Media Requests

[QuietWhenReading]

Out of interest do MNHQ brief those wanting to submit media requests.

We've had a couple over the last few days which, by their misjudged tone, were never going to get a positive response on MN.

Altogether too tabloidy and gushing for we vipers. The OP's got alternatively slated or piss taken.

Now while I do think it would have been wise for the requestor to research the site a bit first I wondered if MN gives them any guidelines or just throws them to the wolves.

Quiet that's a great idea - undelete it.

Tough they are quotes from her article 'five months pregnant and proud to be skinny'

do we need to start a petition to get it undeleted??

And I reported the obvious sock puppet at her second post. I've still not received a reply, what is it now? 20/22 hours later?

coffee is you have said everything I wanted to say, on both threads.

At the risk of sounding melodramatic I was on the verge of boycotting MN after reading some of the articles written by Sadie Nicholas and Eimear o'hagan (who I suspect was posting as Rocky288) - the two "journalists" complaining about the thread on twitter.

Their articles in the Daily Mail are full of venom, portraying women as vacuous, vain and completely self absorbed. For MN to be seen to take Nicholas' side gave the impression to me that MN HQ are tiptoeing around her to avoid negative publicity, regardless of her writing or behaviour on the thread.

I think an undelete would redress the balance.

Incidentally, on the deletion message we think in this case, there are so many breaches of talk guidelines, that the thread is no longer bringing anything useful or positive to the site.

The thread started out not bringing anything useful or positive to the site. By definition it brought the opposite.

I was disappointed by the reason given for the deletion too, and the MNHQ explanation above is no better.

There is precedent for undeleting a thread.

So MNHQ only started looking at this thread when we started complaining about sock puppeting, and Sadie sending nasty pm's.

Sad to see that misogynist shite trumps banter on this site.

Definitely Red. It's a sad day.

MN's circus, MN's monkeys.

But a journalist should know, because it's really basic, that publication on the internet is publication, and once something is published then it can be commented on. Also that if you don't want people to talk about your question, don't post it on an open Internet forum.

I thought playing the 'but I'm a mum' card was unprofessional.

I hope MNHQ will reconsider that thread, and reinstate it with individual posts deleted as required. Most of it was wholly unobjectionable.

I suspect MN were worried about bad publicity. The thing is, anyone reading that thread would have almost certainly come away with the correct reading of the situation - namely that the journalist threw a hissy fit and behaved ridiculously unprofessionally. Now all that's left out there in the public domain is the journalist and her friends' account of it on twitter, making us out to be the usual nest of vipers. Actually, if MNHQ want to protect the reputation of MN they'd have been better to let the thread stand.

And I still think they should have a sticky at the top of media requests saying "Post at your own risk. If you ask something stupid or offensive, you will get your arse handed to you on a plate, and we expect (within the bounds of legality) you to be big enough and professional enough to take criticism, even robust criticism, on the chin."

On the one hand I feel that if MNHQ are going to take journos' money they should probably safeguard their own reputation by giving a steer for how to word their request in order to get some worthwhile feedback.

OTOH I love the threads where a poorly prepared Fail hack gets their arse handed to them. Do you remember the "drinking after the school run" thread where they wanted to get MNers to come on the telly and say "yes I crack open a bottle of Pinot Grigio at 9:15 in the morning, wanna make something of it?"

Dilys I think MNHQ said they don't take money for media requests

I would like to register my disappointment at the decision to delete the push present thread. It wasn't an innocent thread by a regular poster gone bad. It should have been left to stand with the PAs removed. There was plenty on there that was valid critique of misogyny, the daily mail and society. Please consider reinstating, otherwise it makes mumsnet look as though it favours tabloid journos' feelings over traditional mumsnet free speech.

I have reported my post and requested they reconsider the deletion.

I'm going to say it again (because I don't think MNHQ have grasped why we think this section is different from the rest of the boards): journalists in the national media are in a uniquely privileged position, having access to a wide audience running to millions with (short of libel or demonstrable factual inaccuracies) next to no right of reply for those of us written about. They are also professionally trained communicators who should be capable of choosing their words with care - I don't believe they start a goady thread without the full knowledge that what they're doing is likely to provoke (so the hissy fits come over as highly disingenuous - part of the act to prove we're a nest of vipers).

There is a world of difference between a calculatedly goady thread started by a professional communicator with an agenda and a guaranteed audience for their version of events running into the millions, and a normal, run-of-the-mill mumsnetter who words an opening post clumsily with the result that the thread degenerates into a bunfight. So different standards regarding the robustness of the replies should be applied. (The general principle of no PAs should still stand, and obviously legal standards concerning not libelling people or threatening physical violence* - but individual posts should be deleted, not an entire thread).

This section should definitely be run on the basis of caveat emptor (caveat original poster).

• The only threat of physical violence on the original thread was in fact entirely imaginary, made up by one of the journo's twitter pals, a sentence to the effect of "I suppose you think she should be taken outside and strung up". No genuine, long-standing mumsnetter had made any such threat.

I think MNHQ need to make it more explicit that 'Media Requests' are not actually paid for. I have been somewhat surprised to find that out, on the back of the LAVISH thread.

I would like to praise cottonfrock for her incisive posts on this thread and the deleted one (I hadn't chance to post again before it went).

I do think there is an issue currently with MN being too large for moderation to the same standards as previously.

HQ aren't reading threads as they used to, and thus are making deletions where previously they would be deemed unnecessary, letting trollers and marketeers have their ridiculous (often sock-puppetted) posts stand, removing threads because the OP doesn't like the answers they've had and have thrown a tantrum. They're also letting a trollers poster's other threads stand when they have deleted the one thread that's been reported, whereas in the past someone spamming would have all their threads cleaned up and all posts removed.
I suppose this is because MN is too large and unwieldy now, but it is a shame because it's to the detriment of MN.

I was also surprised they weren't paid for. Perhaps they should be? In the case of the recent ones the LAVISH OP has posted, she has been offering financial inducements. Shouldn't these have been in a paid-for section like small ads?

I don't believe they start a goady thread without the full knowledge that what they're doing is likely to provoke (so the hissy fits come over as highly disingenuous - part of the act to prove we're a nest of vipers).

This is exactly what I thought. The whole eye blinking, fellow mum evoking, sock puppetry - no one can be that ignorant. Sadie's posts came across as intentionally obtuse and intentionally provocative. To what end I have no idea, who can guess at her motives. That is why I posted that it must be a wind up - she (and her fellows) came across as caricatures. In which case they very well deserved exactly what they got.

Agree that the thread should be reinstated for the reasons that pps note above.

maybe bring it back, but lock it against new entries?

I'm going to say it again (because I don't think MNHQ have grasped why we think this section is different from the rest of the boards): journalists in the national media are in a uniquely privileged position, having access to a wide audience running to millions with (short of libel or demonstrable factual inaccuracies) next to no right of reply for those of us written about. They are also professionally trained communicators who should be capable of choosing their words with care - I don't believe they start a goady thread without the full knowledge that what they're doing is likely to provoke (so the hissy fits come over as highly disingenuous - part of the act to prove we're a nest of vipers).

There is a world of difference between a calculatedly goady thread started by a professional communicator with an agenda and a guaranteed audience for their version of events running into the millions, and a normal, run-of-the-mill mumsnetter who words an opening post clumsily with the result that the thread degenerates into a bunfight. So different standards regarding the robustness of the replies should be applied. (The general principle of no PAs should still stand, and obviously legal standards concerning not libelling people or threatening physical violence - but individual posts should be deleted, not an entire thread).*

Absolutely to Lurcio's post. I also agree with her previous point about any fear of bad publicity being dissipated by anyone who took the trouble to glance at the actual thread, had it been left to stand, whereas now the remaining 'story' in the public domain is one-sided and hopelessly impartial, AND makes MN look worse than it would if the thread had been left up. The deletion, and MNHQ's subsequent lack of interest in a debate about the incident, is leaving a bad taste in my mouth - it smacks of actual censorship of free speech.

Also, the deletion message is pretty insulting. Sadie Nicholls certainly didn't bring anything 'useful or positive to the site' when she arrived offering cash for photos of 'LAVISH push presents' - what was 'useful and positive' were responses her post received, which in fact revived my faith in the robust common sense of most members of the board.

Besides any attempt to save face hasn't worked.

Good god, she really doesn't know the definition of trolling, does she?

And yes, to what cottonfrock wrote.

MN need to undelete so people can see what really sent on wanders over to check Google cache

Arf, that thread is awesome. MNHQ please undelete so that people who read the OPs twitter bile can see what was said...