote stories written by journalists as was intimated by the op.

Huh? Journalists don't usually have PRs....PRs will usually use journalists to promote their client.

In anycase the OP said that the CIPR was encouraging them (PRs) to use mumsnet as a source for content. There wasn't any reference to promoting stories written by journalists (wherever they might be sourced from).

It's awful A total violation of people wanting some support and then seeing it splashed over the daily fail.

Hello,
OP again here.

I still can't decide if I'm BU. As mentioned above, it is a public forum after all.

I'm an old fart so I remember pre-Levenson when journalists would then go through the bins of parents from Bridgend, they would check the voice messages on Millie Dowler's phone and work this way without batting an eyelid. My portfolio has broadly been along these horrific lines and part of me thinks at least digital intrusion is a little less of a violation.

But is it? I mean to send the next generation of journalists here, to us, like we're fucking oddities that should be displayed to the world via mail online just seems really off to me. But it's how the world works these days I suppose.

Dunno. I don't want to have an existential crisis over it but yesterday I was like oh do fuck right off please. £1200 from my training budget for what someone upthread diplomatically described as crap.

I don't believe you are being unreasonable. I also don't believe there is no way for MN to protect posts either by properly enforcing their copyright or explicitly handing it back to individual posters. There needs to be a clear decision on who has ownership and if that is MN, they need to be complaining every singe time that copyright is violated. If it is individual posters then they will have the right to complain and have their posts deleted from any article. This wishy washy situation where MN give themselves the right to copy posts onto their social media accounts but don't reserve that right is an escalating issue.