Times article about Mumsnet's evil streak

[NorkyButNice]

I wonder which former devotee wrote this?

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

So you are telling me that the daily Mirror phones up allthe famous trash it spouts about and says " i am doing an article about you, i am using a stock image from 3 years ago"

err no.

Custardo - what do you, mean I don't "know" a stock photo? The fact that it is a stock photo is of absolutely no interest at all.

In fact, I'm wrong - the fact that it is a library photo points to the fact that Justine is cooperating.

I mean, a photo of Justine in a short skirt and low-cut top emerging from the back door of a night club with a scarf over her head would be a lot more indicative of her non-cooperation...

Custardo - all the famous people you read about have PRs - people who help journalists write articles about them...

Bonsoir
By Bonsoir Sun 14-Feb-10 11:05:04
Bumperlicious - there is a whacking great picture of Justine at the top of the article (major giveaway)

it was the only tangible reason you advanced. You asked me to re-read you posts. i did.

Bonsoir, really you are very wrong. If anything Justine would have co-operated with the Stills library, done some press shots etc. This doesn't mean she cooperating with the articles written by people who use that library.

I've already found the posting name of the article author

I want to guess who's been invited too! Do you really think there have been secret taps on the shoulders?

MP is going, but I guess she is on the payroll. Aitch? Bit far for her to go?

Do you think Isabelle is going because she is a Times journo or a Mumsnetter?

Bonsoir, stop being silly, whilst we know that ofcourse PR comesinto it, we are talking about photos here. the argument you are advancing seems to be that every paper in the world that uses a stock photo pays the person in the photo and informs them of the article before publication.

we both know this is simply untrue.

DuelingFanjo - if people's image is unfairly portrayed in the media, they do have recourse. The available recourse depends on the jurisdiction (sometimes it is freedom to retaliate in the media, sometimes it is the possibility of court action etc).

How come Isabel Oakeshott recieved an ivitation to the party and I didn't?

Custardo - that is not the argument I have advanced.

I could be really rude to you now and I shan't be. But I really wonder why you think this article is impartial journlism.

i fel a bit pissed off that this is a wanky party for a bit of wanky networking.

it shudda well been a posh do for mumsnetters

no not aitch. she doesn't have a son.

Oh Bumperlicious congratulations on your investigative skills! Do tell us!

Actually, I'm really, really peed off I didn't receive an invitation.

yeah it is the argument you have advanced

i quoted it

you haven't advanced another.

its a 'plant' by MNHQ who were in cahoots because they must have given permission for the picture to be used.

thats the ONLY thing you have advanced

agreed Riven

"if people's image is unfairly portrayed in the media, they do have recourse."

of course they do.

In this case though the image has not been unfairly used. The journalist has written a news/review/opinion piece. There are no lies, just opinion, there is no attempt to mis-represent Justine by using this picture to show she is a founder of Mumsnet.

There is no evidence that this picture means Justine is in cahoots withe journalist.

Riven - I don't think MN like "elegant". MNTV, anyone? "Comfortable" would be more their style...

passive agressive Bonsoir - forward an argument to counter! you just don't have one.

No, you just cannot understand it, Custardo.

Sorry to be quite so rude, but you did provoke it!

then please explain to me what it is i don't understand?