Tattle In The Press

New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
MN got referred to as a Nest of Vipers. Can’t remember if that was press or a disgruntled poster though.
It’s because someone I watch called us that last week and we were laughing about it on a thread, we then had a newbie pop up sticking up for the person that said it and tells us she’s often called a witch at work 😂 maybe it was the journalist or just coincidence 🤷🏼‍♀️ They haven’t been on the thread since
069F0336-B4FA-48EC-8663-5FCC1EC40641.jpeg
 
  • Like
  • Haha
  • Wow
Reactions: 9
Hope this isn't too much of a tangent - not directly related to Tattle, but relevant to the media:

Years ago, I was part of an internet forum that was profiled in a trashy newspaper. The story was a total fabrication - outright lies, personal attacks on the site's founder, hysterical reporting using words like 'evil' to describe him. It was highly offensive because this was a mental health forum and actually a very supportive community that helped many people. I joined when I was about 13/14 and (almost 15 years later) I'm still in regular contact with a few people from the site. Some members wrote to the paper to complain, but they all got the same identical, non-committal response.

Anyway, the point is, I learned early on to distrust the press and to be suspicious of any article with a hyperbolic tone. And it's disappointing to see how distorted some reporting can be.
 
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 13
Thought I’d share this on here. It’s not tattle in the press but kind of related. MPs have an inquiry ongoing into influencer culture and I suppose it also links to the online harms bill that’s been drafted too. Funnily enough, the papers only picked up on this last July when em Sheldon went on the committee and said it was grown women and mums that pick on poor little social media people like her 🙄

I didn’t realise but the committee is still cross examining experts and influencers and this session, about the use of children in content was pretty interesting. And the fact the newspapers don’t bother to report any of this stuff when actually it’s pretty clear there are major concerns by MPs. I don’t know the youtuber featured but he very much downplays his childrens involvement on his channel and is probably not representative of most family or children influencers. They also discuss the laws in France around needing a licence for children to work on social media and seems the MPs might be quite interested in this as a control.

its quite long but there are good questions at Q197, Q226, Q234, Q247


There was also a session held with Amy Bryant Jeffries from Gleam where they tore her a new one over the lack of diversity on Gleams roster. Her answers were awful.
 
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 24
Thought I’d share this on here. It’s not tattle in the press but kind of related. MPs have an inquiry ongoing into influencer culture and I suppose it also links to the online harms bill that’s been drafted too. Funnily enough, the papers only picked up on this last July when em Sheldon went on the committee and said it was grown women and mums that pick on poor little social media people like her 🙄

I didn’t realise but the committee is still cross examining experts and influencers and this session, about the use of children in content was pretty interesting. And the fact the newspapers don’t bother to report any of this stuff when actually it’s pretty clear there are major concerns by MPs. I don’t know the youtuber featured but he very much downplays his childrens involvement on his channel and is probably not representative of most family or children influencers. They also discuss the laws in France around needing a licence for children to work on social media and seems the MPs might be quite interested in this as a control.

its quite long but there are good questions at Q197, Q226, Q234, Q247


There was also a session held with Amy Bryant Jeffries from Gleam where they tore her a new one over the lack of diversity on Gleams roster. Her answers were awful.
That's reassuring to know there's actually people in government aware of the issues. Unsurprising it's not reported on.

I hope the switched on people in government are aware of tattle and can see through lying influencers.

Yesterday Nadine Dorries the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport posted to mock how David Cameron looked. Which is fair enough as he looked silly. But that's the standard kind of stuff that happens on tattle.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 15
And the fact the newspapers don’t bother to report any of this stuff when actually it’s pretty clear there are major concerns by MPs.
They do tend to report the final reports that come out of these evidence sessions, but yeah, they don't say a lot about them usually.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4
Thought I’d share this on here. It’s not tattle in the press but kind of related. MPs have an inquiry ongoing into influencer culture and I suppose it also links to the online harms bill that’s been drafted too. Funnily enough, the papers only picked up on this last July when em Sheldon went on the committee and said it was grown women and mums that pick on poor little social media people like her 🙄

I didn’t realise but the committee is still cross examining experts and influencers and this session, about the use of children in content was pretty interesting. And the fact the newspapers don’t bother to report any of this stuff when actually it’s pretty clear there are major concerns by MPs. I don’t know the youtuber featured but he very much downplays his childrens involvement on his channel and is probably not representative of most family or children influencers. They also discuss the laws in France around needing a licence for children to work on social media and seems the MPs might be quite interested in this as a control.

its quite long but there are good questions at Q197, Q226, Q234, Q247


There was also a session held with Amy Bryant Jeffries from Gleam where they tore her a new one over the lack of diversity on Gleams roster. Her answers were awful.
I've watched some of the sessions (though not the one you mention) and been disappointed by the MPs' lack of grasp of some of the issues. There was one session where an MP asked whether influencers got paid maternity leave.

Good answer though from the influencer on the panel they were questioning (Amy Hart - ex Love Island contestant). Said something like, no but having a baby opens you up to working with different brands - you then get the pram brands, the baby food brands working with you.

Unsurprisingly, given her honesty, Amy Hart is one of the influencers who doesn't seem to have a thread here.
 
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 13
I've watched some of the sessions (though not the one you mention) and been disappointed by the MPs' lack of grasp of some of the issues. There was one session where an MP asked whether influencers got paid maternity leave.

Good answer though from the influencer on the panel they were questioning (Amy Hart - ex Love Island contestant). Said something like, no but having a baby opens you up to working with different brands - you then get the pram brands, the baby food brands working with you.

Unsurprisingly, given her honesty, Amy Hart is one of the influencers who doesn't seem to have a thread here.
i agree some of the sessions have been disappointing and shows how far removed our law makers are from the real issues. In the transcript I linked to the MPs said they were shocked about an influencer selling photos of their baby. It did make my eyes roll as that’s not the worst of it. Whereas the murky world of aff links, non disclosure, using their children for content etc hasn’t been fully pulled apart. But the MPs mentioning France’s approach seems like they might look at that. One can only hope anyway.
 
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 14
"new controversy" & "the worst vitriol" I don't think this is bringing anything new to the table that wasn't said 3+ years ago. 😴. Why do they bother?

"Fighting back" is that courting press to present a very biased article with next to no integrity?
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 12
Are they just copying each others homework now? I ll change a few sentences around and the names so the teacher does not get suspicious. :rolleyes:
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 15
Are they just copying each others homework now? I ll change a few sentences around and the names so the teacher does not get suspicious. :rolleyes:
I think you're right! Just like you can easily play Mumsnet Bingo (LTB, call women's aid, ducks in a row etc etc) I think you could easily play "Tattle in the press bingo" - it's the same bullshit lines and misconstrued information every time from these poor excuses for journalists.....
 
  • Like
Reactions: 9
Has Matthew Wright called us harridans yet?
Oh the outrage on MN when that happened, can't see tattlers being too bothered 🙄
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: 8
I think you're right! Just like you can easily play Mumsnet Bingo (LTB, call women's aid, ducks in a row etc etc) I think you could easily play "Tattle in the press bingo" - it's the same bullshit lines and misconstrued information every time from these poor excuses for journalists.....
When I posted on MN years ago, trying to get some help regarding leaving a very bad marriage, I had all those comments. I really wanted some more help though and ended up asking what people actually meant when they said get your ducks in a row because I needed specific instructions as I was really overwhelmed and alone.

bleeping useless. No one gave me a decent answer. But they all trotted out those clichés. 🙄 bleeping ducks in a bleeping row. I just kept picturing a row of yellow bath toy ducks lined up. About as useful as their answers. 🤣
 
  • Haha
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 16
i agree some of the sessions have been disappointing and shows how far removed our law makers are from the real issues. In the transcript I linked to the MPs said they were shocked about an influencer selling photos of their baby. It did make my eyes roll as that’s not the worst of it. Whereas the murky world of aff links, non disclosure, using their children for content etc hasn’t been fully pulled apart. But the MPs mentioning France’s approach seems like they might look at that. One can only hope anyway.
I would love to hear what they think about Nursemum selling photos of her dad son plastered all over t-shirts.
 
  • Like
  • Wow
Reactions: 5
Segment on BBC news just now about influencers not disclosing adverts. ASA is speaking to MPs today apparently.
 
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 20
Segment on BBC news just now about influencers not disclosing adverts. ASA is speaking to MPs today apparently.
They seemed to talking about IG and TikTok kids not declaring a dress or something, perhaps the BBC could look at some of their own staff's Twitter accounts.
 
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 10
They seemed to talking about IG and TikTok kids not declaring a dress or something, perhaps the BBC could look at some of their own staff's Twitter accounts.
Quite. It has been mentioned a lot on the BBC Radio thread here how much presenters push their IG or YT accounts. Eg Vanessa Feltz endlessly plugging her IG on her show, which is stuffed full of ads and affiliate links.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 11
That’s really bad. I can’t believe there isn’t rules at the BBC about that so they must be choosing to look the other way and let their presenters do what they want.

the end of the breakfast interview they asked the you tuber who should take responsibility for disclosing ads, the brand or the influencer. She just waffled the platforms need to have more tools to help disclose 🙄 I’m sorry but the requirements are easy. You put ‘ad’. No amount of ‘tools’ is going to make certain influencers to disclose properly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 13