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 .

’I think it’s so unfair that she’s being photographed when she’s not the one who’s done anything wrong’

’Being followed by photographers … having to do this while being observed is just cruel.’

From the sunglasses thread.

Personally, @Floisme I think The Guardian’s love affair with adding links to articles is a whole bag of worms that isn’t needed, but it’s not fair that writers get held responsible for the web team’s somewhat erratic linking choices.

I actually have a lot of time for Catherine Bennett. I used to enjoy her column many years ago on 'Fashion for grown ups' and was disappointed when it got ditched. But I do think that if your name's on the byline then the buck stops with you and you have to take the criticism along with the praise.

@Floisme

I actually have a lot of time for Catherine Bennett. I used to enjoy her column many years ago on 'Fashion for grown ups' and was disappointed when it got ditched. But I do think that if your name's on the byline then the buck stops with you and you have to take the criticism along with the praise.

How can CB be blamed for sub-editing or layout decisions (which is essentially what the links also are)? That’s as strange as blaming journalists for the headlines that get given to their articles, which occasionally happens but I thought most broadsheet reading people understood how it works?

Fine to disagree with her expressed opinions. I disagree with some of her points myself.

The place where the “Buck stops” is with the Editor, though.

@RickiTarr we get the point, journalists don't have to cite what they report, which kind of proves the point about what a load of shite it is on the whole.

I started the dress thread. It’s really supportive!

How can CB be blamed for sub-editing or layout decisions (which is essentially what the links also are)? That’s as strange as blaming journalists for the headlines that get given to their articles, which occasionally happens but I thought most broadsheet reading people understood how it works?
Maybe you should familiarise yourself more with how media consumers operate? When I say, 'Great column, Catherine Bennett!' then, rightly or wrongly, I don't add, 'And great proofreading and support from your editorial desk!' When it goes well, she gets all the credit, when it doesn't, she gets the blame. Harsh? Perhaps but that's what we do. And I imagine the editorial team save a writer's arse many a time so I don't feel too guilty about it.

@Floisme

How can CB be blamed for sub-editing or layout decisions (which is essentially what the links also are)? That’s as strange as blaming journalists for the headlines that get given to their articles, which occasionally happens but I thought most broadsheet reading people understood how it works? Maybe you should familiarise yourself more with how media consumers operate? When I say, 'Great column, Catherine Bennett!' then, rightly or wrongly, I don't add, 'And great proofreading and support from your editorial desk!' When it goes well, she gets all the credit, when it doesn't, she gets the blame. Harsh? Perhaps but that's what we do. And I imagine the editorial team save a writer's arse many a time so I don't feel too guilty about it.

That’s fair enough.

I do think it’s important that in this social media-dominated world, awash with misinformation, everyone tries to understand how the media works, though. In the same way that I try to understand enough science to be able to follow what’s going on.

I don’t think Catherine Bennett deserves to have her professionalism repeatedly called into question by an energetic poster who is convinced that she was obliged to do something that isn’t her job. Almost all of us are at least partially in disagreement with CB’a opinions in that column, but it doesn’t make it okay to rubbish her competence at her job.

Catherine Bennett needs to go back and re-read those threads.

Journalists submit copy, not scripts.

Well in this case it was a script @RickiTarr as it was total fiction.

It was an opinion piece. In prose.

Prose schmose. It was misleading.

A very strange interpretation of those threads.

The columnist in this case has written an article that is barely comprehensible. Her basic point -that it's unfair that Mrs Hancock is being stalked and followed when Oliver isn't, is perfectly sound. But she's stretching it a bit in the implication that MN was judgemental as it was clearly supportive.

I think someone making stuff up should be questioned, i mean whats the bloody point. If it's purely opinion then why name something and refer to some fictional posts?

To be fair, she might not have been making it up. It's perfectly possible that someone did say that on another thread. I just think that, if you're taking the trouble to quote someone, then it's reasonable to expect you to reference where you found it and to not point the finger at an entirely blameless set of posters.

One of those comments was said, on another thread on AIBU - a board which is regularly gamed by people who do not have anyone's best interests at heart.
But not on the thread she linked. Which is ironic considering the subject matter of her article.