To wonder why the media is so interested in mumsnet.

[ICanSeeTheSun]

There must be a few parenting fourm rooms, so why does the media for ever attack MN.

[TurboWithAKick]

Attack?

[ICanSeeTheSun]

www.independent.co.uk/news/people/peaches-geldof-branded-toxic-hypocrite-by-mumsnet-users-after-heroin-death-9626943.html

The latest one

[davidjrmum]

I just think it's lazy journalism. I do like mumsnet but it still drives me mad that journalists seem to think the views of people on mumsnet or the people who run mumsnet represent the views of all the mums in the country - they don't!

[HecatePropylaea]

I wonder why they twist things.

I read that thread and while there were a few posters criticising, there were far far more posts saying that such posts were unnecessary.

That article makes no mention of that and falsely represents that thread as being full of that sort of comment and nothing else.

THAT is what the media does, when it talks of mumsnet. It takes something and twists it until it is unrecognisable and they presents it to the world as mumsnet.

very unfair.

I wonder why the media chooses to do that.

Could it be because they have a problem with an intelligent, articulate and vocal group of (mostly) women? I know quite a few think that is the case.

If MN choose to respond to the independent's pompous Request For Comment, I bloody hope they say exactly that.

[GalaxyInMyPants]

Whoever took that screenshot is a member who'd commented on the thread.

Its easy, lazy journalism for them. That's why they're interested. They don't have to think of anything to write. Plus they can stick the boot into people while appearing smug as if they're condoning what's been said when actually they're revelling in it and would like to slag off the celeb but daren't.

[ICanSeeTheSun]

Like how did a thread with a maximum of 1000 post make the news about a penis beaker.

[MrsWinnibago]

Hecate it wasn't twisted. They're journalists, they take the comments they're interested in which of course will always be the inflammatory ones. That thread was repugnant and I'm all for free speech.

[GalaxyInMyPants]

They get to kill two birds with one stone. Be nasty about Peaches and be nasty about a vocal, opinionated group of women. But I agree the article is misrepresentative of what most people on that thread were saying.

But why let the truth get in the way of a good story?

[ICanSeeTheSun]

I didn't see the thread, but I suspect like always it would have had a few strong views which other posters will pick up on and tell that poster

[duchesse]

Because we're fabulous and articulate so they can just lift entire comments verbatim from the site.

[duchesse]

Most people were counselling the OP and a few others to keep their public outpourings to themselves as it was inappropriate to leave such speculation up for the little boys to find later.

[HecatePropylaea]

I think it was twisted. Otherwise the report would have mentioned about the many, many posts that really tore into those making awful comments.

Instead, anyone reading that report would think that mners all had a jolly old time, all in agreement, all making vile comments until the thread was removed.

Whereas certainly when I looked at that thread, I saw a LOT of people very angry indeed about some of the horrible comments.

To only present one part of it and make no mention of the other and to write in such a way as to make the reader think that an entire thread was exclusively nasty comments about this woman - what is that if not misrepresenting the content of the thread?

[Hassled]

We're an easy source of quotes, a reasonably good cross-section of society and are mostly fairly articulate. In this case I think it's sort of fair enough; it's very sad that there are now two motherless children, and we are a parenting forum - we're the obvious place to come for opinions. If they'd garnered quotes from the Tree Surgeon's Forum that would have been odd, but not MN.

[Hassled]

Hecate - I hadn't realised it was a one-sided view (didn't see thread), which is remarkably stupid of me given that if it wasn't a one-sided view it would mean there was a thread where everyone was in full agreement :o

[JennyOnTheBlocks]

But the thread was deleted, so the real story should be 'mumsnet do not want negative conversations about Peaches Geldof'

But that's not going to sell anything is it?

[2rebecca]

I thought it was off there wasn't a Peaches thread yesterday, it must have been deleted before i got home from work, lack of threads on an obvious news topic usually means censorship

[HecatePropylaea]

yeah, that'll never happen.

Yes. I mean, I don't know how it ended up because I opened it, read it, thought some fairly nasty thoughts about some of the posts and decided that it would be best to close it and not open it again, but when I read it, there was more condemnation of the posters making the vile comments than there were comments of the nature that article would have you believe the thread was filled with.

[BaileyWhite]

This is why posters attacked one of the journos that they knew was on the thread. Because they knew damn well what twisted, distorting liars they can be.

[WannabeMrsJoshHomme]

urgh the media sickens me, on the front of Metro (I think) today was a headline along the lines of 'peaches' baby son left alone for up to 17 hours...' why is that relevant now? yes it's all awful but what good does that do? what are we supposed to think of her in light of that? horrible newspapers.

[2rebecca]

odd not off, hit wrong key

[ApocalypseThen]

Also, women are the eternal mystery. You spy on them in their habitat to find out what the hive mind thinks. Cynics imagine that if what women thought mattered, you'd hear more from them professionally, but that implies that women can be the best man for the job, clearly not the case.

[ApocalypseThen]

Well, I say "think", but women really intuit rather than think.

[impatienceisavirtue]

I read that thread.

There was a lot of bile on it, yes, but there was also an awful lot of sensitivity from others and understanding.

[Delphiniumsblue]

It is very lazy and there is never one view. That didn't represent mine, which I said at the time. There is never such a thing as 'a mumsnet view'.