MckMama Drama - Including the Fire - Merge

[The Archivist]

From afar...very, very afar...I have occasionally poked my head in to see what's happening on mwopblog.com

I never read mycharmingkids.net, but I understand that many of its readers had questions about the blogger's ethics and truthfulness, and there were some watchdog-like activities going on when they originally started mckmama without pity.

But...there have been blog hijacks and rehijacks, and apparently Cease & Desist letters and all manner of crazy shit leaking into people's offline lives, and I have to think - is the MWoP community an example of What Not to Do when it comes to blog criticism?

What struck me this evening on MWoP was this recent comment:

MetoproLOL

The problem is that it went too far. It was fine to out her when she was hiding major facts about herself and taking advantage of a sympathetic community, but it grew to a point of just feeding unrealistic hate. For some reason, it feels good for humans to hate, and to feel superior, and to feel part of a community that is built around "us" vs a demonized "them." It is, after all, how most wars are sustained. It's a primal lust, hate, but that doesn't make it alright.

Jennifer has made many errors, but in the last year or two most of them have been bumbling ones. And we here have had to reach further and further to grab fuel for the fire, acting as if letting your kids run around without a shirt or taking them along in an RV for a few weeks is actual child abuse. Not only is it unfair to the Mckinney family, but it minimizes real child abuse. Truly cruel people, thousands of whom really exist and do true and profound damage to their children. Jennifer isn't a truly cruel person. She's a person that has made naive and prideful mistakes in the public eye. And she's not a child abuser. She no longer hurts anyone in any real or intentional way.

We can all keep justifying what we do here, but the simple truth is that she's a human being like any of us, and nothing she does anymore warrants the extreme level of hate that boils here. I'm not "pro-Mckinnney" now, but I'm anti-this. What this has become. It's not right and all of us should feel guilty for forgetting to step back and keep all of this in perspective.

We need to take the amazing and strong community that was built here and change its focus to one that is more pure, more sustainable, that does actual good, and one that we won't look back on and regret for its cruelty years from now.

I can't help but agree, with what little I know of the MWoP drama. Obviously, I think criticism has its place, but there also seems to be a point at which it becomes...over the top?

What do you all think about the appropriate role of watchdog/criticism sites that focus on bloggers? If you blog elsewhere, have you taken serious heat over it and how did you respond?

Very curious what all the varied citizens of FJ think about this.

[luckylibrarian]

What is the story behind mckmama? One of my fundie-lite FB friends is friends with her, and I've always wondered who she is.

[The Archivist]

Very long story, but from what little I understand she (J. McKinney, aka mckmama) runs a very popular blog, and is somehow maybe a bit crunchy-Christian (not sure if she'd qualify as fundie-lite, but she homeschools and has lots of kids.)

Where the criticism came in, I believe, had something to do with a medical crisis her very young son had, and the posting of some questionable photographs mid-crisis, and other activities post-crisis that led people to think the situation had been grossly exaggerated and taken advantage of. I believe donations may have been solicited in his name, and she was gaining ad revenue from the increased traffic to her blog at this time.

Things went further with some investigation into her and her husband's financial status, supposed lies about tax problems, house foreclosures, etc. etc. etc., which did turn up some inconsistencies in her writing about her life. Other speculation/criticism surrounded the unusual number of medical crises the family seems to have.

Either way, a criticism community sprang up around this particular blogger, based primarily on readers who felt that something was fishy or that they'd been outright misled by the blogger. But it seems to have progressed far, far beyond that now, into blog posts speculating on the strangest minute details of her blog and life, and with very strange drama and mudslinging between the community members themselves.

[SunnyAndrsn]

What is the story behind mckmama? One of my fundie-lite FB friends is friends with her, and I've always wondered who she is.

She was just another mommy blogger, who while pregnant with her third child, had complications. Baby Stellan was not supposed to live, due to a heart condition known as superventricular tachycardia. He ended up being born healthy, but then at about 4 months of age, the SVT came back. Multiple hospitalizations, monitoring, and a now-infamous photo of her child supposedly flatlining, and eventually a procedure in Boston that resulted in his cure followed.

During that time, she had an outpouring of support that included financial donations. Later people who sent her Target gift cards questioned what she used the stuff for, since she was posting about redecorating kids bedrooms, etc. There was also a a fundraiser of sorts that involved orange bracelets that said praying for Stellan. Fans paid but never received their bracelets.

She sold herself as a crunchy granola cloth diapering, babywearing, attachment parenting type. Critics say she's left her children way too many times (including leaving a breastfeeding infant for several weeks at a time for a trip to Africa), feeds her kid a lot of junk food (McDonalds, Chipotle, etc), and has shown way too many pics of her kids in disposable diapers to be what she claims.

There were numerous inconsistencies about her relationship (spouse was arrested for domestic abuse while she was pregnant with Stellan), bad marriage advice, and financial irresponsibility. They are fundie-lite in beliefs. The homeschooling came later, as their oldest is about 6.

I for one am pretty much over the mommy blogger world, but the thing that bugs me about MckMama is how crappy she treats her fans. There is a lot more, but that's the short version that I'm aware of at this point.

[Beeks]

Yeah....I followed MckMama while she was pregnant with Stellan until he was "healed." I use to like her but it quickly became clear that she was full of herself and her loooooong, ridiculous political and religious posts just got hugely annoying. I used to follow MWOP but they are even crazier than she is now. That quote hits it dead on - the MWOP community has turned vicious, and frankly INSANE - I popped over and read some of their conspiracy theories about the pregnant cat. After reading for about 5 minutes and figuring out that they were SERIOUS, I just shook my head and left.

MWOP has become like a caricature of itself.

[haveapicniclife]

Funny this topic came up. I hadn't been to the blog in several weeks but I stopped there today and read that she has most likely foreclosed on her 3rd house in a row. Not that I'm surprised, it's typical of her. I was kind of surprised to see the mods are stepping down and that MWOP will be changing hands again.

Beeks, ITA. It's like a caricature of itself now. The first anonymous MWOP did a pretty decent job, but it's all gone downhill from there. Ordering copies of public records to prove a point is a little over the top. I still think Mckmama is a POS though.

[synchroswimr]

I wanted to like MWOP, but after reading for a few days several weeks ago, I gave up. I agree with Beeks - they caricature themselves.

[dcmhejbl62]

MckMama is a piece of work, and at this point MWOP has played right into her hands. I think they did some good stuff at the beginning, exposing her lies and fraudulent activity, but she likes money more than anything and the constant drama brings in the cash.

What's sad is few at MWOP ever seem to recognize this. I guarantee her eye is never off the site meter, and at regular intervals she drops little lies or half-truths or makes some outrageous statement just to get the fans and naysayers catfighting over her and bring in da clicks. Their work is done; anything they "catch" now was created by her on purpose and keeps the money flowing in. The only thing that will bring her down is lack of attention, and unfortunately there are enough dim-witted fans for her to scheme out of cash to last til her kids go to college.

[CanadianMom]

Crazy! I remember posting on sheknows when I had my first (of two) 8 years ago. There were some crazies back then. There was this one mother who had several sets of twins (there was even a discovery special on her at one point), and she was always hawking out her family. Her kids with her first husband were biracial and then she married a much older man and had more kids. She would have photos of the kids and separate them into "ebony" and "ivory". Gross!

[deborahlynn1979]

I've been following this little drama for something like two years now, through all the various MWOP incarnations, although I never post. It's endlessly hilarious. There are anti-MWOP sites now and someone posted this little gem on it, which encapsulates the entire situation:

This whole thing is so hilarious. It's like 4chan for bored soccer moms.

[keeks21]

I've been following this little drama for something like two years now, through all the various MWOP incarnations, although I never post. It's endlessly hilarious. There are anti-MWOP sites now and someone posted this little gem on it, which encapsulates the entire situation:

That's perfect.

[Burris]

But...there have been blog hijacks and rehijacks, and apparently Cease & Desist letters and all manner of crazy shit leaking into people's offline lives, and I have to think - is the MWoP community an example of What Not to Do when it comes to blog criticism?

I think FJ more closely resembles FSTDT than it does MWoP. (MWoP existed to snark on one individual - and this, for reasons that quickly devolved to the personal. That alone was enough to sink it.)

I don't really see much in common between here and a couple of snark sites that either imploded or were moderated out of existence.

[leena_noor]

mckmama is one of the most boring blogs I've ever come across! I'm not sure who else agrees with this, but after some of her 'brain dumps' I just stopped having any interest. Her pictures are somewhat good, her kids are somewhat cute but aside from the insanity surrounding Stellen, there was nothing special enough about this blog to keep reading. I'm not sure how sketchy she is as a person, but like many bloggers I'm pretty sure she portrays parenting as a much 'prettier' and 'cleaner' picture than it really is.

I read MWOP awhile back, and I was stuck with how much time these people have to dig up unnecessary dirt on someone they hate. It seemed pointless to me....anyone else?

[The Archivist]

I think FJ more closely resembles FSTDT than it does MWoP. (MWoP existed to snark on one individual - and this, for reasons that quickly devolved to the personal. That alone was enough to sink it.)

I don't really see much in common between here and a couple of snark sites that either imploded or were moderated out of existence.

I agree. I think that's what makes FJ better - it focuses more broadly on Issues rather than a single individual, and general criticism of lots of different blogs that bring up those Issues.

I just think it's an interesting case study, in general, of how online criticism can work or not work. And I've BEEN involved in snark blogs that primarily target one person, and I've seen some similar trends -- at some point, it seems to jump the shark into bizarre irrelevancy and just go. too. far.

I would imagine some other FJers may have been similarly involved with other blogs like that, since it's sort of a cousin to what we do here. And I'm kind of wondering to myself at what point does criticism cross the line? For example, I think the calling of CPS on that Emma woman with the sketchy adoption story was totally relevant. It was simply tipping off an authority that would likely be interested in the case and would look into it using the proper channels.

Some things I have seen, however, include actually getting involved on a more personal level with a targeted blogger's offline life - calling their church, spreading rumors in their community, driving by to see their house, getting in touch with family members uninvolved in original drama, etc. That stuff strikes me as below the belt and even a bit freaky in its intensity and inappropriately invasive.

I read MWOP awhile back, and I was stuck with how much time these people have to dig up unnecessary dirt on someone they hate. It seemed pointless to me....anyone else?

Totally agreed. That's what disturbs me about it, and about snark blogs targeting a single individual. There is the potential to do good, certainly, but it seems like a lot of them devolve into this kind of obsessiveness and hopelessly biased, irrelevant personal criticism. I've been guilty of this myself, and it makes me think hard about it, and my role in it.

[Soldier of the One]

This is a really good thread. I am hesitant to reply because I am new here and don't want to poop on the rug (even though I don't have a fundie bone in my body).

But yes, I think snark can be taken too far. And it is unfortunate what has happened to that blog.

I came to FJ for the laughs and stayed for the discussions. I think the discussions on the deeper issues are really important and valuable and help us all raise our consciousness about the role of politics and religion in our world. I don't feel an inclination to snark on individual bloggers. Snarking on VF and similar institutions is more edgy social criticism than anything else. Just my two cents :)

[Austin]

I read MWOP awhile back, and I was stuck with how much time these people have to dig up unnecessary dirt on someone they hate. It seemed pointless to me....anyone else?

Well, yes and no. We have many good "investigators" here at FJ, and when we become concerned about a situation, such as some patriarchy family marrying their daughter off to a pedophile, we tend to find out that information. And if we think the young woman's family should know, we may even forward that info. Anything that is a matter of public record or is out there on the webz will be found by one FJer or another.

However, I think the difference is that we do not set out to do this because we "hate" a specific person and live for nothing more than to bring about their downfall. Much of the time, personally speaking, I have never even heard of a lot of these people.

When that issue passes, we move on to another topic. We have frequent flyers like Zsu-Zsu, the McDonald woman, the two Kellys, Emily at one point, etc., but I'm not here to ruin their lives. I'm here because 1) I enjoy the community and the snark, and 2) I am tired of these people ruining other people's lives, especially those of innocent children.

Among other reasons :D

[The Archivist]

Well, yes and no. We have many good "investigators" here at FJ, and when we become concerned about a situation, such as some patriarchy family marrying their daughter off to a pedophile, we tend to find out that information. And if we think the young woman's family should know, we may even forward that info. Anything that is a matter of public record or is out there on the webz will be found by one FJer or another.

I think this is a fair point. That's why I'm having such a struggle figuring out where The Line is, for myself. I think, for example, that turning up the McK's foreclosures or tax debt is kind of pointless. Yes, they airbrushed these things when writing about their lives, but they also weren't running a financial advice website. If I found out, for example, that the guy who writes Get Rich Slowly were in foreclosure and had current tax debts that he'd lied about or whitewashed, THAT would seem relevant to me to dig up.

Anything that is a matter of public record or is out there on the webz will be found by one FJer or another.

I think I also struggle with this, however. Certainly, we have the RIGHT to discover and publish anything that is a matter of public record, but SHOULD we always just because we CAN? In certain situations, it is definitely appropriate. In others, though, I think it is totally unethical, even though perfectly legal.

We all have public records, and I would bet a good number of us have things in those records we may not be proud of. Even an employer doing due diligence on a job candidate wouldn't go as far as some of these blogs have gone to dig up public records, and they have a vested interest in doing so. People can have their reputations tarnished unfairly by the propagation of technically public info that wouldn't, in usual and relevant circumstances, be widely published or easily available. This this has the potential to hinder their ability to find employment or housing or be accepted into educational institutions and whatnot - which, to me, seems quite potentially damaging to their family and any children they care for. Moreso than, for example, hauling those same kids around on an poorly-planned RV trip with genuinely caring parents.

[Austin]

I think this is a fair point. That's why I'm having such a struggle figuring out where The Line is, for myself. I think, for example, that turning up the McK's foreclosures or tax debt is kind of pointless. Yes, they airbrushed these things when writing about their lives, but they also weren't running a financial advice website. If I found out, for example, that the guy who writes Get Rich Slowly were in foreclosure and had current tax debts that he'd lied about or whitewashed, THAT would seem relevant to me to dig up.

Yes, I see your point. I think one other minor point may be that many/most of the people we snark on here at FJ are moralists of some sort or another. They believe they are holy and moral and they want to tell everyone else how they're so much more superior and how everyone else who isn't just like them are totally lacking in morality. So they make morality an issue.

So because of that, if someone then comes across a bit of information where this person cheated on their taxes, for instance, since they've made morality the issue, I think it's fair to impeach them on it.

[haveapicniclife]

Crazy! I remember posting on sheknows when I had my first (of two) 8 years ago. There were some crazies back then. There was this one mother who had several sets of twins (there was even a discovery special on her at one point), and she was always hawking out her family. Her kids with her first husband were biracial and then she married a much older man and had more kids. She would have photos of the kids and separate them into "ebony" and "ivory". Gross!

I do remember her! I was on the expecting boards/new mom boards in 2002. I wonder what ever happened to that family? I never saw any pictures like you described, but I do remember she had a blog or some type of website.

[Angri-la]

I am no fan of the crazy manipulative stylings of JM, however, agreed, MWoP ended up jumping a shark that had another shark in its belly. I wish I could say I never visited the site, but I did for awhile. I never did post, as they never seemed terribly welcoming to newcomers, and before I could work up a username I'd want public, they became a snake eating its own tail.

[formergothardite]

I think this is a fair point. That's why I'm having such a struggle figuring out where The Line is, for myself. I think, for example, that turning up the McK's foreclosures or tax debt is kind of pointless. Yes, they airbrushed these things when writing about their lives, but they also weren't running a financial advice website. If I found out, for example, that the guy who writes Get Rich Slowly were in foreclosure and had current tax debts that he'd lied about or whitewashed, THAT would seem relevant to me to dig up.

I think I also struggle with this, however. Certainly, we have the RIGHT to discover and publish anything that is a matter of public record, but SHOULD we always just because we CAN? In certain situations, it is definitely appropriate. In others, though, I think it is totally unethical, even though perfectly legal.

We all have public records, and I would bet a good number of us have things in those records we may not be proud of. Even an employer doing due diligence on a job candidate wouldn't go as far as some of these blogs have gone to dig up public records, and they have a vested interest in doing so. People can have their reputations tarnished unfairly by the propagation of technically public info that wouldn't, in usual and relevant circumstances, be widely published or easily available. This this has the potential to hinder their ability to find employment or housing or be accepted into educational institutions and whatnot - which, to me, seems quite potentially damaging to their family and any children they care for. Moreso than, for example, hauling those same kids around on an poorly-planned RV trip with genuinely caring parents.

That is true, which is why if you don't want your public info splashed across the web you shouldn't start a controversial blog that reveals a ton of personal info. The only way people here can find out anything about anyone is if they first post personal info on their public blog.

[The Archivist]

That is true, which is why if you don't want your public info splashed across the web you shouldn't start a controversial blog that reveals a ton of personal info. The only way people here can find out anything about anyone is if they first post personal info on their public blog.

Good point. However, do you feel the same way about professional writers using their real names, for instance? Plenty of bloggers are more like journalists, and yes, writing on controversial things. They could write under a pseudonym, of course, but the convention of journalism, and even semi-professional blogging, is to use one's real name.

I can see digging up relevant info on a major journalist if there are questions about integrity, for instance, but what about a podunk local paper columnist or similar? I don't see this type of career as being much different from a blogger using their real name, and I would still have a problem with people developing a grudge and digging up old financials and other public records on them out of spite. There's an ethical question of privacy, and chilling effect, in my opinion.

Then again, I'm a bit of a fogey when it comes to digging up shit on actors and celebrities, just because they are highly visible and use their legal names. I think tabloids, for instance, take it too far. Could some actions on the part of snark sites be akin to tabloid reporting? I think so.

[formergothardite]

IMO, knowing that all your personal info is going to be out there for the world to see is something you need to take into account when using your real name to blog or write controversial things. If you can't handle it, don't do it. I don't think we need to stand outside people's home snapping pics of their children, but if it is easily and publically available on-line, then I don't have a problem with it. Revealing things that are not public record I would have a problem with.

[Austin]

Good point. However, do you feel the same way about professional writers using their real names, for instance? Plenty of bloggers are more like journalists, and yes, writing on controversial things. They could write under a pseudonym, of course, but the convention of journalism, and even semi-professional blogging, is to use one's real name.

I can see digging up relevant info on a major journalist if there are questions about integrity, for instance, but what about a podunk local paper columnist or similar? I don't see this type of career as being much different from a blogger using their real name, and I would still have a problem with people developing a grudge and digging up old financials and other public records on them out of spite. There's an ethical question of privacy, and chilling effect, in my opinion.

Then again, I'm a bit of a fogey when it comes to digging up shit on actors and celebrities, just because they are highly visible and use their legal names. I think tabloids, for instance, take it too far. Could some actions on the part of snark sites be akin to tabloid reporting? I think so.

If there is hypocrisy by a professional writer, I'm not sure how that is different than hypocrisy by a blogger. If Bill Bennett, a well-known religious right author on ethics, would market a book on the horrible immorality of gambling, for instance, and it was later discovered that he himself blew $8M at the casinos, then yes, that should come out. If someone writes a weight-loss book based upon their own success and then it's discovered they actually had gastric bypass surgery, the readers of their book should know that.

These people who set themselves up as credible need to actually be credible. The world wide web is not a personal diary. I realize that many of these bloggers are shocked to discover this, but it can't be said enough. If you are going to talk the talk in front of the world, then you need to be prepared to walk the walk in front of the world.

And I would like to think that my local podunk journalist has as much integrity (or more - lol) than a major journalist. We would, to the extent that it is reasonable, like to be able to believe that what we read in our local newspapers is as much of a fact as what's reported on The ABC Evening News. If there is evidence out there that this journalist is on somebody's payroll that they shouldn't be, or whatever else would damage their credibility as a journalist, I think people have a right to know that. They can then read that journalist's columns (or not) and make up their own minds. Do I think it matters if this journalist was seen leaving a strip club? No, not to me, unless he has editorialized on the issue, but that's just my personal sensibility.

Most of the bloggers that we discuss have an agenda. They have made it their life's mission to convince others that they need to live life exactly as they've prescribed, or else they're a terrible Christian/Jew/Catholic/Parent/Child or whatever else. Do we sometimes snark on somebody who posts a photo of herself in a particularly heinous dress or other more shallow considerations? Yes, of course. That's the price people pay for putting their lives out there.

But I think it's important to remember that they are getting something out of it, whether it's personal satisfaction, to be able to have a voice, showcase their culinary skills, or other more nefarious goals such as to feed their narcissism or bully people. If they weren't getting something out of it, they wouldn't be doing it. No one forces anybody to put anything on the internet.

I personally would find it incredibly boring to rag on one person over and over, so I checked out MWoP once for about two minutes once and my short attentio span kicked in. I also find that it's just unseemly to beat a dead horse, or even kick someone when they're down. That's not my judgment about what's going on with MWoP, but I just don't think that MWoP is particularly relevant or comparable to FJ. JMO.

edited b/c I can't spell today

[The Archivist]

I think you're totally right about hypocrisy. I didn't phrase my point well with the podunk columnist - what I meant was digging up things not relevant to the person's reporting just because their name is out there in a public place, and maybe has said some things that piss other people off. For example, if a columnist (or blogger) writes about their opinion on politics, and people understandably disagree or think the writer is a nasty so-and-so, saying mean things about politicians they like, then go off and dig up shit on, say, the writer's old divorce or their custody battle for their kids, etc. Something not exactly relevant to what they write about, simply because they are technically a public figure, and those documents are technically in the public domain. That's what I'm wondering about.

Exposing hypocrisy and lack of integrity for any journalist, large or small, I think is totally legit. But digging up financials on a mommy blogger who writes about her personal family life? Ehhh, not so sure about that, no matter how legal it may be.