Thanks to everyone who took the time to comment or post about, or even email me to show their support over the article that appeared in the Daily Mail last week claiming I set up this blog for "e-venge". Whilst I am still angry with the Daily Mail about what I feel is a very personal and public attack on my character, my issue with the Daily Mail represents the wider issue of how bloggers are perceived and treated by 'traditional media' and whether 'facts' actually enter the equation in certain newspapers.
Recently Zoe (Girl With a One Track Mind) blogged about plagarism from bloggers over at The Guardian and in particular mentioned Jonny B, who found his posts in the Mail on Sunday without his permission. He subsequently invoiced them but after agreeing to pay him, they actually had the cheek to refer to bloggers as "amateur writers" and claim "most people are happy to have their work recognised and displayed to a wider audience."
It seems shocking that a paper that's been more than around the block a bit would be so unaware of copyright laws but...the Daily Mail writes...for the Daily Mail. They have a Make-It-Up-As-You-Go-Along policy.
Which is why I shouldn't really have been that surprised by Laura Topham's hatchet job of me. When I phoned her on Wednesday reeling from the article and the scurrilous comments left by some of their readers, Laura denied that the paper had said that I took revenge online. Really?
"Natalie, like a growing number of other betrayed and deceived women, decided to take her revenge online."
I angrily read out several of the ridiculous untruths that had been published about me and her response was to tell me that it was "tongue in cheek...It's empowering..." and then in an attempt to sidestep the issue at hand she said "I can't believe they forgot to put in a link to your site and the ebook... I think readers would really love it...." and continued to repeat this musing aloud for the remainder of the conversation.
Can't you believe it Laura? I find that hard to believe considering that a link to any of my blogs would have made the Daily Mail look like they employ "amateur writers"... Unfortunately she didn't count on hundreds of their readers searching for "Natalie Lue blog" every day and finding out for themselves.
I wonder if they were confused by finding various snippets from aspects of my life, a blog full of women asking for relationship advice, or the latest hot off the shelves baby and mummy products?
So not only do the Daily Mail seem to have an aversion to dealing with the facts that are given to them about a story, but they will actually deny the printing of their own 'facts', and then in the face of confrontation, chalk it up to "tongue in cheek".
Who gets to decide what is tongue in cheek? Is it me, the person lined up with two other women under a headline about "e-venge", even though I said that I hadn't and would never take revenge and repeatedly stated that I didn't want to be in a revenge article?
Is it the reader, who judging by the comments that were placed before the Daily Mail halted publication of them, didn't see it as "tongue in cheek" and some of them were quite nasty?
Or is it the Daily Mail newspaper?
But then, if you're going to refer to my article as "tongue in cheek" should people who read glaring, sensationalist, often offensive headlines on the front of the Daily Mail, never mind inside it, then perceive all editorial in the Daily Mail as "tongue in cheek"?
Should Daily Mail readers buy it to find out the "tongue in cheek" humourous side of their sharp stance on immigration, the scaremongering stories about health issues, or their reporting about various murders? Maybe after they've finished reading it, they should then buy a proper paper to find out the facts...
Where do you draw the line? How do you determine which editorial will be factual and which will be a made up story, suitable for one of those 'real life' magazines?
Is providing "tongue in cheek" content the Daily Mail's editorial policy?
"Can you believe a thing you see on ITV?" Fridays front page roared. Well, based on their recent form, I think the bigger question is Can You Believe a Thing You See in the Daily Mail?
The Daily Mail thinks that they are in the driving seat here.
They write their stories to suit their own agenda, shouting their twisted views, shaping their readers opinion on it, allowing readers to jump all over the bandwagon and comment about it, and then when confronted, claim it's "tongue in cheek".
They take content without permission from bloggers and when confronted refer to them as "amateur writers" as if a blogger should be grateful for their work to appear in their paper...without their permission...
What if Jonny B had his own editorial policy which said that he only wanted to appear in certain media outlets and that he didn't want his work in there? What if they'd asked his permission and he'd said no? Well I guess they'd have gone ahead and published anyway because his view doesn't matter.
In fact, nobody's views but the Daily Mail's matter because from the moment that you build an editorial policy around spoonfeeding to an audience of people who clearly don't know the difference between fact and "tongue in cheek" works of fiction, the Daily Mail is doing a huge disservice to their readers.
Is there no story in facts? There are a lot of shitty, horrible, devastating, exciting, wonderful, REAL things that happen out there in the world - Why do we have to be subjected to works of fiction and embellishment?
I don't know what it was that governed the Daily Mail's decision to publish that tat full of 26 inaccuracies but it feels very targeted and personal and it leaves me with a couple of burning questions:
There are 3 people in the feature and they've made up a story about me. If I am to take the situation at face value: Why when you have two other people who have called up wives, used their exes email accounts and hacked into websites, would you lead the article with and consistently refer to, the one person who you've made up a story about?
Or is the whole thing a work of fabrications, embellishments, and omissions about all three of us?
Whatever the motivations are for the Daily Mail to show such a blatant disregard for the facts, a persons character and their family, and the work of bloggers, one thing is for sure - the only amateurs here are the Daily Mail.
Update 14th May
The Daily Mail have removed the article and sent me a letter...
Again thanks to all of those who have taken the time to blog their support (I'll continue to update the list) :
Dollymix - Cate Sevilla
It's About Making Babies - Brad K
Shimmering Thoughts - Serendipity
Black and Married with Kids - TheMom and TheDad
Cheekie Talkback
Rachel North
One Man Blogs - Gordon McLean
Bad Girls Guide - Vixen
40s Singleness - Lisa Q
Leyton.org
Feeling Listless
The Make - Thomas
Emchi
Morphological Confetti - Stephen Bess
The F Word - Contemporary UK Feminism
Never Mind the Bloggocks
License to Roam
Longrider
Slaminsky
Real E Fun
New York Moments
To Withdraw Myself from Myself - Jo
Monday, May 12, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
'tongue in cheek'! That is unbelievable! I looked up that journalist and there is a story about David Blunkett not agreeing to an interview... does lightening strike twice with the same journalist? With that kind of 'luck' she should do the lottery....
With this lack of integrity abounding it raises the question again of if you can't trust the newspapers to tell you the news, who will? It also gives a whole new meaning to newspapers making the news.
It's really pathetic that in order to try to compete with the "blogging culture," publications are resorting to blatant fabrications, shoddy fact checking and unrestrained sensationalism.
How about a boycott of the Daily Mail???
I'd be flamed for saying this if I didn't post anon but in the great words of Ali G "Is it coz I is black?" How exactly did the Daily Mail determine who to single out?
Sock it to them girl!
Does it have to be because she's black or because the Daily Mail have no scruples and she's just been a victim of their editorial 'policy'?
Natalie I don't think it's a 'black' issue but then what the hell do I know? I'd never read your blog till I came here to get the scandal of your revenge. But I would look at the wider picture of their treatment of you because I think you could have been any woman that had written it.
The article was about e-venge. I assume the writer tailored (i.e. lied to NML) her notes to make the story read better for her editor.
Not everyone is a friend, not every liar is male. Just guessing from the piece, I got the impression that Laura Topham considers herself professional - and is as unattached as any foster kid after too many moves. That is, she doesn't bond, she doesn't understand engaging with another emotionally. An alcoholic doesn't lie - they are unable to tell the truth. In a similar manner, I thing Ms. Topham likely sees no reason to worry about morals or offending people by abusing trust. Oops, that sounds a bit judgmental, huh? Anyway, while what she did was wrong to NML, I don't thinks Ms. Topham was actively trying to do evil. She is just unable to do good. I pity her.
Well, i'll never buy the Daily Mail again - but I think it's served to make your blog much more popular. However, it does appear to have stirred the stalker....
I think it's very sad that you have been involved in this debacle. I don't know if its a black thing but I know that the Daily Mail have been acused of institutional racism in the past. They don't like women or immigrants. I think they totally missed the point with you. You just do your thing and you don't go on about it and this is the last way in which you would want people to know about you. Most people who know you have no idea that you blog which makes the story of us all hanging off your every word about some 'e-venge' all the more odd. It'll all come out in the wash is what mum always says x
K
Think of it as a warped compliment. Tall poppies get hacked at by the mowers. Embrace your inner tall poppy-hood! Yep, darts is a freakish aberration of the 70s and "180!!" always reminds me of the scene in "Carrie" where she kills her mum.
HI NML. I am Faith. I am a friend and loyal reader of Stephen Bess', and I left this at his post and realized it shoud be here. I went back and read some of your posts, and MOST CERTAINLY they are NOT about hating your EX. They have nothing to do with him... it just in another sad example that we have to take EVERYTHING the media says, writes, types, blogs, etc. with a grain of salt and never at face value! Sorry you have to go through all that NML. I wonder if there is a supervisor or someone you could/should complain to, or even legal action. That is just straight defamination of your good name (and blog). At the very least I would write a letter of complaint and demand a letter of apology to be posted in the same paper by the same writer! But that is me, I do not mean to tell you what to do... Again, I am sorry you have to go through this :( But I will be back. I LOVE what I read of your blog when I went back and read some of your posts!
I just heard about this and I can't believe you didn't mention it when we spoke a few days ago! I guess you're probably sick of talking about it but OH.MY.GOD! I think its nuts that this is all happening and I hope you're all OK. 'tongue in cheek'! That wagon has no shame! After everything you've been through its an insult that they should write that rubbish. I also heard about you know who picking on you all weekend as a result. Screw them! Big up from all of us and much love from Dubs. Lisa x
Anytime, sis. Peace~
I read the piece and instantly knew it was all nonsense. Not once have I ever read about 'e-venge' on your blog. If writing about your ex qualifies as that, then most of us are guilty.
A few members of my family were written about in the Voice newspaper years and years ago, and the description I read of them were far removed from what I actually knew. So it's not just the Mail; a journalist from a niche black paper is just as likely to write BS as one from the Mail.
In any case, I'm a big fan of your writing. Good on you for calling them out!
Jan Power - I saw that David Blunkett story. Indeed lightening does seem to strike twice. I don't know who will. Each news outlet reports the news they want to and in how they see it. I'm all for analysis and commentary but I'd like for the very basis of stories to be...facts.
Anon - Is this a black thing? I guess it depends on how you look at it. I personally think that it's just the sh*tty way of handling subjects and their stories. Of course, if I were to ever discover that the other two people's stories were true, then I would have to wonder....
Pi - I'm socking, I'm socking! :-)
Liamliv - I do agree but I do want to know why I was used to lead the story in light of them knowing the tale was a load of horsesh*t. If I was her, I'd have gone down the safe route and chosen the other 2 who don't have evidence sitting up online....
Brad K - I think that this is a brilliantly eloquent assessment of her actions that removes what feels like a personal element and instead highlights a lack of intent to do good.
Saffyre - Yeah...thanks DM for making things go out of control with the stalker. Much appreciated ;)
K - Well hopefully it'll go on spin cycle. To be fair, the DM don't really like very much at all so I don't think it's down to me being black, or at least I hope frickin not! Good to hear from you xx
Lucyfishwife - Jaysus, Carrie used to scare the crap out of me as a kid. That and the one with the cornfields...Must look up that film. I love the poppy analogy x
Faith - Thanks for taking the time to come by and reiterate your support. I have done a letter to the editor and reported it to the Press Complaints Commission which so far has resulted in it being removed - I have updated the blog with the latest tale.
Lisa - Thanks hun yer big wagon yerself. Sure I forget who knows about this blog and I think I just got caught up in the madness. Catch up soon x
Stephen - I need to email you!
China Blue - Amen! In fact, might as well everyone who writes a personal blog be an e-venger! That's interesting what you say about The Voice and also a shame because the whole idea is to give a voice to the black population in the UK...not quell it. That said, I think that the issue is representative of old habits with traditional media and thinking that 'ordinary' people won't hit back because they aren't celebs. Well they'd better think again especially when they involve blogggers!
Thanks for your lovely comment and I must stop by your blog.
I totally support you :)
Post a Comment