ohh Guardian slap for mumsnet!!

[madhattershouse]

[[http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2011/jan/16/eva-wiseman-mumsnet-bbc-makeup
here]] And the gloves are off!!

link doesn't work ...

trying again

think there's another thread about this article, i'll try and find ...

that article is utter wank. It's clear the said journalist spent a few minutes researching this and turned out an ill informed article which not only missed the point but had to be padded out by some shite about how disgusting katie perry looks without makeup. Fuck sake

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/_chat/1126915-Mumsnet-in-Guardian-any-opinions

Oh dear, what a stupid journalist. Was surprised this was in the guardian though, I though it would be more suited to the Daily Hate?

Oh wait, it was the observer. Ive never bought that one, it just never appealed somehow.

I think the article makes a valid point.

what point is that Chil? MNers should be seen and not heard?

I agree with Chil. I don't want MNHQ to speak on my behalf, thanks. They can't possibly represent the views of everyone on the site, because very nature of the user base is so diverse (which is what makes MN wonderful, IMO). MN seems increasingly to jump on bandwagons and present itself as 'the voice of reason'. I wasn't aware of the MIND boycott, for example, and agree with the writer that it's misjudged.

It wasnt a MNHQ campaign, it was individual people including MNers writing in and complaining. She probably saw one thread where some people agreed with the OP. There was no MIND boycott campaign, again this was individuals. If a boycott is organised through facebook, noone criticises facebook as being responsible for all opinions expressed through it.

So the article was poorly researched, pointless and is basically waffling shite.
But hey, she got paid, kerching!

The point that MN is in grave danger of becoming a byword for 'po-faced'. There are many valid & worthy campaigns to be fought on behalf of mothers and children - the one about standard practice regarding miscarriage, for example. But when MN gets dragged into quite trivial matters just because a few threads get unfeasibly busy, I think it loses some of its credibility. Conscious that the MN team probably get contacted by programme producers keen to know 'what mothers think' but they have to be very careful not to claim the views of an extreme and vocal minority are the majority view.

Mumsnet wouldn't have 'the hot wind of importance under their wings' if these so called journalist would piss off and actually, oh I don't know, research and then write something of relevance. Mumsnet is admittidely easy pickings for those 'Eer ner ner - look at what she's doing isn't she sooo pathetic' style of columns. It's just lazy and irrelevant, not worth getting your knickers in a twist over.

The EE campaign was most definitely an MN campaign though, and I don't think it's MNHQ's place to be launching a campaign about it 'on my behalf' tbh. If, for example, DaftPunk and other like-minded people decided they didn't like a programme in which the BNP were presented as a bunch of ignorant bigots, I dare say most people here wouldn't want MNHQ trying to ban the programme on the grounds that a 'significant minority' of its members thought it should be banned? Or am I wrong? They risk losing all credibility and, as Chil suggests thereby losing the potential to fight on really important issues like codes of practice for miscarriage, let girls be girls, etc.

Another one who agrees with quite a bit of what the journalist has to say.. but, what a crap excuse for an article!