"on MN this week" in the Daily Mail

[StealthBearWipesBumOnDailyMail]

Thread no 2

Kingcanute - if you are talking about a MN thread they lifted then no they would not.

If I may breach Nick Davies' copyright on Flat Earth News - which, incidentally, is a brilliant book...

"...The second thing to recognise about the Mail is that, more than any other newspaper in Britain, it deals in falsehood and distortion. There is a glimpse of this in our review of the records of the Press Complaint Commission....[Over the ten-year period investigated], the Daily Mail has been provoking justifiable complaint about unethical behaviour at just over three times the rate of the other national titles.

Not all of these successful complaints against the Mail involved falsehood and distortion. There is a recurrent theme of invading privacy [...] In one case, they published a photograph which allowed the victim of a sexual assault to be identified ()

But inaccuracy was the most common theme [list of examples]...
Sometimes, this is a matter of the Mail taking the truth and distorting it [...] In others, the problem is pure falsehood - the prisoner who was falsely said to have been given legal aid to sue because he had missed his breakfast [further examples]"

There then follows a page and a half of people who were rich enough to sue the Mail over their lies, and win damages. It continues,

"The Mail is deriving at least some of its commercial and political success precisely from the fact that it can play fast and loose with the facts and frequently have no fear of the consequences: the PCC bails them out; the victim can't afford to sue; or, if the victim does sue, the paper can live with the cost."

So no, I don't think they'd be too concerned about the damage caused to someone's life. Whether the story was true or not.

stayfrosty - has she posted it? where?

Exactly, not a paper I want to be associated with - regardless of wether I am identifiable or not TBH!

1. If you don't want something known, don't post it on a public forum.

2. It is never OK to directly link a posting name with a real name. Never.

3. "BECAUSE I HATE SEEING MY NAME, RL OR NOT IN PRINT" See item 1.

4. It is only posts which say "LH was which are being deleted. There is no hypocrisy in this - if anyone wanted to they could search her out and identify her from past postings just like any other person could be found out. That's fair game IYSWIM. Directly naming her is not.

I agree totally with Soupy.

Nevertheless the amount of popsters in SN not sharing stories any more is sad. I know wone that has no other support, and there you go- necessary maybe, shruggable by some, but intrinsically sad

Has DP posted her review yet? I want to read it.

(it's only the last week or so I've worked out who you are, MrsT!)

And the comment about not liking my name in print was taken out of context as a direct response to someone (Badgers) saying that everyone likes it really

Not yet I see. I'm looking forward to it.

All this changing of names is very confusing DP.

There's a thread where a child smacked a baby - where the OP has asked for it to be deleted, partly because of the DM business.

Part of my concern is about copyright breaches but to be honest, most of my concern is to do with it being the DM. It's a paper I wouldn't chose to go near

Soupdaragon, how does your wisdom cover the fact that this is a complete change to what people thought they were letting themselves in for when they posted?

See, I could accept it if MNHQ said "We are starting up a weekly column in the papers and from here on anything yu post may be used for it" What is wrong, IMO, is that this is retroactive (well non-controlled actually). The things I wrote many years ago before there was even a sniff of a journo can be used in just the same way as the posts I have made since the possibility of journos lifting became apparent.

As I said above it is about being able to assess risk when you post, if we know the risk adn we decide to post then fair enough, we only have urselves to blame, if we were not aware of the risk when we psoted then it is a bit different.

TBH, if MNHQ did say right from here onwards posts can be used in this way then I would live wih that, it is the lack of choice that is not right.

Time for me to namechange soon Soupy (although it will be a variation so easy to spot).

I am trying to keep up with this thread but all the name changing is soooo confusing...

But KingCanute MNetters have been quoted in the paper repeatedly - especially over the last few years. This is hardly the first time it's happened. Not sure what the difference is wrt privacy between a few quotes in a larger article versus this sort of column.

In fact I would have thought most people would be less likely to read 'On MNet this week' (unless they were a mnetter) rather than a general article.

for the first time, think i'm going to namechange, too.

in another month or so, we'll not have the net at all for a bit, so i'll have an enforced break as it is.

"Soupdaragon, how does your wisdom cover the fact that this is a complete change to what people thought they were letting themselves in for when they posted?"

That the posters were naive to post on a public forum and that they didn't read the T&C when they signed up.

"By submitting User Content to us, simultaneously with such posting you automatically grant to us a worldwide, fully-paid, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, fully sublicensable, and transferable right and license to use, record, sell, lease, reproduce, distribute, create derivative works based upon (including, without limitation, translations), publicly display, publicly perform, transmit, publish and otherwise exploit the User Content (in whole or in part) as Mumsnet, in its sole discretion, deems appropriate."

The only fly in this particular ointment is that this wasn't MNHQ's idea.

I linked the two names on yesterday's thread genuinely thinking it was such common knowledge that I was just giving an an answer to a previous post I know it is out of order to do that under normal circumstances. I honestly thought 99% of people here already knew.

Soupy, the terms and conditions do not cover this, in fact, as far as I know only fair usage is allowed still, which should mean a small amount rather than a chunk like this. Reading the T&C is not a failsafe way as has been shown here - even the people who were very clear on the T&C (ie those who wrote/adopted it) have been surprised by this.

Saintly, yes it is different - very IMO. Having the odd quote in the body of an article is very different, not something I liked but something I would live with. Being used like this is not something I would live with. We each have our cut off points, for me this is one step the other side of my cut off point IYSWIM.

Expat, that is a shame.

How does it make any difference to your privacy if you are quoted? Surely it makes no difference which section of the newspaper you appear in. If you're quoted you're quoted.

Soupdragon, I am happy enough if MN has control over it, this is totally different to an MN book or something., there is not even a nod towards MN never mind following MN wishes WRT content, handling and so on...

If I signed up to having MN use my posts then great - that is what I thought I had signed up to. I did not sign up to having the DM use my posts - or any other journo for that matter. As I said, I don't mind a little bit on occasion but this is too much!