"on MN this week" in the Daily Mail

[StealthBearWipesBumOnDailyMail]

Thread no 2

I wish the journalist who wrote the piece would come along and confirm whether or not she contacted MNHQ and published with their permission. She may already have done so, haven't read all the threads on this.

Btw, are you all aware that there are mumsnet books? That they are made up of posts (old and new) on these boards? Erm, how is that ok and the DM isn't? I don't think (though am prepared to be corrected) that every single poster of every single post that's published is contacted in advance to say "you're in the book, is that ok with you?"

and actually I think it could be a bit of a challenge. See how interesting/outragiously you can post and see if you can make it into the dm column. It could be like a badge of honour.

Aitch, I agree it si our choice now that we know it is a possibility, however the posts I made before I knew it was ppossible are still vunerable.

As I have said, I would not mind so much if we were told posts form midnight tonight will be availabe for this weekly column or something rather than it being an all out situation.

WWW that was addressed (but I acknowledge loooong post)- I know I am not alone in feeling a topic - specific book is less worrying (given the writer is a known quantity as well) than a thread that specifically is printed in a paper that aims itself at a demographic not generally well represented on MN. Or that- in all truth after some recent threds- might not like MN very much at all.

WWW. we have covered that point to death already. The T&C cover MN using our posts - that is fine, nothing says anything about DM so it is different.

Also the books do not lift whole threads and rightly or not I trust MN with my posts a bit more than I trust the daily mail

Ah, ok, thanks, didn't realise that had been done to death.

and toady it's the DM and the apprently benign LH, tomorrow, who knows what papaer will be (mis)quoting us all...

Aitch;
Mumsnet posts have been used in papers before, it's nothing new.
I've been quoted, no one asked for my permission.

Sorry WWW, am feeling a bit frustrated - I am going to do a few yoga moves and try to come back with a clear head and a more balanced nature

yesterday I was in a hospitla waiting room.
There were about10 people in my section and 5 of them were reading the daily mail -
4 of those people were men over 50 and one ws a woman who was about 75.

They all read the papers pretty comprehensively- it was a looong wait

Wo, what if 2/3 of them read some /all of the MN article?

I bet you that none of them had read MN thus far in their lives.

Byt posting here, i was expecting my posts to be read by parents, and mostly women- i was expcting most of these to be between 20-50yrsold..

all of a sudden the people potentially reading my posts about breastfeeding, post partum haemorrhage, poss that ds1 has asperge's, ds2 wanking, my family situation, my brother...it has changed massively.
And they are paying to do so and somebody somewhere is being paid to reprint my angst..

This is not what i signed up for tbh,
T and Cs MY ARSE

My initial worry over this has now gone....I dont know why I haven't been name-changing before this tbh...

broadly I agree with Aitch and LilyoftheMountain and the anyDMreadingfucker.

WWW - when MP was looking at info on SN for the MN toddlers book, she started a thread or two on SN asking for our input - and I think what she put in was pretty much based on those threads that we already knew were for further public consumption.

ANother namechanger to try to keep track of - or are you going to keep the theme going?

I think MN does need to look carefullt at the T&C- if they are oblique to them then they will be to many people apssing by at 3am after a crises,and whilst I think MN is usually pretty damned good I would be looking at covering myself for duty of care issues with RE to the most desperate of posters- can yu imagine if a suicide thread were reprinted?

The reality ias that oled X could ahve just amde one phone call and amde the rest of the worries preventable

See I'd like to start a thread right now about some stuff going on in my friend's life because I am finding it quite annoying (an affair with married man) and I don't mind if all and sundry come here on MN to read it.

Dh isn't interested, can't tell RL friends and I'd like the input.

But no way do I want it reproduced in the DM in a sodding article about affairs.

By wannaBe on Sat 15-Aug-09 17:28:44
lilly sorry wasn't meant to sound like that .

One of the reasons why ttr was started for instance was so that sn posters had somewhere to post where they felt safe, so this has clearly been an issue to some before the daily mail got involved.

no TTR was started because at that time sn wasn't opt in, this led to saome rather nasty mix ups, where people posted not realising they were posting on sn, it is also safe from the c&P brigade, it was not started because of fears of things being used my a member to sell an article.( I know this for a fact as I started TTR)

I know what you mean fark - at the moment I am surviving on DM threads but soon they will run out and I will be stuck with the choice - post or no post....

How much do you really not want to appear in the DM?

another fatuous point, woodward.

this is not fair use, according to the legal consult. other quotes being lifted were.

this is a weekly piece, written by god knows who for god knows how long with god knows what kind of DM slant. the WHOLE POINT of MN is that we have a right of reply, that if someone says that clearly you have a brain the size of a pea you can respond in a manner that proves that it's at least the size of a grape. it's unedited, unslanted, it's a free for all.

the dm is lifting bits out of threads and kidding on that it's a thread. who knows what light the site will be shown on? i'm sure that LH could have posted the muslim thread that she flounced over, and had she done would have required some expert trimming to fit in with the DM islamophobia. that's exactly what doesn't happen here, that's why threads run to their thousands.

and yes, we've been misquoted and misattributed before, but there's always been a valid news hook. here the point is to filch from us.

I really wouldn't want it in the DM, very personal stuff for people involved. They wouldn't see it but it wouldn't feel right for me to see it in a paper for millions.

Fine on here, I trust it here you know?

Sure as hell don't trust the DM.

And hey I learnt once that 'brands' are built and survive on trust. That's why we come here and don't go to the DM forum in the first place.

"My point about the risk is that actually the DM is chicken feed compared to google. And google can and does bring up MN threads, on seemingly innocuous searches. "

There is a difference between people actively going out trawling for info and it landing on their doorstep to be flicked through with their cornflakes and a column that catches your eye when you've read all the "news" and looking at the stuff you wouldn't usually choose to read. The difference between pulling information and having it spoon fed to you.

E.g. there are a load of health advice leaflets on the internet. Do they really reach as many of their target audience as when they're handed out by a practice nurse?

If people think the risk of identification really hasn't gone up with this then they need a basic course in risk assessment

yes, i made the point earlier- we have no reply button

and how will our posts be used- will any change of stance during the discussion be noted?

earlier in this thread i apologised to aitch as i was postiing not hahveing read amore recent comment of here- would they put my second post in- or just leave it that i insinuated that aitch was being nasty about LH?

See, not so easy is it?

Thing is, there are 3,000 people where I work. I know that 2 others in my office are on MN, and statistically speaking (given profile of staff where I work I work) I reckon that maybe another 10 or so might be MNers. So, when I (for example) give out employment advice to people I am fairly sure that the fact I am giving out such advice will not be known to my office, and that even if other colleagues were Mners and DID read it and recognise me, chances are that they would support what I was doing (helping other mothers facing work issues).

If something I said appeared in the DM it would be read by maybe 300 of my colleagues (conservative estimate), and if I were identified by it (which could easily happen via my normal nickname and other threads), I could lose my job and would probably face disciplinary action. So the answer for me would be to stop posting employment advice 'just in case'. And I think that the other people who also help out those seeking employment advice would probably also withdraw for these reasons. Helping mothers facing discrimination at work is a good thing to do, but guess what? Most employers don't see it that way

And I think the site will be a poorer place if we lose the SN, TTC, Bereavement, Relationships, employment issues and any other 'sensitive' sections you care to add to this list... because they will die

I am all for having this site well known. But in the way that 'Gardener's world', or sites like 'Gaydar' are well known - as specialist forums that attract like-minded individuals, not a circus show for everyone to gawp at. Would Gaydar flourish if the DM highlighted a feature profile each week? No. It would become bland and lose the very essence that made it sucessful, same as MN. My company now uses facebook and other sites for 'HR' reasons, and could easily do the same to MN. I have easily found the RL identities of 2 people on here and I did it for all the reasons a journo would - they posted extreme views and I wanted to know if they were 'for real' and if their claims of knowing what they talked about 'stacked up'. It wasn't particularly difficult and one of these people would for sure suffer terribly in the professional sense if she were identified. There are doubtless others who would similarly be affected.

If MN towers want to increase the profile, it has to be on the terms that the members can accept. Which means the the journalism has to be in-house and controlled via press releases. There is nothing for example to stop MN and MP sending out their own weekly update to the papers (not the weekly round-up of course, but a proper full article highlighting a key topic each week), the papers can then choose to use or not. That way you can stick to the topics/humour side and steer away from the sensitive stuff. Might not be as sensational as the DM and others would like but keeps a certain amount of arms-length integrity.

good post, notblossomy.

and if people like you stop posting because of your concerns then the site does chnage and its reputation will change.

it will become blander and more vanilla and less of an interesting place..

so any advantage MNHQ think it gives them in clout- well, there won't be anything of substance to back that up.

It's be full of people advising other people to shush up incase they get outed...

nottheblossomingone - you say that "If something I said appeared in the DM it would be read by maybe 300 of my colleagues (conservative estimate), and if I were identified by it (which could easily happen via my normal nickname and other threads), I could lose my job and would probably face disciplinary action."

You really shouldn't be posting things that could get you sacked! It is not a risk worth taking. And as I've said throughout this thread, I think this is the problem with this sort of cosy forum - it feels like you are sitting with a few friends in Starbucks, whereas in fact you're broadcasting on radio 2. And if people are posting in the mistaken belief that they are somehow in a 'safe bubble' then that is a very risky position to be in imo! As was illustrated with the Rev saga a few months back, it is dangerous to give out info in an 'official' capacity, and if you are identifiable as an 'official' person (whether it be lawyer/doctor/accountant) then you are blurring the margins and may be accountable to your employers.

The only possible issue I can really see with the Daily Mail is the copyright issue - whether they have the legal right to have a regular column based on the posts here. But that is for MNHQ to hammer out.