Does anyone else get the feeling that we are just media fodder now?

[CountessDracula]

There seem to be more and more requests for our input into random "studies" (with money spinning books/tv programs/articles resulting)

I don't mind one bit when MNHQ get the dosh but I bet most of the time they don't

I think they should up the fee for media requests SUBSTANTIALLY

They have a book deal and I suspect are trying to raise the profile of the site in the hope of generating more sales and of course traffic. But yes, it is a little goldfishbowl-like around here atm

Well, at least at the moment the media seem to be asking. I have seen many articles, especially in the Times on Saturday which have been written almost entirely on the back of a Mumsnet thread.

you are right of course, but i never think about it..i never post anything the media would be interested in

OK, I should declare an interest here, as a journalist -- but don't you think it's good that people are interested in the MN take on things?

It seems pretty splendid that the opinions of mothers are now actively solicited by the media. (Even a decade ago, no one gave much of a sh*t.) And if MN becomes the number you put on speeddial, so to speak, when you want to know what mothers are thinking, then that's good for the site, surely?

Of course, it means the site changes slightly, and no one likes change

I think it the other way round actually

I think that the ready availability of quality soundbites on mn is fuelling the articles. Why bother to think up something of your own if you can just dip in here and get it all written for you?!

you are right cd [sychophantic lick]

it has intensified of late

i sometimes think death knoll

but then i thought that about the stones and they are still around

eww
please don't lick me

i was only licking your toes

oh that's ok then

you missed a bit

It makes me reluctant to post my opinions tbh. Because the media are notorious for misquoting/altering statements to make them sound more sensationalist/to put an opinion on one side or another. And I know this from personal experience of having given an interview to a paper on quite an innocent/to some boring subject and them quoting me as having said things that I never did. (all harmless so no need to pursue but still?).

And where will it end? How long before mnhq start selling names and email addresses to papers in order for them to obtain direct quotes?

I know
St Caitlin even misquoted my cube of poo story
it was in France ffs
not sainsburys

Yes,I agree.
I am also very about that Samantha Smythe b'og/crap/ditzy mother stuff they are flogging and making look as if an intrinsic part of MN.

How long before there is a spin off tv series?

oi moondog
i need your opinion on my ivf thrad

well it is the old classic commercial success selling out thing

except that mnhq have always been pretty upfront that they come from a commercial background and are here to be profitable

so it isnt

sorry cd will finish licking properly

well, it is a business. They are here to make money. It is naive to think otherwise.

and you can take out a personal insurance policy against being quoted in the media by only posting shite of an unquotable/obtuse/dull kind

so why only charge £30 or whatever it is

I suspext a lot of female journalists are mumsnetters. I know a couple.
They do seem to pinch content from here, or maybe it's just that they think the same as us?

well because they get the kind of publicity you cant buy

and the more the better

im not actually sure what mn is really

i do sometimes wonder who is out there

but think about it too much and yer head would exp[lode

I'm with you CD

[gurns for the paps]

Countess - I am a freelance journo and if they charged more than that it would eat into my paltry earnings so much I wouldn't be able to afford to post a request. £30 is 10% of my pay for a many an article I do.
Maybe they could have two rates - one for freelance journos and one for those who are part of a large media organisation such as one of the major TV channels?

oops that's meant to say 'for many' not 'for a many' - maybe that's why my earnings are so paltry!

Message withdrawn