Why didn't Mumsnet delete my post??

[Larafromthe80s]

Just curious... I started a thread which detailed a lot of information about a situation I was in, thankfully I'd name changed for it!
Anyway it blew up and got picked up by a regional media outlet
I reported the thread to Mumsnet and continued to do so over the following 72 hours, as well as emailing them directly.
By this point the article was in 3 nationals and around 6 regionals

A family member screen shot the news article from his Facebook newsfeed to me saying as a joke "this isn't you isn't" as he he hadn't actually read the article, only the headline and thought it was just coincidental. And it was me 😖
I was mortified and am living in fear that the people it was about will have seen it.
Why did Mumsnet take so long to delete it, is that normal?

@BoredZelda

Well done. I know that now. I didnt expect it to be picked up by national press

How new are you? It’s been happening a very long time.

5 years but not a regular poster or reader, and didn't know that journalists look here for 'news' Can tell you now I certainly didn't think my post was newsworthy, obviously they did.

What I don't understand here is the implication 'I don't mind a whole bunch of complete strangers reading about my problem here, but I don't want a larger bunch of complete strangers reading about it in the Daily Mail.'

I mean, why's it acceptable for the first and smaller bunch of strangers to know all about your busineness but unacceptable for the second and larger bunch of strangers to know about it?

And that's without considering that quite a few of the first bunch are likely to be members of the second bunch.

And that's without considering that quite a few of the first bunch are likely to be members of the second bunch.

Because a large amount of the second bunch are not members of the first bunch.

@Hellocatshome

And that's without considering that quite a few of the first bunch are likely to be members of the second bunch.

Because a large amount of the second bunch are not members of the first bunch.

Well, yeah. I can see that one might not want readers of the Daily Mail to pore over one's problems, but it's not as if measures are taken to screen members of MN for - well - reasonableness, political leanings, wisdom or even sanity.

Well, yeah. I can see that one might not want readers of the Daily Mail to pore over one's problems, but it's not as if measures are taken to screen members of MN for - well - reasonableness, political leanings, wisdom or even sanity.

This is very true, I think the difference for me is I know that many members of my extended family will 100% not be on Mumsnet due to their inability to use any technology invented after about 1972. Where as I cant be sure they won't read a newspaper from time to time.

Add a conspiracy theory about Madeline McCann or Meghan Markle and it will be deleted quickly

Also, threads that get picked up for newspaper coverage are more likely to pop up on social media. I change slight details (children's ages and gender etc) in my posts along with name changes just incase anything does pop up.

I had quite a specific incident picked up by the Daily Mail and MN did delete the thread when I asked (as it ended up to be an issue that could have had legal repercussions) but I contacted the DM and they refused to take it down.

To add to that- I had the DM pick up something that was on my public social media and I argued that it was my copyright and they sent me a cheque for £50 for republishing my content.

*What I don't understand here is the implication 'I don't mind a whole bunch of complete strangers reading about my problem here, but I don't want a larger bunch of complete strangers reading about it in the Daily Mail.'

I mean, why's it acceptable for the first and smaller bunch of strangers to know all about your busineness but unacceptable for the second and larger bunch of strangers to know about it?*

I think the assumption is probably that the first and smaller bunch of strangers are likely to be other mums and potentially more like-minded people who could offer support and guidance. The DM has a much larger audience with a very diverse audience. Plus the likes of the DM will take the most sensational aspects of the post and spin it to make it sound far more interesting than it actually is. Finally, you're not likely to post about the specifics of a situation on MN if you think the people in the story are possible MN users, but once it's in the DM who knows who might read it.

All of these assumptions are naive (I've learnt the hard way). But they explain the logic.

@NerrSnerr

Why don’t journalists do their job and check sources before filling up their “news” media with what could be (and in some cases probably is) pure fiction.

Have you read these articles. They are not saying that 'mum definitely did this thing at this time' they are more like 'mum posts on Mumsnet stating that every hates that they called their baby doochbag'. It is factual in that it is true that someone said that on Mumsnet even if the situation isn't true.

It's not about good journalism- they pick the ones that'll make good clickbait titles and will initiate discussion (which is why there's always loads of baby names ones).

People need to take responsibility for what they post online. If you think it'd be identifying if it's picked up by the daily mail it's identifying on here too.

Well it is an assumption that the person posting is a mum

But even if they are stating only what they do know, it doesn’t mean it is news.

They might as well say poster told a story on mumsnet. This is the story

News is supposed to be about facts.

If they are printing stories or referring to stories printed from a website then they need to get out more and look for stuff that is newsworthy otherwise what makes them so special that they can call themselves journalists.
Anyone could do their job and probably for less than they get paid.

Interested to know if our “stories” come under copyright law and by using what has been written by someone else for something that is going to result in payment is technically getting into the realms of plagiarism and copyright laws being broken.

@stuffedcookie

To add to that- I had the DM pick up something that was on my public social media and I argued that it was my copyright and they sent me a cheque for £50 for republishing my content.

I wonder what percentage of the newspaper your story took and how many newspapers were sold that day. I wonder how much you could get if someone took this further.

Whilst what we write is out there for all to see the issue is when someone puts it out to the wider public and takes money for it.

Why are you bumping a heap of old threads

I think folks get confused as to the scale of this site. The daily mail for example has two or three million, this site has about 12. Yes different demographic but when you put it on here, it’s not some little private safe space it’s one of the biggest websites in the world.

Another ZOMBIE RESURRECTION