Jack Monroe #193 Mama, pass the UNICEF statistics and the Hansards!

Status
Thread locked. We start a new thread when they have over 1000 posts, click the blue button to see all threads for this topic and find the latest open thread.
1
Just read the Grazia piece. Influencers don’t owe anyone anything. What about the folk they receive money from who in return get duck all?
Admin - not sure if I am allowed to screenshot. Let me know and I will delete.
 

Attachments

  • 330D6E20-7D06-414D-80D8-5FFBC875053F.jpeg
    330D6E20-7D06-414D-80D8-5FFBC875053F.jpeg
    83.2 KB · Views: 385
Last edited:
Nobody expects perfect?

People are multi faceted. The problem is influencers never admit or show that.

They've monetised their existence so are always putting their best (facetuned) face forward. And because they share SO much, people notice the cracks and here we are!

Plus a handful of them are massive grifters, plenty don't declare ads properly.

Random example from another thread I'm on- a girl took money from Tesco to promote Race for Life. She ran Race for Life. But she didn't raise any money for the charity when she did her run? And then got really cagey when people asked her about her fee from Tesco, why she hadn't actually raised any money for charity etc.

Influencers shouldn't be perfect. But when they get up to shady tit with money and try and pull the wool over people's eyes.....who is there to regulate that? Or even to just stand up and say, hey man that's not okay?

Where are your checks and balances on your work?

Who else is going to provide that other than your audience?

Or do you not want them to be savvy enough to question anything?
 
Sideboard Bob said:
I feel like a DJ interrupting a disco mid-song to talk about a car park situation, but...

That award thing Jack’s been nominated for, it’s in association with ITV News. Are they the one (main) channel left that’s she’s not pissed off?

BBC - goes without saying *cough DKL cough*.
Channel 4 - That Man, and the association with LJC makes it a bit gauche for them to be seen working with her.

Has Eamonn or or his cousin put in a good word for her? Either way, I genuinely don’t understand how this has happened.
Also, I‘d never heard the word “gauche“ out loud until Allegra said it.
Click to expand...

These things just need slots to be filled. Most awards are just a vehicle to promote own media channels (whether it's a website, tv show, magazine or other product). It's not really a BAFTA or literary prize where people genuinely care about the outcome.
 
d
Legionnairess said:
Just read the Hattie Gladwell piece. Influencers don’t owe anyone anything. What about the folk they receive money from who in return get duck all?
Admin - not sure if I am allowed to screenshot. Let me know and I will delete.
Click to expand...
I have no idea who this person is but when you start the sentence with “when a person of influence” and then goes on to say they have no responsibility for their actions...all I can think is that they are basically stupid, it’s a bleeping oxymoron! She says “we” so she clearly considers herself a person of influence, therefore she does have a responsibility to behave.

If Marcus Rashford gets caught lying, cheating on his girlfriend, grooming a teenager, speeding, whatever, people will be pissed off, not because he did any of this on the pitch but because he’s a role model, people and especially kids look up to him and what he does sends a message to those people saying it’s ok to do these things. Those things are not values that you want to encourage in society.

So “people of influence” (the fuckwits on social media who I guess she’s talking about, who have no role other than to “influence”) do owe it to the public to “behave” because...basic witch...you are a person of influence and your actions influence people duh! 🙄
 
Legionnairess said:
Just read the Grazia piece. Influencers don’t owe anyone anything. What about the folk they receive money from who in return get duck all?
Admin - not sure if I am allowed to screenshot. Let me know and I will delete.
Click to expand...
Someone with a small account that doesn't even have a tattle thread nore I can find any mention of is talking about the terror of being torn apart on here 🤷‍♀️. Someone's thirsty and will say anything inventive to get it.

Members of the public don't owe influencers anything, it's not our responsibility to look after them and protect them from the negative aspects that fame has always carried.

And male dominated sites are just the same, have these people never read sports based sites? There the public figures rial against actual abuse and hate crimes, not just hurt feelings.
 
influencers have no room to cry about it after all of the problems with undisclosed ads and sponsorship where there was a dishonest relationship with the audience. It was a naivety on the part of the general public but social media, like Facebook had previous been about connection, not selling for most people, and never to the extent we saw on YouTube and Instagram.
 
I've not had a go yet, sorry for being late to the party

When you only share things
With affiliated links
That's a molee

When you hoot up a lung
And spell Thank you always wrong
That's a Monroe

When your pastitio isn't square
And your default response is 'you weren't there!'
That's a Monroe
 
Last edited:
Dogmuck said:
d

I have no idea who this person is but when you start the sentence with “when a person of influence” and then goes on to say they have no responsibility for their actions...all I can think is that they are basically stupid, it’s a bleeping oxymoron! She says “we” so she clearly considers herself a person of influence, therefore she does have a responsibility to behave.

If Marcus Rashford gets caught lying, cheating on his girlfriend, grooming a teenager, speeding, whatever, people will be pissed off, not because he did any of this on the pitch but because he’s a role model, people and especially kids look up to him and what he does sends a message to those people saying it’s ok to do these things. Those things are not values that you want to encourage in society.

So “people of influence” (the fuckwits on social media who I guess she’s talking about, who have no role other than to “influence”) do owe it to the public to “behave” because...basic witch...you are a person of influence and your actions influence people duh! 🙄
Click to expand...
I’m not sure if anyone is familiar with Katie Hayes (she’s in the Instagrammers section) if not, I would thoroughly recommend you read her Wiki. I haven’t followed her thread for long but she’s not always crystal clear with her ads and in addition to that, she’ll do make up tutorials and not make an effort to pronounce the names of stuff she uses and the photoshopping is criminal.

I guess the Influencers who do things right are the ones who don’t have a thread here! And I’m sure Jack wouldn’t call herself an influencer but anyone with shady ethics and a sense of entitlement should have their SM shut down because a lot of the time it’s blatant - as we know, Jack’s niche is carefully wording things to make it look like she’s not grifting when she really is, and for reasons that aren’t obvious to me, she has a scarily big following for the rubbish she offers. I’m just glad there wasn’t social media when I was in my 20s
 
Just reading the first paragraph of the Grazia piece. Wow, apparently it's awful to think influencers are tit...

She sets up a strawman argument as well (being critical of the tit some influencers pull off apparently is the same as condoning hurling abuse at them).

Having said that, I'm only here for the BS from Jack Monroe and the people here are fun. I don't know about any other threads. I don't care about life-style influencers trying to sell me some sponsored make-up pallet or throw for my sofa, so I don't follow any. I've never seen the appeal in that, but I know many do. (Also, being an influencer would be my worst nightmare, I would hate having to bleep or my private life for money like that, monetize the things that are just fun or for my own enjoyment. Really can't see the appeal)

I don't agree with abuse directed at people in their face, in their comments or in DMs. That's horrible whether you are a musician, politician, scientist, influencer or whatever. But what the writer does is conflating targeted abuse with people calling bullshit on some of the nonsense some influencers peddle.

She also argues:"Or perhaps everyone that uses Tattle should live by the same contract of transparency and ‘fair game’ that they expect from influencers and use their real names, addresses and photos if they want to use the site"

Well I'm not online rattling my tip jar, dropping hints of being poor and ill while splashing out on sideboards, or lying about 20hr works days so people get a pity Patreon subscription.

Overall, it's a strange piece that starts with someone moping about a dating profile from a man who didn't like influencers, then generalising criticism on influencers as if it's just like shooting abuse at someone, and ends again with moping about that dating profile.
 
Legionnairess said:
It wasn’t by Hattie Gladwell, my apologies. Was by another writer.
Click to expand...

Speaking of Hattie Gladwell - I wonder what’s happening with HER wonderful (and overdue) book that she crowdfunded over fifteen grand for, via Unbound? I know she turned up here a while back - so she either reads or has a Google alert on her name. ‘Edits’ seem to have been happening for a very long time! Publication is still TBA. And she set up Breakdown in the meantime. I have said it before, but it’s worth repeating - internet funding for anything, be it GoFundMe, Patreon or any other, is a bleeping scam on par with pyramid schemes and MLM. Tattle has done me a massive favour in ensuring I never give to these again.

Influencers and folk that monetise sympathy for their ‘battles’ belong in the same boat, for me. In fact, if you are ‘selling’ help, support and guidance for people that may well be struggling financially, as well as physically and mentally, well - it is worse, in my opinion, than selling tit make-up with photoshopped pictures.
 
What also grated my mushrooms is that the writer completely ignores the (pile-on) power these influencers have.

Criticism is anonymous because those darling influencers will send their flying monkeys after you if you dare to criticize.

And if you want to talk about accountability, there's a few essays to write about how pound shop Gwyneth Paltrows play a role in spreading false information about vaccinations and viruses. So much irresponsible behaviour during the biggest health crisis of our time.
 
When I was working I was a Patreon subscriber to I podcast I loved. The host put so much in to the show and offered bonus content for patrons. It was one dollar a month ( a wee bit extra after converting AUD to Canadian). I felt it was the least I could do as thanks to him for the entertainment I received in return. That's the difference, I was paying for extra shows, not a big fat load of nothing with a heap of half-crazed tweets about shite.
 
bladiesla said:
But what the writer does is conflating targeted abuse with people calling bullshit on some of the nonsense some influencers peddle.
Click to expand...

Quoting myself, sorry, but this is really why it's an annoying piece. If that writer would be honest (funnily enough she is calling for transparency herself, haha) she would have been brave to enough to point out that some influencers are scammy.

Instead by diving straight to the online abuse phenomenon (which indeed is awful, and has been awful for ages and was awful in pre-internet times in the tabloids) she conveniently ignores why so many people are annoyed by scammy influencers. Just call it 'jealousy', and you can pat yourself on the back for writing a piece that says online abuse is bad (OMG, how insightful, I never thought calling someone a big fat cow on her Insta would be wrong...🙄).

It's similar to what Jack does when these is a discussion about poverty and inequality. Rather than looking into what the problem was with the free school meals and have an informed opinion it was all about 'no one should want kids to be hungry', being 'raging and shaking from anger' and wanting to pull some kind of big 'gotcha' regarding one of the suppliers. So much shouting, with little effect and not offering a direct solution.
 
Last edited:
Status
Thread locked. We start a new thread when they have over 1000 posts, click the blue button to see all threads for this topic and find the latest open thread.
Back
Top