"on MN this week" in the Daily Mail

[StealthBearWipesBumOnDailyMail]

Thread no 2

I can't see that it's a huge problem tbh. But maybe that's because I've been around for donkey's years on here and we've had this debate several times before.

I do think one of the issues about it (and we've spoken before about this) is that Mumsnet is exactly that. A resource for parents. Most people who read this site are connected to children in some way (so parents/carers etc.) and it is, in general, a nice, supportive site.

Journalists (sorry) posting on here as parents, well that's fine. But their MOTIVE is different to ours when they post or look on here as journalists. They LOOK for stories, that's what their job is. They can twist what is said, they can write articles and claim something and use quotes to back it up, even if it wasn't what was intended on the thread on mumsnet. And that for me, is the issue.

But journalists don't only use this site. They report on many other blogs (especially political ones, where a sort of weird partnership has been struck up as political blogs can talk about issues that the papers dare run themselves) and there has to be a happy medium somewhere.

It's publicity for mumsnet, which they need/want. But I would like to see any article written vetted by them first (if they are quoting posters). This doesn't stop the blatant plagiarism (sp?) but it would stop someone pilfering the whole of a special needs topic and it might just mean that if something was slightly controversial, they'd ask the posters first. I don't know. There aren't SO many articles that this would be a huge admin burden.

Still, I guess journalists wouldn't feel obliged to do this and subs change articles from the way the journos have written them anyway so it'd be no guarantee but at least it'd be a half way house!

I have not read all the thread (I know, I know, I get annoyed myself when people post something when they haven't read the entire thread).

Personally I don't mind and I really don't think it is that much of an issue tbh. MN has been directly quoted on Alpha Mummy (names of posters an all, Caitlin Moran mentioned Cod by name a couple of times for instance) for a good while now.

I do see the point that people do not want to be associated with the DM, however the DM quotes all sorts of sources. Tbh I think it is quite positive that the DM is using MN as a summary of general parenting opinion, and I am hoping that the general intelligence of what it posted on here (bumsex excepted) will be reflected on what is written there.

Anyway, at least it's not the Express.

I'd be terrified too but it would give her something else to write about.

"DM journalist faces the wrath of Mumsnet".

I don't think the occasional quote in context has been an issue, but in this case it was the pretty much verbatim copying of a very recent conversation with comment that has galled. The reaction to last week's one about fake tan was less emotive proabbly because the subject was rather less personal and the original thread sometime ago. Also at that point it seemed possibly a one-off space filler.

I'm not really sure that Leah Hardy can say much: if it's legal, then why should she turn down the job so that the next idiot can do it instead? I don't expect the DM to adhere to strong ethical journalism. I'm just surprised that it's permissable.

Justine, ooh, ooh, > I'd be happy - in fact I would be overjoyed - to work as a volunteer unpaid administrator for MNHQ if I can do it from home.

Won't hold breath though . . .

'LilyOfTheMountain now you're being paranoid - it's me and Cath and BigTech around today... would that we had the time to mess with thread titles in active conversation! '
It was a kinda joke

It quite possibly can't be helped, but given that the journalist is an MNer then I do think she should examine her conscience and choose her threads with caution - I am sure it must be possible to select threads/posts which will satisfy her editor without outing/otherwise upsetting the posters.

FIS you're right it is publciity they need

For me, I think there's more to it- I am questioning how much MN is like it was when I made the decision to join, back when I participated in the Christopher Green chat (as ClairGod).

I don't think it's necessarily a flaw with them but I do thinkwe may have both have changed (it's not you, it's not me, it's both of us)

I've not yet passed by Flouncers and I don't intend to do so until I am certain not being diva-esque but this is making me think a lot more about my involvement. partly becuase it is the DM yes- I am not of the opinion that all DM readers are but I think the paper itself is pretty mysogynistic and rank. Do I think we should change things from within? Absolutely. but not with something that 99% refers to my children.

I'm true to myself on here but I know I have in the past mentioned people who could be hurt by my posts and that's also not a risk I want to take. back in 2005 the risks didn't seem so immense obviosuloy but those threads still exist no doubt.

So thee you go. Will wander off and consier for a time. Best of lcuk, though. You've been good to me, MN.

I do think that people , especially oldies like me, do need to consider that this website just isnt the place it was 6 years ago. Perhaps this site no longer meets your needs.

But, Cafes, the old threads still exist and can be mined for the Daily Mail and read by DM stalkers readers. So given this new turn of events, we need the trail of our old, carefree days to be deleted, surely. It's not enough that we just up and go.

Tell you what, why don't we just delete Mumsnet? I'd certainly get more done, and it would stop the Daily Mail knowing my opinion on various digusting and puerile threads (thanks for that Aitch . It's probably for the best.

I could delete the internet if you like

then we'll ALL be far more productive

I think this has been blown out the water some what, it's really not that big an issue in the grand scheme of things is it? If you're that worried about it then leave, that way you'll never have to worry about the small possibility of being quoted again

PMSL @ penguin freak - I shall forever smile when I think of penguins...not in a pervy way you understand

shineon, I agree with what you are saying to an extent. I am not worried about random strangers digging up my pearls of wisdom on which blusher to use, or where to buy toilet paper.

What I am worried about is this column fixing on a "topic" each week.

this week, it was a thread where the OP is fairly identifiable (to those who want to know, not jsut random strangers but other people who may be connected to her).

I mostly post in SN. we all need to have our backstories known there, as otherwise it is useless asking for advice.

I could post a very general "please help me with food ideas for our flight next week".

and the replies I would get would be hopeless. because I need peole to know what the issues are (ridiculous diet limitations due to medical need and SN).

so name changing regularly doesn't help me.

neither does not posting in detail, as now apparently I am giving too much away.

and were this thread to be picked up (highly unlikely, but there are plenty of others that could be that are actually interesting!) then I am fairly identifiable form the info given (numbers of children, diet issues, etc)

I htink what has bothered people the most is the subject matter chosen.

LAst week when it was fake tan, then the outrage was not the same (not really hugely important who knows what brand of fake tan you use).

this week, a lot more sensitive, and a situation where the OP could well not want to be identified by others.

and what in the future?

there is no guarantee that any area is off limits, which leaves vulnerable posters, and people who by the nature of their need give out identifiable (to those who know them) info very exposed

May I just compliment morningpaper on her round-up? Now that should be in the press, much better than the dross we've seen lifted in the Indie or the Mail

One thing that confuses me. People are saying that the journalist has agreed to stay off sensitive areas. Is this really true? All Justine has said is that they weren't asked but subsequently had a conversation about it, not that anyone has made any agreement at all. (I rather hope they haven't, as this may seem to have been a tacit acceptance of the column's issues).

Oh, and while the DM are probably all reading this. Can you take Tania Gold back? She's really getting on my wick in the Grauniad, daft self=obsessed bint that she is. She suits the Mail so much better. Go on. You know you want to

I so agree about Tania Gold

she needs a few years of therapy to learn to love herself before she should be allowed into the Guardian

I have namechanged as my last one would identify me to family members at least if it was quoted elsewhere.

However, my tuppence h'penny for what it's worth.
I am a mum, a MNer and I just happen to have earned my living as an editor for the last 15 years (although you wouldn't think it by my off-duty grammar).
Personally I would never quote anyone without checking my sources and seeking permission first. Maybe I'm just a bit more ethical, maybe it's because I don't write for newspapers.
At the very least, I think it's essential to expect journalists to at least change the names of the posters.