"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 ...

Don't get the feeling they want to do anything though.

Also - you do know that pretty much everyone comes in for a drubbing on here? Views are plainly expressed about all kinds of professions or people. If you worked for per una or wrote books or were an actor or a health visitor or a GP or someone who isn't as good looking as they think they are - you'd see routine slating of others in your field on an almost daily basis.

It's only because you're journos you notice the journo bashing. It's everywhere. It's everyone!

Such a shame though.

I have seen plenty of funny MN quotes in newspapers as one-offs, and following links from other forums to funny threads which led me to join. They have all been light-hearted and witty. This DM article is about a serious employment issue.

I have posted very personal things in the past in an effort to help people. I won't be doing so again, in case the thread gets chosen for repetition in a national daily.

It's Mumsnetters' willingness to > "give of themselves" that has, IMO, made Mumsnet great. In agreeing, or not objecting, to these DM lifts, I think there's a good chance that that element will disappear.

Has anyone read Nick Davies book about journalism. There are some hair raising stories about the Mail in there - the one I remember most is a journo being sent to cover a story in which an elderly couple were violently attacked in their home, only to be told to turn round when half way up the motorway as it turned out the couple was black

MN is a bit of a 'source close to the nation' nowadays isn't it? There was an article in The Obs a few weeks ago about education. The journalist said, 'on MN there was a heated debate about charitable status of private schools, some posters thinking xyz and others abc' then the article just carried on. Was odd.

MN and DM have a weird relationship - denied and decried but yet always DM links on MN but of course no one here reads it. found it in a cafe or something....

so given that MN regularly link and discuss DM don't really see what the beef is about DM linking MN

Balloonslayer, you've put it perfectly.

Clearly this is the crux of the debate:

I could understand why a newspaper would want to print something like MP's roundups, because they are genuinely entertaining.

WHY DOES NO FUCKER GIVE ME A COLUMN? HMMM??

I can understand how people feel - I must admit that when people reprint the funny stuff it is always rather nice and fond but when they cover the serious stuff it feels rather more intrusive, because the advice is a reflection of one person reaching to another person... it feels a bit like listening in to people who are in pain whereas the jolly stuff is more like hovering on the edge of a raucaus pub crowd who are having fun - but I suspect that the writer in question probably has little say in what is chosen as a topic

ramble ramble ramble anyway I've got to write the roundup so if you could just make an effort to be HILARIOUS all over the board for the next hour that would be great

I would imagine the journalist has to present a few possibilities and her commissioning editor makes the final call.

Morningpaper, I trust you have seen this thread?

oh yes I LOVE that thread

But that will get entangled in the spam filters.... breasts.... whipped cream.... naked... neighbours... argh

Is there anything hilarious about washing machines?

I complained about this last week , and yes I did see it in a newspaper in a cafe . I think this is doing me a favour really and giving me the push I need to leave, so if anyone wants to set up a "lefties" forum I am in.

When I think about the handwringing causes by the selling boards I think this will do much more damage. Of course I dont want to post and chat to people who just agree with me. DP and others of her ilk amuse me and make me think. Of course not all Daily Mail readers are bigots, one of my favourite mumsnetters who I am friends with offline is a Mail reader and we laugh about it. But a fair few are and it just seems a very unsettling association. Recently there have been a few very unpleasant posters on here who seem intent on bullying people or simple being unpleasant. Having been harassed by one pesonally, to the point that dp had to get involved ( and he was thinking of taking formal action) it worries me that we are going to be inundated with such posters. I noted Daft Punk commented before about people banning people or limiting free speec, I was given the option of having my mad stalker banned from mumsnet and refused. You only need to read some of the comments on articles in the Daily mail to see there are some quite mad people who read it.

I know this is not private, although I am a natural sharer and talk for England so although I know, I do forget. But there is a difference between a journalist every now and again referring to opinions on mumsnet to taking a thread and turning it into an article for people to discuss in a newspaper.

I really liked the journalist in question when she was a mumsnetter but I dont think doing this without permission is the action of a good egg.

I am going to try really hard to leave not .... but I know I will be shit

MN isnt a therapeutic community or closed support group.posters need to be aware that any amount of people can read their posts,and discuss and link elsewhere

i do appreciate that some topics are sensitive and posters do disclose and share.and that for many that is cathartic and can be supportive HOWEVER it isn't private.it is accessible to all. i can see this has an ouch factor

i think an element of internet savvy and not getting too cosy or dropping your guard because their is recognition of posters. yes some familiar names but god knows how many unknown anonymous readers

It sounds a bit silly, but I think of what I post on Mumsnet as being private in a way. It is intended for the Mumsnet audience and that audience alone. I am quite appalled at the fact that a national newspaper (particularly the daily hate mail) could pick up my words, misquote them, highlight my 'plight' in the real world.

I post on here because it's an audience of mums. The thought of it being redistributed to the salacious readers of the gutter press is really something I'd rather not have.

I think it'll put me off posting any sensitive stuff about myself/my homelife.

illuminating x posts there SM and squilly

the familiarity of names and informality can/does allude to a cosy forum
and dropping guard or disclosing lots

but it is public

ages ago on another thread there was a heated debate about accessing info on internet and a poster using details gleaned from previous posts eg (Children name,city lived in Birthdays) was able to find out RL name,address, other personal stuff

Sorry for offence caused! I was saying it jokily really, how would I know if you're going to sell to nestle or not!

I still stand by my original comment that, if the ex (if she is) MNer was such a good sort, that she would have had the common courtesy to run it past Justine et al.

Perhaps the most telling thing is that she didn't, I wonder why - perhaps she thought that Justine might not be comfortable with the idea, and if you asked us lot what we thought, well then if she was such a prominent poster, she would know exactly what the overriding opinion would be.

There aren't exactly tons of posts saying what a great idea it is in retrospect are there?

Even Justine is cautious in what she is saying.

For what it's worth, I do understand the commercial aspect of it, but from my reading of everything that has been said by MN HQ, they neither knew nor endorsed it, so are therefore getting no obvious kickback.

It's a shame, and something which will, I think, change the shape and the tone of the site - how ironic that I can now see the Moldie point of view (although I don't change my view on that either).

Squilly, that's silly . I learnt to my cost that the papers will quote anything. In my case, they attributed my comment to another poster and then made an amendment in the on-line version . There is no safety here - anything and everything you write is available to read.

agree,

sorry I busting your chps earlier justine. you've been put in a tricky spot really.

I am disquieted by the linking of the Daily Racist and MN. They are polar opposites.
I understand why some people will no longer want to post for support or give out examples of what has helped them because they can be identified in rl. All it takes is one person to think they know who someone is in real life to raise a whole load of shit upon the "suspect", as it were. How many people's lives could be badly affected by the linking of the two sites? Not just the poster, but their families as well.
I for one am concerned that both Mumsnet and the newspaper could end up looking foolish as well as many vulnerable people getting hurt, especially as this column has already proved that the journalist is wildly innacurate in who she attributes her quotes to.
If MNHQ wishes to validate this column, then surely the Daily Hate should be paying for use of materials from the site? It could not possibly counter that with demands for advertising fees as MN does give some publicity as well. If the newspaper doesn't wish to pay, then they should discontinue this unethical, lazy feature immediately.

Agree with squilly, although I would be loathe to post anything that would identify me in RL anyway.

When MN started being quoted in the press, though, some posters were quite flattered to see their quotes in print, presumably it's ok as long as it's not the Daily Mail.

Ever since the press have picked up on MN, it has made me very wary of posting anything that I wouldn't like to be seen reproduced in the gutter press tabloids or the broadsheets for that matter, which is a shame because it does feel like a club for like minded people here and it will lose that feeling if one is worried the whole time one's opinion is going to be misquoted splashed all over a national newspaper.

It will most definitely change the ethos of the site, no doubt about that.

it is naive to be too candid on MN.best be circumspect on any public forum

But this is not new; as SM said, we are naive to think that MN is a cosy club - I'll bet that the numbers of lurkers would terrify one if the figures were known

This is a timely reminder to all who post on MN to be vigilant about what one reveals on the internet

mn has never been private. Found that out years ago when a newbie joined pretty much purely to have a pop at me for things I'd said going back years (misinterpreted too). A good lesson - I stopped posting personal stuff about the kids there and then.

If you post on here I think you have to realise that it may well end up in the press and that it may not be interpreted as you wish. Of course mnhq won't complain about it - their business model needs as many hits as possible. People have mortgages to pay and staff wages to pay - they're not going to complain about free publicity.

looks most of us aren't stupid.

I'll put this as simply as I can

I know that

1. It's a public forum - anyone can read/search for my posts - and yes maybe work out who I am

1. For me having more of my posts searched for on MN is totally different from someone searching for more about me because they've seen a quote from me in a national newspaper - not a funny, in passing comment, but part of an entire conversation lifted and printed for public viewing.

I can't believe for one second that MN has a wider reader audience than the Daily mail, not when offline and online readership is taken into account. This infinitely increases the chances of someone reading a quote a poster has made and coming to MN to search for them.

I used to read the DM - it was my parents paper of choice > and I used to have the choice of the DM or the Sun