"on MN this week" in the Daily Mail

[StealthBearWipesBumOnDailyMail]

Thread no 2

what s the problem - you use pa pseudomyn anyway

dm states custy anti tory bitch - for instance

however when they get i wrong a la thunder duck - tis v. pants

did you wash your hands, custy?

If LH was unprepared for the onslaught of public feeling against her work, then she's an idiot.
As a user of the site, surely she had enough common sense to realise what she was doing would seriously piss people off?
If she didn't have that sense, then she needs to develop some pretty damn fast.
If she knew exactly what she was doing, then she deserves all the vitriol that people spew at her/ her "work"

I am aware but that is not what I am objecting to - I am objecting to regular columns lifting part or whole threads and putting them in print - which I am sure almost everyone sees is different to the kind of journo stuff we have had before.

TBH I don't really understand your point anymore, you seem to be talking about something totally different to me now!

fortunately pointy, she's recently had a non surgical facelift and has lost ten years, so she's got a decade in the bag. i shit ye not. it's v weird, just being able to hit 'more by this author' and seeing all this stuff.

We would not have gone to the DM and said why don't you run a column about what's hot on MN. Or the Sun, NoW, Mirror, Express. We agree such an association doesn't sit well with our ethos and it isn't one we would have sought out.

But hand on heart would we like to see such a thing in the Guardian/ Times/ Indy/ S Times/ Observer/ Standard? Yes we would. (And even Mothercare for that matter)

And pretty much every other major website I can think of would be delighted to be regularly featured in any of the above list including the top ones.

Yes we want to spread the MN word - we think MN is a good thing - it's helpful and educating and generally a force for good. The more people who use it, the more chance we have of doing some good and paying the bills.

But yes we would like to have some editorial control - to make sure folks use us well/represent situations properly.

That's MNHQs position as it stands - if everyone thinks that's unethical/wrong/misguided then you better shout - cos we'll have to have a serious rethink about how we're doing things.

The Breastfeeding forum will be a right larff...

hmm. It's odd how we all know so much about the journalist now. Mind you, she don half like to get he r picture in the paper

Meh, there's a difference between a few hundred people on a talk board and the second largest circulation daily in the country, IMO. But oh well - this snafu too shall pass. Until the next time MN explodes in outrage - "oh look, it's a 1000 post thread, it must be Friday".

(Heathen - my mother has N-HL. She was diagnosed in 2002. She's only alive because some researchers in some pharma company developed her chemo. Obviously the actions of many controlling these companies and marketing the products is unconscionable, and some of the research has been compromised so greatly by profit motives that safety has as well, but that doesn't prevent many, many drugs and treatments from being a godsend. And if one of the greatest crimes big pharma commit is trying to prevent generics being used in the developing world, surely that fact is testament to how life-alteringly useful some of their products can be.)

I remember toddlers-and-rockets-gate. Was hilarious to someone who'd never even seen MN. Though um, possibly less so from the inside.

The thing is, IMO a regular column like this would stereotype MN. The "public face" of MN would be a daily mail face, making it appear to be a daily mail kind of place and it would gradually become that over time - as the people pulled in would largly be from the DM readership because that is where it would get the most advertising.

TBH I would suspect the integrity of the site as a representative of womens/parents views would also be lost. I can't see womens hour being so quick to quote or ring justine up for a few soundbytes after a year or so of Daily Mail columns.

I think it's the lack of control that has people so concerned. Like you said, the newspapers in the second group are all seen as "acceptable". As a site that caters mainly for Women and centres around womens issues, for the Daily Male to be seen as almost a partner in the site could be detrimental in the long term.

oh yes, the nappy in the library thread I was with you on that thread oops, and I am pretty sure we were right

Maybe it is me being naive here but I suspect that a paper like those in your second list Justine would be more inclined to use MN treads for interest and pick relevant points whereas I expect those in the first list would be far more likely to pick sensational and upsetting/difficult threads to miss-quote!

KingCanute you'd be surprised by what high esteem the DM is held both by other journos and especially by government. Having a column in the DM about Mn would do no harm, for instance, in getting the powers to take our concerns re the treatment of miscarriage a bit more seriously. But we take all your points about the downside of the association too, they are all very valid.

But Justine, you've had a lot of posts saying "please don't"

And you haven't explained why you are deleting posts which out the journalist - because she asked you to doesn't sound like a good reason - in fact it sounds like a bad reason ... We frequently name writers and journalists on here.

When I say esteem by the way - I don't mean that journalists necessarily like or agree with what the Mail says and does but most recognise that they do it very professionally.

I haven't read all the zillion threads so apologies if I'm repeating but

a) this is the WWW, anything you type here IS in the public domain. If you don't want to be identified, don't post anything that could identify you

b) MNHQ never have shied away from journalists using Mn for quotes

c) MN is a business, more hits, more publicity = more money/profit

I don't get the big deal tbh, you post here MN can turn it into a book, anyone can copy any of it, any time, it's public.

That's the internet.

Justine, are you a newspaper snob? What's up with the Sun? (I don't read it myself, I'm just asking), you trying to keep the riff raff out of here?

You are right Justine - I would be very surprised and not a little disheartened. The governement takes its pointers from the DM..... well perhaps surprised is over stating it a bit

and by professionally she means 'using jedi mind forces'. it is an amazing publication. these are not the droids you are looking for.

Justine, switch it off and go to bed

Seriously though, you've written loads of articles for said papers, you have contacts, why don't you do this yourself, for the paper you want? Or even on radio. If you have to, get MP to write it as well

The way you are talking, it as though you have little control, but I know you all arent that daft. What's stopping you?

Sorry Quattro - I thought I did - it's generally our policy to protect MNetters from being outed on the site - in this case, oddly, we're protecting her nickname from being connected to her real life name, rather than the other way round.

We'd do it for anyone - don't see why we shouldn't try to do it for Leah Hardy - though obviously you and others might disagree!

can i just point out, in the BBC style, that MP is not the only freelance on the supermarket shelves.

Quattro - I think it is the ones outing her MN name - the same as any of us would expect MNHQ to do.

It does gall me but I do think every MNer is entitled to keep their MN name to themselves.