Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Site stuff

Join our Innovation Panel to try new features early and help make Mumsnet better.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Media Requests

79 replies

QuietWhenReading · 27/01/2016 00:09

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.

OP posts:
Gunting · 28/01/2016 17:57

Itsallgoing yeah I think you're right. She's still spouting rubbish about MN on her Twitter after her tweet earlier. People need to see what actually happened because it's just making things worse.

She wasn't trolled and for her to say she was is ridiculous and offensive to people who have been. She can carry on saying it though because there is no evidence otherwise.

LurcioAgain · 28/01/2016 17:58

Funny, that tweet. One of my posts on the deleted thread was to the effect that Mary Daly and Christine Crialdo Perez being on the receiving end of rape and death threats did constitute being abused. Saying something controversial and being roundly criticised for what you had said did not constitute being abused. Shame the thread was deleted before Sadie could read that - she might have learned something.

And surely the trolling behaviour was hers - coming onto a women's website with well-known feminist leanings and asking what "lavish" present your male partner has given you for "pushing" out "his" baby is pretty much a golden, hall-marked example of trolling behaviour. If some random with no posting history had started a thread like that in the feminism section, they'd certainly have got deleted for doing so.

EdithWeston · 28/01/2016 18:15

Am I being really dense? I thought trolling was when you went to a site you are not an existing member of, in order to goad or harass.

So if a load of MNetters went on to her Twitter or wherever to do that, then yes she would indeed have been trolled.

But she came here, asked a question, did not like the replies, and then became abusive (via pm).

I read some of the thread, but didn't see all of it. We're there personal attacks on her as a woman? Or was it criticism of a pretty ill-judged request?

Chippednailvarnish · 28/01/2016 18:35

It troll reversal! Grin

GeoffreysGoat · 28/01/2016 18:58

Elfing?

redshoeblueshoe · 28/01/2016 20:00

Chipped Grin

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 28/01/2016 20:11

Just looked at the OPs twitter feed. She must be very proud if her journalism.

coffeeisnectar · 28/01/2016 21:19

Her Twitter feed is hilarious and the fact that Samantha brick and the other dm hack are "supporting her through her dreadful ordeal" speaks volumes.

Chippednailvarnish · 28/01/2016 21:28

MN HQ are deafeningly silent...

ObsidianBlackbirdMcNight · 28/01/2016 21:40

They replied to my report saying they will discuss it up the chain whether to reinstate or not. Maybe others who feel strongly about the dilution of the mumsnet ethos could report too?

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 28/01/2016 21:42

I have, no reply yet. I think they should though, deleted thread makes it look like that "journalist" is telling the truth about what happened

tribpot · 28/01/2016 21:51

I've had a similar message that they are investigating.

tribpot · 30/01/2016 10:28

No update so far.

RebeccaMumsnet · 30/01/2016 10:43

Hi all,

Thanks for your comments and reports about this thread.

We will not be reinstating the thread as it was really unpleasant from all sides and we don't think anyone came out of it in a good light by the end. While we can totally see your point, we also think that the OP was misguided by posting in the first place.

We are going to be adding a more comprehensive header in Media Requests to attempt to prevent this from happening again. As ever, please do keep reporting and we will have a look.

LurcioAgain · 30/01/2016 10:47

Thanks for getting back to us.

I stand by my judgement of that thread -that with one or two exceptions (which could have been dealt with by deletions in the normal way) most mumsnetters were simply expressing robust disagreement, albeit with a bit of piss-taking thrown in. The person being consistently nasty was Sadie.

However, your sandbox, your rules... (can I add hun or would that get me a lifetime ban? Wink)

QuietWhenReading · 30/01/2016 10:52

Thanks Rebecca

OP posts:
redshoeblueshoe · 30/01/2016 10:53

Lurcio - I totally agree but Iona's post makes it look like it was my comment that got the thread pulled, my post could have been deleted. HQ did not confirm - which they have done on other occasions - that sock-puppeting was going on, and that was why the original complaint was made.

Daily Fail 1 Mumsnetters 0

And Sadie's nasty pm's ?

Chippednailvarnish · 30/01/2016 11:10

Daily Fail 1 Mumsnetters 0

Yup.

So basically MN are willing to appease journalists regardless of how they behave.

tribpot · 30/01/2016 11:59

Yes, I would like some assurance that the abuse of the PM system has been dealt with.

I would strongly disagree that it was unpleasant from all sides. You are allowing the public record of the event to be dictated by people working for one of the worst newspapers in the country, a newspaper with a very clear anti-feminist agenda and no concept of the truth.

I would suggest much closer moderation of Media Request threads in future. Concerns on all sides were not dealt with at the time. This is bound to happen again unless you change the rules of posting for the Media Requests board.

redshoeblueshoe · 30/01/2016 12:10

Exactly tribot. Now the Daily Fail can accuse us of being vipers. Iona and Rebecca are saying we were the unpleasant ones, and our only defence was to suggest that people read it for themselves. So Sadie can write whatever she wants and all her chums can say poor little Sadie has been trolled.
Whilst my defence has been zapped. Thanks HQ (that's sarcasm as obviously HQ can't detect it)

CallieTorres · 30/01/2016 12:57

i think its a shame, i didnt see all of the thread just the start. As it has been removed there is no rebuttal of the twitter comments from the 'journalist' and everyone now thinks that mumsnet are a 'nest of vipers'

let the truth back out - reinstate as a locked thread

CottonFrock · 30/01/2016 20:19

We will not be reinstating the thread as it was really unpleasant from all sides and we don't think anyone came out of it in a good light by the end.

I read and posted on that thread until shortly before its deletion, and I don't recognise that version of events. There were a few individual posts by Mn members that merited deletion for breaking talk guidelines, but that in no way characterised the thread as a whole - which was robust, sarcastic and challenging, as was entirely merited by the 'media request' of the OP - and you seem to be equating legitimate responses to a witlessly reactionary media request with the discourse of that kind of misogynistic tabloid carried onto your forum by a unprepared, unprofessional, rude (and possibly deliberately goady) hack, who is now publicly trashing your forum.

While we can totally see your point, we also think that the OP was misguided by posting in the first place.

This sentence doesn't make any sense to me. 'Our point', insofar as there was any consensus, was precisely that the journalist was 'misguided', although that's a rather generous interpretation of her request and subsequent attitude, on and off Mn. I'm not sure what concession you think you are making here.

I'm honestly puzzled as to why Mn, which I have generally seen as a force for good in that it offers actual women - including the vulnerable and isolated who are here in large numbers - a safe private/public place to express real views and ask for and offer advice, in fact, as often political in a very real sense. In offering that opportunity, it is pretty much the opposite of the kinds of publication the 'media requester' writes for, which traffic in body fascism, prurience and vacuous stereotypes.

It is a sad day when MNHQ seems to be prepared to let that kind of discourse take priority over the views of its own members. I can't see what grounds that journalist would have had for any legal case, so I am honestly puzzled as to why MNHQ's response has been so ill-considered, belated and toothless.

The journalist in question is completely unimportant in herself, of course - and I'm sure will return to peddling her stories about push presents, other women's fatness, and aggressive Chihuahuas - but she is significant as a symbol of every outlet that promulgates an appallingly reactionary and damaging view of women.

And if you can't see that, MNHQ, there's something gone very wrong at MN Towers.

Chippednailvarnish · 02/02/2016 16:47

Nice to see no one has bothered to respond to Cotton ...

TheGreatSnafu · 02/02/2016 16:51

Yep cotton made all the relevant points, over and over and explained clearly the issue and radio silence.

I am baffled as to the lack of response.

Gunting · 02/02/2016 18:35

Chipped I reported the post cotton made on Saturday to get MNHQ to respond.

They said they'd look at it but nothing yet.

Swipe left for the next trending thread