"on MN this week" in the Daily Mail

[StealthBearWipesBumOnDailyMail]

Thread no 2

MN has not done anything wrong so how is that relevent?

Like I said, if anything went wrong from this - or any future article - do you now have the power to see the future? How can you say that is a situation that will never ever happen when you do not even know what future articles will contain never mind the potential impact of them?

Nancy, we both know the PCC's fairly toothless. I have known of cases where the journo flagrantly made stuff up, was taken to the PCC and the publication had to apologise. They were not disciplined personally.

The problem is not so much journalists as editors, I suspect.

Kingcanute - I am not talking about any possible future fall out I'd rather base my argument around the here and now and the facts.

She had already lost her job, the DM didn't get her sacked. She had already posted about it on an internet chat room that anybody, including her former employers, can see - the DM didn't make her do that. The DM actually removed details of her occupation -she posted that herself in the original.

Let's say her ex boss did read the DM column and suspect it was her. he cannot prove it, he can only ever suspect. and it cannot have any bearing on a tribunal. If she was sacked for being pregnant then she has been sacked unfairly - the thread is irrelevant to the tribunal, the facts and its outcome.

When the sacked woman originally posted it was under a new name: 'sackedforebeingpregnant' or whatever it was...if the ex boss searched under that name he would find one post and one post only. he can never know for certain this was his employee.

Frazzled - yep I accept that the PCC is a bit of a chocolate teapot.

I've always found that the editors themselves, the big bosses, are fine. It's the ones in the middle that the journalists answer to: the news editor, picture editor, features editor etc that are the ones that want your blood, sweat and tears.

But even if lh is a person of hte highest scruples (and we've already established that she may not be, given that she went ahead and sold the idea of a column based on mn without consulting mn), it's not just the individual journo that matters. I was a tv prod for years. Many many times I would have a series producer, or exec in my edit trying to get me to toughen up the line/ make a joke at the expense of a contributor with whom I had built up a relationship and who trusted me. I never ever did this btw and left because I got sick of the transient nature of a job in which you work intensely with a contributor and move on.

Nancy - yep, the middleman thing we definitely agree on!

Although do know personally of a couple of big bosses that are complete pricks too, so wouldn't like to exonerate them wholesale...

frazzled - usually women editors in my experience!

Do you really think LH did not consult MNHQ before starting this column? Or could it be that MNHQ were quite happy about it until everyone here objected?

Nancy: the big bosses got to the top by getting blood sweat and tears out of their workers .

Nancy - a mix, IME. But the bad women were worse than the bad men.

Woodward, of course they did. But once they get to the top they mellow and become reasonable. anyhow, where's your copy - if you're who I think you are....

Winehouse - No, I really do believe that MN did NOT know about it, that's how the Mail operate.

Lol at you basing on facts here and now etc then speculating about what would happen in the future...

Anyway, you were responding to me and ignoring half of my post in order to make your repsonses stay in line with the things you are happy to say - in fact a rather great journo trick, ignore the bits that do not conform to what we want to say....

So I repeat, If harm comes from this or any future DM article will they, or the journo who wrote the article, be there to make amends (or even appologise for/acknowledge the harm they have caused)?

Your refusal to give a straight answer to the question makes me pretty sure that the answer to that is NO.

Winehouse, as has been said further up the thread, MNHQ are very good at saying "well, we thought it was a good idea but it seems we were wrong so we will have another look" or words to that effect so no I don't think they knew.

Many, many years ago when I was a love sick teenager I had a problem posted in Cosmopolitan's problem page about my then boyfriend (yeah, really I know). Someone I knew read it and instantly knew it was me, even though my rl name was not identifed. I was mortified. Circumstances alone can identify someone in RL.

There is of course a likelihood that someone known to a poster could come across them on MN. However, that likelihood is significantly increased if it is printed in a national newspaper.

There is nothing to suggest that this journalist will exercise sound moral judgement in the future. After all, she did not even consult MN on cutting & pasting great chunks of the content from here into her column.

justine straight up said last niht that they didn't kow about it

no the jounos will not help if their articles cause further distress, its not the nature of their business

perhaps there should be a warning - or a reminder on the home page and at the top of chat that this is a public forum and jounalists may use your troubles angst worries stories in the national press.

this is a public forum - we are reminded of that frequently through trolls and journos

Kingcanute - if somebody posted on MN and that was lifted by the daily mail and people reading the daily mail thought they recognised the poster, would they take responsibility? No as the information is already in the public domain.

I know that's what Justine said.

I wonder whether LH will do a 'What Mumsnetters think of the Daily Mail' column?

I promise you I'm working on it, will 300 words fit on here? I've only ever typed about 50.
My review will be written in true DM style,
Dot Cotton (92) returned to her large 3 bedroom house which has seen a 250% drop in value since labour came into power.

Winehouse, perhaps that's something Nancy could get commissioned.

Exactly Custardo so no matter how much people go on about "ethical/honest" journos or whatever the fact is that the effects of an artical are not their problem so they do not have any vested interest in making sure no-one gets urt/upset.

My concerns are where you may post something on Mumsnet which you have spoken to somebody in RL about, the person you speak to in RL may not know you use Mumsnet and may not be a mumsnetter. It may get picked up on the DM paper, which the person in RL reads, and has a good old nosey on the site and finds other things you have posted about which you haven't discussed with anybody in RL.

Which is why I have asked for one of my threads to be deleted, the topic is right up DM street; I'm happy to discuss in RL, but not to be identified by my name to other posts I have made iyswim

'jounalists may use your troubles angst worries stories in the national press.'

Perhaps it might be worded journalists acytively use MN stories..... i think the might has acted as too reassuring for too long

Nancy, you are amasing at avoiding - the question was "So I repeat, If harm comes from this or any future DM article will they, or the journo who wrote the article, be there to make amends (or even appologise for/acknowledge the harm they have caused)?" not would they care if someone recognised the poster....

You know nancy there are only 2 areas I'd love to have worked in, politics or journalism. both jobs require integrity and vision and I would have got to the top without making too many enemies. I would have crushed anyone who back stabbed or was only in the job to line their own pockets.

< off to watch eastenders on catch up >