Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

News

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6 ··· 15 16

Original poster

Times article about Mumsnet's evil streak

377 replies

NorkyButNice · 14/02/2010 07:54

I wonder which former devotee wrote this?

No such thing as bad publicity? Or does it make us look like a bunch of beeeatches?

OP posts:

Bonsoir · 14/02/2010 11:31

Custardo - read all my posts, please. I'm not going to repeat myself.

Bumperlicious · 14/02/2010 11:34

'And so, if it a standard picture? That proves nothing other than Justine doesn't like posing for photos every few days. Good on her!'

But Bonsoir you haven't exactly proved that they have anything to do with it, and asking questions based on that unproven assumption.

I know you like to come across as worldly and a class above, but doesn't mean the rest of us are naive thickos. Maybe I just think the article is too petty to even think MNHQ had anything to do with it, seriously, why do the nationals care so much? Why would MNHQ bother to plant such a story? Doesn't put us in a great light and as people have pointed out the examples were a bit stupid anyway.

DuelingFanjo · 14/02/2010 11:34

Bonsoir, it's a photo from a photo library. SAys so underneath.

foxinsocks · 14/02/2010 11:35

I love the word clique

I want to guess who's been invited to the party

of course they are in cahoots with the Times.

Bumperlicious · 14/02/2010 11:37

Apols for the appalling grammar/spelling, I am just trying to keep morning sickness at bay. Don't want to add any more ammo to Bonsoir's view of me!

Bonsoir · 14/02/2010 11:37

Justine and Carrie have organised some PR because they want to distance themselves publicly from the "bad behaviour" on MN. They want MN to be taken seriously by politicians and the media in the run-up to the election (at the very least) and to be a Serious Force in the UK.

I don't think the article works, personally.

foxinsocks · 14/02/2010 11:38

but Isabel is of independent mind. I doubt she would have been influenced to write anything other than what she wanted to write!

sarah293 · 14/02/2010 11:38

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

foxinsocks · 14/02/2010 11:38

yup I agree Bonsoir

Francagoestohollywood · 14/02/2010 11:39

What is a haiku?

I agree the article gives very bad examples. I agree there is a mumsnet orthodoxy on some issues that is a bit offputting.
Overall, I don't think MN is more bitchy than usual.

DuelingFanjo · 14/02/2010 11:39

I'm acquainted with the media. infact part of my job is in a stills library. We get requests for photos from journalists all the time. We're not in cahoots with anyone.

foxinsocks · 14/02/2010 11:39

ooh goodie, I knew someone would want to guess with me! No, probably not Riven. It will be a bit of a one sided game wouldn't it, probably only involving me and you (or maybe just me!)

Bonsoir · 14/02/2010 11:40

foxinsocks - if journalists want to have anything to write about they need to pay attention to the views of the people they write about.

Or they have no subjects. And no work.

foxinsocks · 14/02/2010 11:40

mumsnet are in cahoots with the times for the election. Fact.

anyway, let's guess about the party, far more interesting

part of the problem is that a lot of the founding posters buggered off didn't they, so makes it harder to guess

Tortington · 14/02/2010 11:42

BONSOIR, have re-read all your posts and you haven't 'advanced' any reasons other than, there is a picture ( stock photo)

and some paranoia about it being a planted piece.

You seem to brush aside Bumperlicous with a comment that suggests you are well aquainted with Journos and therefore have the authority to comment that she may not, yet you didn't recognise a stock photo?

so apart from your comment "...It is a PR article ie one that MNHQ have "planted" in The Times by getting their journalist friend to write it." you have advanced nothing to repeat.

Bonsoir · 14/02/2010 11:42

DuelingFanjo - people do have rights over their own image, you must know that.

ruddynorah · 14/02/2010 11:43

i don't think this place is bitchy. but i do know several friends who've tried mn and not liked it. it's sometimes hard at first to get into it as there are so many strong, intelligent, witty, posters. there are a lot of in jokes, a real sense of community, as if everyone knows everyone. and gosh if you should say the wrong thing or cross someone you shouldn't, then you are marched out of town as it were. but then, i think, once you're in on it all, you quite like that that's how it is.

it's far easier to join a fluffy 'lite' forum where you can give a few and a little 'hun' and flash your ticker and way hey you're in.

a lack of fluff and a lot of honest, sometimes blunt, opinion does not = bitchiness.

DuelingFanjo · 14/02/2010 11:43

couldn't you just do a search for someone who needed a Doula three years ago in a hurry after being let down at the last minute and with a son who will only eat pasta? She's left a lot of clues so obvioulsy doesn't mind being found.

atlantis · 14/02/2010 11:43

The media like to build you up so they can pull you back down again, it's a time honoured tradition.

I suspect from reading the article this piece is more politically slanted as MNHQ are now openly (as opposed to the closeted red flag waving support)supporting the labour party.

Shame on them, MN should be neutral on 'supporting' anyone, (and i'm not saying that as a conservative supporter but as a member ) but as I never go to the home page I hadn't noticed (although the guests in chat kind of give it away).

If MNHQ want to enter the political arena I think they should expect more bad publicity.

Tortington · 14/02/2010 11:43

ah yes, this is why Papers can print pictures of famous people every day - the famous people must be in cahoots with them

John terry must have been RAKing it in recently considering they MUST have rang him for permision to use his image?

Bonsoir · 14/02/2010 11:44

Custardo - what can I say?

Try thinking about what I wrote. You might learn something about how the media works - and I really do mean that in the nicest possible way.

foxinsocks · 14/02/2010 11:45

where's riven gone

I reckon Caitlin's got an invite

I'm trying to think of posters....

hunkermunker? (is she still here)

Bonsoir · 14/02/2010 11:47

Yes of course they are Custardo. That's how famous people make lots of money - they get the newspapers to portray lots of images of them and to create a frenzy of interest, and on the back of that they get paid sponsorship money, for advertising etc

Of course it can all backfire if the famous people do something silly - Tiger Woods, anyone? And now we learn he has been in rehab (rehabilitating his image...).

Tortington · 14/02/2010 11:47

well you;re not saying a lot to be honest - i can read your quote many times i am still not going to get any more from it than - you didn't know a stock photo yet you are purporting to be 'in the know' to me at least, it doesn't add up.

i see no possible benefit for MNHQ to endorse this article.

DuelingFanjo · 14/02/2010 11:48

"people do have rights over their own image, you must know that."

no they don't. They have rights over the photos they own but images can be owned by libraries/media and sold on for use in different media.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6 ··· 15 16