"on mumsnet this week" in the Mail. Is this a new thing

[jujumaman]

Came across this this morning when I should have been working

Is this a new weekly rip-off by the Mail? Or has it been going on for months and I'm behind the times as usual

I'm not quite as virulently anti the Mail as mnetters, find it silly rather than the end of civilisation as we know it. But still ...

She came back after the row with mn towers but left again when some mnetters rounded on her rather nastily on another thread.

Peachy I suppose one could argue she has sold her arse by jumping into bed with the dm, but suppose you could also argue that given her pro-women stance she could be trying to change things from within...

Agree this latest article is lazy journalism at it's worst - cut and paste a bunch of quotes from mn, add your own little anecdote and fanny's your aunt. Think I might apply for a job there, I could work from home and everything.

But what about next week? And the week after that? As others have said, what happens if the column is given to someone else with instructions to "spice things up a bit"?

hmm I hadn't thought of the copyright issue. Doesn't MN own the copyright of our postings anyway? In which case they could stop this if they wanted? Which of course they don't as it is good publicity...
Personally I think its rather tedious reading sections of threads - it loses something in translation imo. It would of course be perfectly possible to present the essence of the thread debate without naming posters, which I think would be preferable (as well as avoiding misquotes)

If you need evidence of that nancy start a thread on MN stating 'I don't like someone on MN' and eeryone will respond thinkiing it is them (has been done)

narrow it dopwn amssively to pg employee with fainting fit...... doesn't take much

Nancy - fainting at the booking in appointment doesn't happen that often does it? It's quite a telling detail...

And if we all leave all the telling details off MN, the threads will a) be dull b) not be any use to anyone

Franke I would like to think that was the case, however I am aware that idf someone had say a similar agenda on carers rights they could use my posts in entirely the right attitude and yet I still don't want to be an example without being asked.

thanks peachy;

i find it very difficult to know how to word my posts ( to cause mimimum offence)

if i think depression (for example) has got worse since the end of the 2nd world war...due to the breakdown of extended family/ consumerism/ etc.....and possibly not any other reason....it's hard to express that without causing offence.

Elliott - MN can't stop a paper quoting from the site, as long it is 'fair use' - see the page I linked to above (or below if you read that way)- earlier on the thread anyway.

The details are way too vague - and the way it reads it suggests that the employers didn't know about the fainting incident.

Pregnant woman gets fired - no mention of age, no mention of location, no mention of occupation.

Nancy, I don't mean to suggest that the article itself identifies the person, merely that articles of that kind provide sufficient info for any curious person to follow it up and maybe identify someone (depending on the amount of info the poster in question has put on MN).

It would n't only apply to the employer who may have originally been referred to but any employer who feels that circumstance could have originated from something they may have said or done . In some ways it might be a good thing to prick consciences but in another it could backfire, jeopardising a claim or putting off those who may have a valid claim from following it up. It may also deter potential posters from seeking advice via MN if there is a possibilty of it appearing so publicly in such an article. If you had wanted it to you would write to an agony aunt or press columnist direct. Similarly what is to stop other journalists starting "issue" based threads to ammass material, if they aren't already .

the difference DP is that you will TRY and state that and you will (i would hope) make your point as your opinion only. the DM seems to think its ok to try and publish things as if they were fact.
very dangerous

BoF. if there were both of you in the painting it would mean Daftpunk had been painted and that is just plain wrong.
You KNOW im first in line to play artists muse!

At the risk of stirring up an evil smelling puddle once again, iirc one of the reasons why a great many posters started using moldies was that they wanted advice and help (and to give advice in return) but didn't want it "out there". I've noticed that some have either carried on posting here or have drifted back, precisely because MN is so funny and unique but I think there is definitely a call for a closed area now, either as part of MN (preferable) or as a subscription spin-off.

Am going to go and ponder this some more while I clean my shower, but would be very keen to here a bit more from MNHQ about their thoughts on this plus their future plans.

Flashharriet, I'm afraid you might well be right.

There's nothing for it; I'm going to have to go and join Bounty now, and if I get ostracised for having a vague command of written English, it will all be Leah Hardy's fault!!!!!!!! (Oh dear, the multiple exclamation marks are starting already).

Yes, it's funny, but this has made me think that I would sign-up to a subscription only (and unquoteable) area.

And I never thought I would say that.

not sure the daily mail are worse than any other paper mamazon....they all have an agenda...

apart from the inde

lol at apart from the Indi!

Yeah, the indie's agenda being to sell some copies...it was known in Private Eye as the Indescribablyboring, and now it's on the verge of going bust. Maybe the DM gets linked to on here so mych because people love to hate it? I bet it's a guilty pleasure for lots of people. Like Playboy- "I buy it for the articles"

The problem imo is thatthat there's an unwritten code of honour on mn about outing people - especially important as mnetters are fond of meetups etdc

I have a couple of rl mn friends and I wouldn't dream of referring to their mn existence when we're out and about in rl. For that same reason, when I made the OP I didn't mention the journalist was an ex-mnetter.

But when chunks start to apply in the national press, in a way that implies (even if falsely) that mnhq have consented to their use - then the code becomes untenable and that is going to make a lot of people very unhappy.

if it wasn't for the DM the Independent would have gone under last year.

hear a bit more - oh the shame

I think it is a new low for journalism as a profession: just copying and pasting from a website?! I'm sorry, but a monkey could do that, and this is supposed to be their job, something they get paid to do? How lazy can you get.