Justine Roberts Co Founder of Mumsnet says, Mumsnet users will 'not lament the loss of the News of the World as a Newspaper'

[complimentary]

How dare Justine Roberts speak for me and others in saying in todays Times that I as a user of Mumsnet will be glad that this 168 year old paper has folded. Murdoch as an Aussie and Roberts being married into the Guardian may not care about this paper but I an many others do, particularly with the loss of of 200 jobs. I'm not surprised she says the above as she is married to the deputy editor of the Guardian, who led the campaign against this paper. There is one thing Ms. Roberts can be sure of, the Guardian won't replace the News of the World, with its daily readership of 175.000!

The Guardian brings me out in hives.

chipstick10. 'The Guardian brings me out in hives' It will do far more than that, it can in bad cases cause rashes,high blood pressure and boils.
Picking up the Guardian newspaper can also alienate the reader from others. My friend read all of the other papers until she was introduced by a so-called friend to the Guardian. It slowly poisoned her mind, she became elitist, avoided her freinds who read the 'red tops' and secretly thought that they were 'scum' and had to move area. My freind ended up in North London, (Primrose Hill I think) she went there to mix with other Guardian readers and to avoid her previous mukkers/mates she considered 'chavs', it was a lonely existence, were she had once gone to church she now developed ecclesiophobia, once she was proud to say she was English and British she now developed another phobia 'Anglophobia' and called herself a 'European'.
In the end it drove her to drink, but unfortunately among her Guardian reading freinds she could not find anyone who wanted to go down the local. My friend turned to the internet to vent out her anger, she joined MN even though she did not have children. Most of her days now are spent sitting in a worn armchair, her hair grey and not brushed, her face devoid of any make-up, a withered digit ready to stab at the keyboard, she watches and waits, ready to pounce... then when she spies a 'victim' she posts rude comments to those who read anything else other than the Guardian.
No... Reading the Guardian can do more damage than developing a few hives!

Friends.

O..kay

Is this a parallel universe? Is this why TIO have not been working?

I think they all crept in whilst we were engaged elsewhere, TRMBJ

which newspapers do you regularly read now then, thereiver?

Damn. I knew twitter would be to blame for something

'the notw got her interested in reading the papers'

That's like saying IV drug use got Pete Doherty interested in medicine.

"she is 15 and loves the fashion and gossip and that in the notw got her interested in reading the papers"

Because fashion and gossip is really news, right? Well done NoTW.

CogitoErgoSometimes Sun 10-Jul-11 09:43 - lots of sense

complimentary + mycounty - if I didn't know better I'd think you were plants from a NI paper, or married to someone working for a NI paper !

Seems a poster (or 4) cannot even take the time to read Justine's first post where it seems pretty clear that her quote was shortened before publication. complimentary continues to post and suggest Justine said something other than what Justine (who, after all, should know, what she) said and continues her attempts at point scoring with no purpose.

Can you not accept that based on the comments on the website, Justine's comments were perfectly valid, despite that view not matching yours, complimentary ?

Also, what on earth was the use of apostrophes around Justine's name when you claimed you were having a meeting ? Some dream of yours, I guess.

is fannycomp also complimentary? Just wondering like...

Posters say Justine was misquoted? Can anyone provide me with a link that states this. From her post she does not say she was misquoted. I know all the papers are economical with the truth, but where is the evidence of misquote?

Interesting this. I'm pretty sure I said "ON THE WHOLE MNetters will not lament the loss of the News of the World" which I think is an accurate reflection of what we've seen on the site. I did ask for my quotes to be sent back so I could clear them, as I was keen to make sure they were accurate. The rest were, but this one wasn't.

What Justine said, earlier in the thread. Is that good enough?

I certainly thought it was equivalent to saying "if the newspaper doesn't include it, it's a misquote" !

It certainly clarifies what should have appeared, doesn't it.

Actually sounds like they deliberately didn't return that quote to Justine ! ! :)

And, as I said before, you can see from where the quote marks appear in the newspaper article which bit Justine actually said:

'She said that Mumsnet users ?will not lament the loss of the News of the World as a newspaper?.'

You can see which bit is Justin's quote, and that the paper have carefully amended the first bit. It's not difficult.

I certainly don't lament its loss. I admit to having bought it on a few occasions, out of curiosity and for comedy value, but as I was laughing at some of its more "it's true, it is!" stories, I did find myself worrying that there might be people out there who actually believed them.

I think the press in this country in general have been getting uncomfortably "powerful" in the last few years, and I think it's good that they and their opinions should be pulled up.

I'm guessing Justine made her quote based on the recent threads re the phone hacking etc, which is fair enough. No surpise, really, if she was slightly (but meaningfully) misquoted. Kind of proves the point.

On 11/07 09:20 complimentary wrote "My gripe with Justine Roberts is that the demise of this newspaper is not something to crow about."

Given the chunk of text quoted by LemonDifficult on 09/07 22:27, I am not sure how you consider anything there to be "crowing" about the closing of the paper.

The way I read it, Justine simply indicated that because of the way the internet can be used, it is easier for (e-mail and other) campaigns to be organised. Her comments reflected on views made known by MNetters (presumably in response to a leading question), but the initial part is on a par with some media person commenting on the use of Twitter or Facebook in relation to events in Egypt, Libya or Syria... discussion on the net can be used to bring down regimes, but no-one would be claiming Twitter caused it, just happened to be used as a convenient means of communication...

regarding : "Ms. Roberts often users the term 'the users of MN' when she has spoken on other issues, which she has no right to do."

... if anyone can comment on views being expressed on MN, the co-founders certainly ought to be in a good position to do so, and probably need to keep up-to-date about topical discussions in case they are asked for a view by a journalist ...

MN threads have been used by the media, MN (like it or not) has been given prominence from time to time (eg before the election) and given there were views from all sides, it is quite clear that whether the numbers stay the same, or grow, the media can be expected to continue to ask for "a view" on any current affairs stories.

Think you'd better just "get used to it" happening, complimentary, however much you dislike Justine expressing a view, and including "the users of MN" !!

... and also, NG, the very simple point being that there were some very forceful views and a very long thread all posts in which were expressing horror/disgust at the unfolding news. I don't remember reading anything where the NOTW was being defended, therefore it is quite justifiable for Justine to say she was speaking on behalf of MN.

Of course, it's primarily those motivated (because something is wrong) who choose to comment so you get to the "cover ones back" wording like the cat food adverts " 8 out of 10 owners who expressed an opinion said was their cat's favourite food "

Someone asked about a poll, but at what level do you say it is a valid reflection of views ? Rather like elections or strike votes, you could get a poll result where 80% voted one way, but only 2% of the total number of registered users voted... so it's the view of 1.6% (which could still be a significant number) whose views 'counted' on the day.

IMOH the papers very often will misquote anyone. On the other hand no company or founder of any internet site can say that they represent the views of all of their members/customers, as clearly they don't. Personally I think TNoW is a scapegoat, and most of the papers could be accused of hacking. If the scandal of hacking was so important in the politicians /publics mind, why did our lovely politicians not look at it as far back as 2006? The reason is that the politicians, the media and police are all in it together. Ed Miliband with his puffed out chess, talking all indignant like, is silly, as he was quaffing the champers with Murdoch like the rest of them!

"no ... founder ... of any ... site can say that they represent the views of all of their members/customers"

Which is why I suspect Justine and others have used the form of words Justine wrote in her (first?) post - 'I'm pretty sure I said "ON THE WHOLE MNetters will ...'

In other situations saying " ... Mnetters have expressed the view ..." might be more likely because that would be directly related to threads on the site.

I suspect the question from the journalist might have been "will Mumsnet users lament the closure of the News of the World ?" thus prompting a statement on similar lines...

Oh yes, I do have to laugh at Milliband, because it is always easier to be critical once one is in opposition. Not sure whether GB had (m)any meetings with anyone from the media on a regular basis, but I would not be surprised.

I can see how a politician, a Lord, and even the PM, might be walking carefully if they are dealing with the media, because they probably have some skeleton in some cupboard and don't want it found.

No, I don't expect every politician, nor even every individual, to have matters they are ashamed about, but I bet the majority do prefer their privacy, all the same

:)

Should be 'puffed out chest'.

I have been a bit hmmm about the changing name of the discussion of the day, I have never seen this before. It goes from Wade to Brooks to Met, but it is the same thread.

I've never seen that before on mumsnet.