Martha Hancock - a victim to be pitied?

[FourScoreAndTwenty]

Great article here about the portrayal in the press of wives whose husbands have cheated on them. I didn’t see the thread but mumsnet’s mention does not cover women in glory it has to be said .

That’s bizarre, CB has clearly read what was here, and formed a view. She doesn’t have to link to the threads she disapproved of to prove she read them. She is probably an MNetter herself (and clearly not a S&B kind of woman)

What a "bizarre" reply.

She specifically used "quotes" supposedly made by MNetters yet linked to a thread which didn't have those "quotes"

That’s bizarre, CB has clearly read what was here, and formed a view. She doesn’t have to link to the threads she disapproved of to prove she read them. She is probably an MNetter herself (and clearly not a S&B kind of woman).

She should though rather than just make stuff up to try and prove a point. To be honest though any reference to a message board is odd unless there's an ulterior motive, she could have posted comments herself to try and prove a point about MN- whatever that is.

Even if a poster did say “she knows exactly what she’s doing”, that doesn’t strike me as derogatory - more an acknowledgment that MH is clearly a savvy, intelligent woman who knows how the world and media works and is taking pains to control her image and the message that’s going out to the world about her. Which is exactly what she would have been advised to do had she posted on here. It’s not a dig.

She should though rather than just make stuff up to try and prove a point. To be honest though any reference to a message board is odd unless there's an ulterior motive, she could have posted comments herself to try and prove a point about MN- whatever that is.

Journalism would look like social media if columnists all did that.

She’s being rather puritanical about what were basically supportive comments on pro-Martha threads and obviously is seeing some darker meaning to MNers comments about MH’s clothes.

She doesn’t need to link to social media threads, to support her entirely subjective opinion, though. She is a columnist. It’s her job to opine.

She doesn’t have to link to the threads she disapproved of to prove she read them. She is probably an MNetter herself (and clearly not a S&B kind of woman)

Er, in your own bizarre reply you clearly failed to grasp the point that the purpose of linking to the appropriate thread is to prove the quotes exist. She posited them as quotes- not merely her interpretation of the tenor of the thread.

And do, pray tell, what is a "S&B kind of woman"?

She doesn’t need to link to social media threads, to support her entirely subjective opinion, though. She is a columnist. It’s her job to opine

Er, she did link to social media. There is a direct link in her article to an MN thread. Did you read the article before "opining"?

And she didn't just "opine". She made up quotes.

She specifically used "quotes" supposedly made by MNetters yet linked to a thread which didn't have those "quotes"

You realise broadsheet journalists don’t upload their own articles, sub-edit them themselves, write the headline and then add the links themselves too?

“She” hasn’t linked to anything. She just wrote her article, emailed it in to the office and someone else subbed it, headlined it, and added the illustrative and explanatory links that is part of online Guardian house style. The links are an extra. A website feature. They’re not integral to the journalist’s work.

The half paragraph from her piece regarding MNers was;

“Hancock-averse contributors to Mumsnet could be found, last week, trying to source his wife’s outfits, admiring the excellent sunglasses, her hair and the dress sense his shitty behaviour had also, by way of a bonus, offered for thorough analysis. Didn’t she, some thought, look just too good, considering? “She knows exactly what she’s doing.”

So the journalist has referenced several things that were said on Mumsnet, reached a slightly strange opinion about them and said so. That’s fine. It’s her job. That’s all she had to do. Linking is not part of her job, and bizarre is exactly the right word for your demand that every reference in her column needs a linked url.

It is frightening how many people are clueless about the norms and conventions of the media.

I watched the media show on BBC news yesterday and the editor of the evening standard said she understood Martha 'was not averse to bring photographed' or something along those lines. For whatever reason she was happy to be pictured looking fabulous. Maybe we'll find out why in due course

The editor of the sun however said they decided to withdraw their photographer from outside her house after day 2.

You can probably iPlayer it

Er, she did link to social media. There is a direct link in her article to an MN thread. Did you read the article before "opining"?

And she didn't just "opine". She made up quotes.

No she didn’t make up quotes and she didn’t link to anything at all.

You really need to familiarise yourself better with the framework of what you’re reading and which elements of a newspaper web page are the journalists’ work.

The writers don’t design the page or upload. They didn’t man the hot presses in the Fleet Street days, either. That isn’t what professional writers DO.

Go and look into these things yourself if you’re determined not to believe this very basic information.

Oh I see your defence now is poor little Catherine Bennett isn't remotely responsible for what she wrote; including the fabricated quotes.

Are you actually CB or CB's parents?

Er, in your own bizarre reply you clearly failed to grasp the point that the purpose of linking to the appropriate thread is to prove the quotes exist. She posited them as quotes- not merely her interpretation of the tenor of the thread.

It’s not. She is not required to provide references or links for an opinion piece, or any piece. There is no such expectation or convention in journalism. Generally the research stays in a journalists notebook. The links are something that have been added by others to the online version of her article, which also appeared in print.

And do, pray tell, what is a "S&B kind of woman"?

Does she sound like she appreciates S&B type posting to you?

@PersonaNonGarter

I was on that thread and I loved her dress and would have told her so if I knew her. MN was very supportive of her.

The Guardian are the problem. Not MN. That article misrepresented the thread.

I think the flippancy was part of the support and in its own way was dismissive of Hancock - as in, let's talk about something more important than that idiot such as sunglasses, or anything really.

@KimikosNightmare

Oh I see your defence now is poor little Catherine Bennett isn't remotely responsible for what she wrote; including the fabricated quotes.

Are you actually CB or CB's parents?

Stop. You’re really just waving your ignorance around in the air now.

I don’t actually agree with her opinion, which is clear from my posts. I’m just commenting on the ludicrous notion that a professional journalist is required to provide links or a bibliography for her work.

It was an article. It was not a great article. But it did make a good point, about society's expectations of women when relationships end.

@RickiTarr

Er, she did link to social media. There is a direct link in her article to an MN thread. Did you read the article before "opining"?

And she didn't just "opine". She made up quotes.

No she didn’t make up quotes and she didn’t link to anything at all.

You really need to familiarise yourself better with the framework of what you’re reading and which elements of a newspaper web page are the journalists’ work.

The writers don’t design the page or upload. They didn’t man the hot presses in the Fleet Street days, either. That isn’t what professional writers DO.

Go and look into these things yourself if you’re determined not to believe this very basic information.

Your combination of being patronising and missing the point is awesome.

And that's without even touching on how articles are written and presented for publication. I'm not a professional journalist but I've actually had many articles published.

Stop. You’re really just waving your ignorance around in the air now

You're doing the same thing. I do have experience of getting articles published. I don't mean letters but articles commissioned by publishers, including a national newspaper.

I think the flippancy was part of the support and in its own way was dismissive of Hancock - as in, let's talk about something more important than that idiot such as sunglasses, or anything really.

Yea I agree with you. I don’t think MNers did anything that was objectionable. What to wear when your DH has had an affair and the press photographers are laying siege to your front door is an unusual dilemma to have. They shouldn’t have been harassing her, but they were. How many people in that situation would go for scruffs and a a scraggy bun?

She didnt look visibly shocked. She looked composed and content.
She didnt deserve public drama but she doesnt look like a victim at all.

I thought we were all
Cheering Martha on, and praising her style and composure against the shiftiness of her husbands behaviour and that of the press hounding her. MN at its best I though. We were also belittling her toad of a husband.

I am Irish and had never heard of either of them before so no preconceieved ideas, but her obvious resilience combined with her willingness to admit "i thought we were happy" make her seem strong and authentic and makes him seem even sleazier and more deceitful imo

The style and beauty threads were very positive. I didn’t wade through the main threads on his affair. It looks like Catherine Bennet has picked one arsehole comment from the main thread and stuck it together with the S&B threads to suggest we’re all judging her.

There were actually comments on the S&B threads about how unfair it was for her to be harassed by photographers when she’s done nothing wrong.

I'm only a media consumer and 'S&B type'. However, I don't see why you must be familiar with the workings of a newsroom to expect an article that references a specific social media thread and puts a statement in speech marks - as if quoting from that same thread - to at least take the trouble to ensure that the thread you're linking to is the correct one.

I don't really care whether the culpable individual is Catherine Bennett, an intern, or someone from the editorial team; the point is that it looks sloppy and unprofessional and what's more, is very discourteous to the posters on the linked thread who were being entirely supportive of Martha Hancock..