Talk

Flip

MNHQ have commented on this thread

1 2 3 4 5 6 ··· 39 40

MNHQ have commented on this thread

Site stuff

Please vote in our "What do you think about the On Mumsnet This Week column in the Daily Mail?" poll

1000 replies

JustineMumsnet · 02/09/2009 12:54

Hello all,
So am back in Blighty and have caught up on everything posted and all the ongoing correspondence with the DM that's gone on while I've been away. (Sorry very poor communications on hols so haven't really been in the loop but Carrie and team have filled me in now.)
Thanks all for the input as ever.

There are a few things you've raised that we need to address and clarify. So, as ever, apologies in advance for the long post.

The first I think is MNHQ's attitude towards this column and why we didn't try and put a stop to it earlier, i.e. the moment we found out about it. (Recap for those who may have missed: we didn't know in advance that it was going to happen, the first we knew about it was when we saw the first column being discussed on MN and initially we didn't think we had any legal grounds to contest the DM's use of MN quotes. We subsequently established some time after column 2 that the DM is, in fact, most likely infringing MN copyright).

As I said early on, a weekly column in the DM is not something we'd have sought. We share many Mumsnetters' misgivings about the views and general tone of the paper - particularly it's attitudes towards working women, immigrants etc. And as I've also said we've as yet detected no noticeable increase in visitors on Thursdays when the column is published (or on any other days for that matter). Nor is it a column that fills us with pride because it adequately represents the joy and wonder that is Mumsnet. So why - as some have understandably wondered - are we not banging our fists about stopping the darned thing and have we not fired off a barrage of legal threats? Why instead do we at HQ seem a bit ambivalent about whether the column exists or not?

The main answer is this. Like it or not, the Daily Mail is a very influential beast, probably one of the most politically influential institutions in the UK. So, irrespective of the content of these columns, the very fact that the Daily Mail have decided that Mumsnet is prominent and interesting enough to base a weekly column around increases our clout. Clout when it comes to asking government ministers to consider things like our miscarriage campaign, clout when we try to persuade Gok Wan's PR that he ought to pay us a visit, or when the Tories are thinking about environment policy or what they're going to do to increase breastfeeding rates.

We also have a distinct reluctance to "go legal" with anyone after our experience of GF going legal with us - the legal system and lawyers (particularly opposing lawyers) have a way of eating up all your resources, not to mention your will to live. And call us lily-livered if you like, we'd rather not be at the top the DM's hit list if there's a way of avoiding it.

Plus, from the correspondence Carrie's had with the mail in the last couple of weeks, it's clear that they would are prepared to take steps to minimise the privacy risks.

That said, we accept many of the reservations argued well here and in previous threads about the imperfect nature of the association.

In short, those of you who've accused us of residing on the fence are probably right - we are a bit and tbh it's not very comfortable!
So where next?

We think perhaps it would be best both to help us get off the fence and, if it comes to it, to lay the column to rest, to put the matter to the vote. We recognise that it's not a perfect solution but there have been a number of objections raised about this and we'd like to see exactly what it is that folks are objecting to - MN in the Daily Mail per se. MN in the Daily Mail without MN control over content. MN in the Daily Mail in its current guise/format - for example would it be OK if it were it a funny weekly column written by someone like MorningPaper (they'd never have she's far too rude of course)? Or perhaps you don't object at all (and you have an aversion to posting on this thread ).

Hopefully they'll be a clear conclusion and we promise to abide by it and to do our darnedest to put it into action as quickly as possible.

We're sorry this has dragged on a bit - it is a bit tricky to conduct this type of negotiation in public, particularly when there's a whiff of the legals about - and as we all know (if we didn't already) MN is a very public board, open for all to see and easily searchable etc. At some points we do sometimes have to just hope that you trust that we are not the bad guys who are trying to manipulate, exploit and mislead you all for our own ends (many thanks to those who have said as much). If you think that we are then there's nowt much we can say I suspect to ever sway you otherwise - but you're welcome on MN all the same because it's not really about us, after all.

It also doesn't help that it all kicked off in holiday season which is how it always is (GF the same) - sod's law and all that. Anyway humble apologies for not being a bit more accessible/on the ball in the last few weeks. We are almost all back at full strength now and generally at your disposal .

So here's our very quick poll - please fill it in (just the once please). It won't gain you entry in any competitions to win a family holiday outside of school holidays but it will most certainly influence what we do next.

Many thanks.

OP posts:

Report

Threadworm · 02/09/2009 20:13

I do accept utterly that MN is an ethically minded business and that they turn down some advertising for ethical reasons (as well as for the sound commercial reason that accepting it would really undermine their brand and consequently compromise advertising from more brand-consonant companies).

But 'ethically minded business' not 'commercially minded good cause' is the right phrase.