toddler stabbed to death ;-(

[totaleclipse]

fucking hell, it seems there has not been a day this week without this kind of violence to children in the headlines
news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1279789,00.html

QoQ. I just heard that on the lunchtime news. When I posted earlier I still had half a brain on the other terrible story from 2 days ago.

I think the point is that you choose to watch the news. In fact we are surrounded by bad news, and some people want a break from it. Most of us who come onto Mumsnet do so for a break from reality. To be confronted by a title that screams "Toddler stabbed to death" in active convos just acts as a huge reminder of something you may know about, but would rather not focus on.

oh blimey Rhubarb - as per usual a more literate MN'er comes along and says what I've tried to say in about 10 posts into one succint(? - I think that's what I mean) post

Perhaps ask Mumsnet if you can opt out of reading the "in the news" section if real life is so upsetting.

I agree with louii on that.

I don't think louii gets it.
I'm not particularly offended but I can see why others are, why can't you? Most of us are here to take a break from real life, because let's face it, we live it 24/7 so a little break every now and then shouldn't be denied.

They are not saying that you must not discuss this or any other news feature. Just to be a bit more thoughtful with the titles. Not much to ask is it?

I can see what you are saying, and I agree the story is upsetting - more so than the title.

Why not then ask mumsnet if ''in the news'' can be left out of active conversations, like 'buying/selling' etc can be.

Fair enough. Most of the stuff is focusing on bad news anyway.

small defenceless children are brutally murdered every day. That's why I'm in Amnesty and many others also do their little bit.

Don't for one minute suggest that because we want a 5 minute break from real life that we don't care about every single child whose life is taken in this way!

Oh no, i get it I really do.

Perhaps we should ask the newspapers to also word their headings more carefully.

I have happened to walk past a newsagents whilst out shopping only to see an awful headline glaring out at me.

Was having a break from reality and spending some money whilst this happened, perhaps I should have complained?

But seriously if people dont want to see reality or need a break from it whilst Mumsnetting then def ask for the option to block the in the news section.

I do think that newspapers and other media outlets are nastily sensationalist and will make their headlines more shocking to reel in readers. I have had to explain lots of newspaper pictures to dd - we now don't get that particular newspaper because I got sick of it.

I know what happens out there, dd knows more than she should. Sometimes though we all just want to forget about it for a little and have a laugh, I don't think we should be penalised or be accused of not caring for that.

An opt out box is a good idea.

i heard this on the news before.
its horrible. aboslutely horrible.
so much violent crime on the news lately

If there's a section in a forum called "In the News", you have to expect that it will reflect the content of news in the media. Since terrible stories like this pop up in any news programme, the same will be true here. Those who don't want to be reminded that horrible things happen in the world should not read "In the News". It isn't compulsory, and is very easily avoided.

"Those who don't want to be reminded that horrible things happen in the world should not read "In the News". It isn't compulsory, and is very easily avoided."

And how exactly does one avoid reading thread titles in "in the news" - when they show up in Active Conversations?????

If it's for your own peace of mind, take the thread title as a warning that the story is too upsetting for you to read, and pass on to some other thread. Otherwise give your pc away. Find a more reclusive hobby.

If it's for your kids' protection, they can read the same headlines in the newspapers or magazines their parents' leave lying around, or they will see them on newsagent's posters on their way to school, etc, etc. Having a pc means allowing the whole range of human life into your home. Trying to censor out everything that might upset somebody is a futile exercise.

but that's the point - the title tells it all really doesn't it??? Perhaps some people don't want to read the whole story in a thread title?

Unfortunately, cramming the detail into the title is a long tradition of news gathering. Tabloids do not say "Interesting meal for famous comedian". They go straight for the facts: "Freddie Starr ate my Hamster". You have to expect the same thing in thread titles.

no you don't. you just don't. we are not tabloid sub-eds, desperate for people to 'buy' our threads on the basis of the headline.

this is mumsnet, it's a forum, not a newspaper. we are individuals, not journalists and sub-eds working for a company. we don't need to be salacious about horrible news stories, the tabs do (or think they do).

people can post thread titles insensitive to the fact that it turns up in active conversations and may upset others, of course they can. but don't belittle the feelings of those who are upset just because you're not the type of person who wishes to show a bit of consideration to the other members of this community.

I myself have never started a thread of any kind, and my showing or not showing consideration in that regard hasn't arisen. So I'll ignore the personal attack (other than wondering why you would make it) and just say that I'm pointing out how things are in the real world. It's unlikely that people who start threads will even think of the question whether their threads will show up in active convos, and whether they should censor their thread titles accordingly. Many of them might not even know the active convo section exists.

It could also be said that if the title of a thread summarises the contents, it would warn people who would prefer to avoid it not to click on it. Otherwise they might click on the thread and then be more upset by the story itself than they would have been by the title.

Potentially upsetting threads appear in all sections of this forum, and find their way into active convos. What would you like to do - ask that all thread titles be censored?

a. that wasn't a personal attack, so nothing for you to ignore.
b. this isn't the real world. it's a virtual one. we have the option of making it as shit as the real one, certainly. but we could decide not to.
c. the majority of people regularly using this site do so via active convos. that one person might not and might post an innappropriate OP and upset people is one thing, that you support their right to do on the grounds that newspapers also write lurid headlines is bizarre.
d. why would someone need to summarise what is contained in a thread in the most tabloid of fashions? why not just say 'upsetting news story wrt toddler' and then people can click or not.
e. it's not censorship, ffs, just consideration. what an absurd position you hold... of course i would expect people to be considerate of the other people who use these boards.

a. "...just because you're not the type of person who wishes to show a bit of consideration to the other members of this community." That sounds like a personal attack to me. I think anyone would take it that way.

b. No, it isn't a virtual world. That's a place where imaginary things happen. It's a virtual world only for a few sad souls who post stories about personal tragedies that later turn out to be pure invention. But those are a minority. For the rest, the posts are a true reflection of daily life. The MN community is a real world, and is full of posts about things that many would find upsetting. That's life. Every time I power up my computer it takes me automatically to a page on Yahoo.com where headlines of just the kind you are objecting to are plainly visible. (I've just looked: "Toddler stabbed to death" is the fourth headline.) I don't go there looking for the news, but this is the internet, and it would be an unhealthy place if it didn't reflect the real world. People who are upset by such headlines shouldn't use the internet at all.

c. I didn't support anyone's "right" to post upsetting thread titles. Drawing a parallel with newspaper headlines had nothing to do with rights, and everything to do with what is common practice in the real world. And it doesn't just apply to tabloids either, if you want to suggest that it's just journalistic vulgarity. Respectable broadsheets do the same thing. "Hundreds die in Hurricane", "Family murdered in knife attack", etc. Those headlines in respectable newspapers accurately summarise tragic events. Why should thread titles on MN be any different?

d. "why would someone need to summarise what is contained in a thread in the most tabloid of fashions?" Ah, you do think it's just journalistic vulgarity!

e. There's no need to read a sinister meaning into the word "censor". To keep certain things out of your posts or your thread titles, for any reason, is to censor. People can do that, or not, as they choose. But you can't expect them to do it. My position is not absurd at all.

it wasn't a personal attack. the reason i know that is because i wrote it. i was referring to everyone who has supported the 'it's real life, tought tits' line, not just you. but if you htink it's an attack then press the red exclamation button and report it.

wrt the headlines you see every tiem you power up your computer, change your yahoo settings. or leave them be if you like seeing upsetting headlines. but try to respect the fact that other people don't.

oh do you know what, i've just read 'people who don't like blah blah blah shouldn't use the internet at all'... how extraordinary... who on earth do you think you are?

all people are asking for is a bit of fucking consideration, that's all. i buy a newspaper or go on a news site when i want to see news, i come on here for a break. i don't need to see lurid headlines on active convos. get over yourself.

Might I suggest people read this thread

Lots of intelligent MNers on it. You'll spot them. They're the ones agreeing with Aitch et al on this thread.

oh, and yes i do think it's vulgar to post a thread title like that on MN. whether i'd buy a newspaper with that headline is up to me.

you were the one who got your knickers in a twist about censorship, btw, if you want to up the ante and call a bit of consideration within a community censorship and make it out to be a freedom of speech issue then go right ahead. it's pretty adolescent of you, though.