Wasn't there a general consensus that we were going to try and steer clear of upsetting news stories?

[DingdongMegaLegsonhigh]

OK - I'll admit I'm feeling particularly sensitive today but there are currently two really upsetting thread titles in active convos. Didn't post on either as a) I didn't want to read them and b)it would have put them back up the top

becky - I've been hesitating to post this cos I know what will follow .....

the OP on that thread was questioning the fact that an 8 yo was out in the dark, you can guess the rest.

Nevertheless, it was an opening for debate.

If you want people to change, and you want consideration then asking MNHQ to post a message is possibly better than haranguing people after the event. IMO. A general consensus isn't something that happens that quickly on MN.

I haven't discussed Abigail Witchells!

of course we discuss news ,but when there is something to discuss.

Well that's what I mean. I can understand people saying they are uncomfortable with certain titles or news stories being titled in the way they are even though I don't agree with it but judging from some of the posts on here it isn't just the titles that are causing the problem, its that sort of thread and those sort of posts. You can't start dictating what people can or can't post or the nature of their posts (obviously within reason, noone comes on here to have abuse hurled at them etc) - surely that's the beauty of the open information highway and free press or am I just totally missing the point? It's getting late, it happens!!!

I'm not haranguing though. I only posted in the last half hour or so. Merely added my 2p-worth - for the 'debate' as it were. As I said, I realise my sensibilites are probably OTT to others.

Ah!

OK then.

Perhaps a different thread title would have led to a fuller discussion then. 'Cos there was no way I was opening that thread and I'm sure I'm not alone...

I was talking about titles seen on active convos - my own title didn't make that clear but my op did and then so did several other posters.

PSH - were you someone else?

what do you mean 'to keep Jools happy'

Oh, and my gripe is only with the title. You can't stop people rubber-necking, so let them get on with it. I just don'r want to know...

But skribble perhaps the op in that thread wanted to discuss it? We can't start telling people which news they can and can't discuss, that's madness. Something that may of be no interest to you might be to someone else....regardless of how its phrased in the title.

Well, Skribble, then I think you are in a minority. Taking an interest in the news is surely not now a MN crime?

No - I've always been me

Jools was suggesting that she was fed up of threads asking us not to post graphic or upsetting titles, hecne I was sugegsting an email (rather than setting up this thread in "Site stuff" for example).

Jools is a very scarey lady who will hit you with her Torygraph.

But I think there is a nub of integrity somewhere in the midst of all this blustery self-righteousness. There is a real point to be made which clearly differentiates the threads/titles being complained about from the Miscarriage section, or threads which are by nature harrowing but offer some course of action, or a positive contribution that one can hope to make by becoming informed and acting on the information.

When the threads entreating people to write and complain about the derisory sentence meted out to the man who raped a small baby appeared, for example I didn't complain (well, I may have muttered about the fact that she posted it on every thread , but the original posting didn't offend me at all). There was a purpose to that thread - we could hope to achieve something by deploying our collective disgust and anger in an active way.

Can you really not see, mummydear, that posting a horrendous story with the comment "", followed by 100 other postings of "" and a smattering of foam-flecked "the filthy dirty animals, give me five minutes with him..." isn't the same?

It isn't the fact that the stories are upsetting. We can all handle that, if there's a point to it. What's obscene is people posting this stuff in spades for no reason at all other than to enjoy wallowing in it and whipping up themselves and others into a frenzy of rage and melancholy. It's an insult to the people at the heart of the story, because it is - in a warped and distasteful way - a form of entertainment. That is what I am objecting to.

If they want to discuss why the boy was out so late then indicate that in the title instead of the pure shock value.

I think characterising normal human interest in and concern for other people as something inherently disgusting is also quite distasteful.

I do hate the threads that have a very graphic title and then . I don't think it's asking too much to have a less detailed title.

Interestingly, I remember many posters being up in arms last year because people had put info in a thread title that could lead to a child who read it thinking that Santa was not real. iirc, nobody seemed to mind being careful of thread titles then!

Greeny - thats exactly it.

Some of these things arent just imagined - they are remembered.

As for it being "local"....Where did it indicate on "that thread" where it happened - as far as I could see it said "somewhere". How would anyone know if it was local???

You said you knew, Mummydear, because you'd seen it in your local paper....in which case, what did you think you'd find on here that your local paper wouldnt have said? What did you actually learn from that thread that was in fact newsworthy?

Fuck all, as far as I could see.

But how is it 'concern for other people' dara? Honestly, perhaps it's my turn to play dumb - I don't see how these threads exhibit anything approaching actual concern or empathy.

So we are only allowed to be interested in/touched by/concerned by things that happen a certain number of miles (yards? inches) from our own front door? I think this is most odd.

Normal human interest. Perhaps we are not all interested in the latest child attack or abuse and want to tell everyone that we deplore it and want to string up the offender. Duh of course we deplore it, but don't feel the need to tell everyone.

I dont care about what the thread content is I am talking about thread titles - what is upsetting for one person eg In the News - Boy etc etc
May not be upsetting for another , but in MC title saying eg 'I Lost my child ' may be upsetting for a person , so do we police all thread titles ?

Its the title debate not the content

But nobody is characterising normal human interest in and concern for other people as something inherently disgusting, dara. The difference between "normal human interest and concern", and the desire to spread and revel in the goriest and most salacious details of someone else's suffering is very stark. It's disturbing to think that there are people out there who really cannot grasp this.

I have always wondered what sort of person voluntarily attended public executions, or threw the legendary rotting fruit at the unfortunates in the stocks and pillories of medieaval England. I know now.

Depends what you mean by 'these threads'. I get the feeling here that some people want a ban of any discussion of any news story or event that might be construed as upsetting in any way. This is not a site for children, surely?
In the case of the story which is the trigger for this thread, the OP seemed to want to discuss the wisdom of young children being out after dark. I happen to think this was probably totally irrelevant to the crime, but it is surely a permissible point to make. Maybe the title could have been more creatively worded, certainly, but I think we haved moved to on to quite vitriolic criticism of anyone who has ever discussed a news item.

I read in a National Newspaper , it said wher it happend , why do I have to justify reading a thread ? It caught my attention in the National Paer the I saw a thread on it ...so what ?