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

[JustineMumsnet]

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.

[madameDefarge]

maybe we could lobby for seats for both mutile des guerres and badger lovers?

[oopsagainandagain]

oh, my guilty conscience

ex catholic and all that...

[oopsagainandagain]

and the amazon ting was over one book.... the Dm thing (imho) is about days and days of nasty nasty pointless at best, vile at worst, spew.

[madameDefarge]

you used a dead badger to keep your chicken secure on the tube?

Am in awe of oop's world.

[oopsagainandagain]

lol

you have to use what is to hand when you are in a rush

and i thought i'd done a good job here- limking the bager, le francais, a copy of the Dm owned metro and throwing in a chicken for good measure.

but sadly- 'tis over your head

[oopsagainandagain]

and with that- i'm off to mon lit!

[madameDefarge]

oh oops, its late...I'm now getting even more stupid, decode it for me so I can revel in your cleverness?

[JustineMumsnet]

Lily - I accept that you think that of the DM and maybe because my dh is a journo (not DM but I do think most journos have a grudging respect for the Mail's professionalism) and Carrie's sister (who's lovely) is a Mail reader I'm a bit less agin them, though I think a lot of what they say is garbage and anti-working woman I don't think they're up there with the evil fascists.

But we've said all along that we don't want any association if the majority are against it. Hence the vote - so we'll see.

MadameD - sorry if I sound flip - I really don't mean to be, it's just late. I do understand that folks feel strongly because they care about Mumsnet, and what it stands for. As do we.

So can we see where we get to with the poll and we'll give it some more thought in the meantime? - I think you've made some very strong points (as have many others). Thanks very much for your time and input.

[madameDefarge]

Thank you for listening, Justine.

[LilyBolero]

yes, thanks justine.

I do hate them, partly because my MIL among others believes every word they write and I have to gently explain that it 'isn't all as they present it'....but partly because they do just seem to hate women so much - it's all articles about 'how shocking, a women celeb dares to show her 'mummy tummy'', or another woman 'piles on the pounds', or 'benefits scroungers have 5th child'. And I don't really like that.

[madameDefarge]

bonne nuit tous les enfants!

[nooka]

Where does this "DM are so professional" line come from? In what universe is this true? They routinely fiddle with statistics (that Mail Watch has some good examples, and I also remember many from my days in the Health Service) in order to present a very skewed view of the world. I am sure other papers do that too (IMO most journalists could do with going on a good critical appraisal course before attempting anything to do with stats), but it's not my idea of professionalism, which encompasses at least a smattering of ethics along the way.

As for the additional clout, I really think it is laughable that the sort of drivel that is printed in "femail" influences anyone except for people who think that celebrity gossip is of any importance. I know that in recent years politicians have taken to trying a bit of the public touch by referring to Big Brother and other tosh, but that really doesn't mean it is in fact important. A Mumsnet in femail column will do bugger all for MNs credibility, which quite clearly is just fine as it is.

I'm going to go on hanging around this thread in the hopes that good sense prevails, but in the meantime I'm looking for other places to look for interesting debate about everything and anything, which is what MN used to provide me.

[Prunerz]

I'm always nonplussed by this "oh but X reads the Mail and is a nice person" line. MOST PEOPLE ARE BASICALLY QUITE NICE. It's what's on top of NICE that counts.

DH's aunt reads the mail ('for the tv guide and the campaigns' ) and you could not meet a "nicer" person. Nor a more ill-informed, narrow, fearful, superficial person. She's lovely. I love her to bits. But you can't have, you know, a proper conversation with her!!

[daftpunk]

you can't have, you know, a proper conversation with her..

i guarantee she feels exactly the same way about you prunerz

[Prunerz]

Well, that's her prerogative and might be justified, daftpunk.
But it wouldn't be because I regurgitate crap I am fed by a cynical and manipulative newspaper.

[morningpaper]

4 a.m.? How are you some of you up at 4 a.m.? Do you all have hangovers?

I told Justine yesterday that I didn't want to be on the pool of writers for this (if it goes ahead) - NOT because I think it's wrong (I think it's morally neutral at worse) but because I haven't got the energy for personal abuse like this every blimmin' week. But there are lots more (very brilliant) writing people that MN use and we all know'n'love, so if this goes ahead, me not being involved won't matter one jot. So you can stop voting against the idea just because I'm involved. Hoho.

[Dumbledoresgirl]

Awww MP, as a completely disinterested observor to this whole debate (only clicked on this thread to see what on earth people could still be saying after 800 posts) can I just say, I would vote in favour of it if you were writing for it and I cared one jot either way.

But, forgive me if this has been said for, surely MN can't just decide we will have X Y and Z writing the column? Surely they have their own employees for this and someone is already doing the job? Or am I totally misunderstanding the situation/repeating something already explained?

[Dumbledoresgirl]

observer

[stillfrazzled]

MP, the one chink of light about the whole vile column idea for me was you writing it. I hate to think of you being picked on because of it.

I think this poll is a fucking mess, TBH. Looks like we're going to have the No vote on one side, versus every single other option. It is shite and a bit dishonest, I think. Should have been a straight choice between No, Yes and Don't care. Then IF the majority voted Yes, a further poll about the shape.

At least that would have been clear and fair. My respect for MN is pretty much gone and my affection's fading fast. It's actually pretty upsetting, this site has meant a lot to me during difficult times.

[daftpunk]

prunerz;

do you ever read Richard Littlejohn..?... he's the only journo in the country speaking any sense...you should read him.

and as for the racist/women hating nonsense..

the DM supported Margaret Thatcher, who i believe was a woman.
you should also read up on the Stephen Lawrence case, see how the DM handled it...then come back and tell me the DM are racist.

[QuintessentialShadows]

If mumsnet and the dm are so closely associated, I would feel that just by coming here, I am endorsing the politics and opinions of the DM. And that would be intolerable.

*Justinemumsnet" "Hmmm - Would it work if we could be in 3 or 4 MD - cross the political spectrum as it were? Maybe that's the answer..."

That is much better than just the DM.

Could you try approach another major paper with a different political agenda and say "the daily mail is doing XYZ, how about you also have column space" and spread it across.

[franklymydear]

do you not think the poll is just white mist though?

nicely done, gives an impression that's positive

but seriously a website run by journalists - they know the game and they are in business

Keep the proles on-side by affecting an air of inclusion and do the best for the company anyway

That's what it seems to me would be the best business option and that's what it seems to me is being done

and personally I don't give a fuck about DM, quotes, coverage whatever - I'm here to enjoy myself and the whole community is an affectation that is common amongst fora although I've never seen it so well-manipulated by the admins before

[Slubberdegullion]

oh MP, I'm sorry if you were upset by me calling you an attack dog. I wasn't really calling you a dog at all. I was bigging you up in an empowering fashion.

sorry