Recent searches
Search options
Discussing the British Press, and I'm reminded of the time when I had a moderate amount of celebrity in the UK LGBT community, and the press tried to do a hit piece on me.
Now here's the thing. There's a cheat code, and I'm going to explain what it is:
They will contact you for comment.
If you say nothing, they will publish the piece and say you were offered the chance to comment.
If you tell them to fuck off, they will publish the price and say your response was foul and unprintable.
I did neither of these things. I told them that this piece wasn't journalism. It was ridiculous tittle tattle and represented everything that was wrong with a failing and dying industry more obsessed with clickbait than proper reporting. I asked them if they didn't have proper news to report, and said that they should be ashamed of themselves.
They're basically screwed at that point. "We contacted Ms Brown for comment and she said that this was ridiculous tittle tattle and that the reporter should be ashamed of herself."
They're not gonna say that.
I'm struck by something one of my history teachers once said about medieval castles. They weren't meant to be impregnable. They were meant to be annoying enough that an invading army would decide to investigate other priorities instead.
The piece never ran.
If you're a trans person in the crosshairs of the British press, make yourself an annoying target. They're on a deadline, and if you make them conclude that life is too short, they will leave you the fuck alone.
@goatsarah similar tip from doing press office stuff for the Vagina Museum: we get the occasional fucking awful requests for comment on what's clearly going to be a hit piece about a post using gender neutral language. Always reply with something steering away, e.g. if it was sparked by ovarian cancer they'd get a reply to the effect of "ovarian cancer is very serious. Here's the symptoms, it's important to be aware" and they'd never print it because they never wanted to talk about the real
@stavvers @goatsarah are there any good guides on "here are the red flags that an article is going to be a hit piece"?
@http_error_418 @goatsarah honestly, if a journalist ever requests comment on something controversial, assume it's in terrible faith because it definitely will be
@stavvers @goatsarah ah, a -super- simple guide, the best kind.
@http_error_418 @stavvers @goatsarah and if they are asking in good faith, something like "ovarian cancer is very serious, here are the symptoms" will actually be helpful
So it's a win-win strategy
@http_error_418 @stavvers @goatsarah Also, you can check the reporter's and publication's histories. E.g., I have heartburn with the NYT's editorial choices, but their serious reporting remains superb, so I'd be willing to trust a serious-minded reporter like Jim Tankersley (or I'd call Jim and ask him for his confidential thoughts on the reporter/editor who had reached out). Ditto The Atlantic and Matt Seaton.
@msbellows @http_error_418 @stavvers @goatsarah then again, the NYT especially is notorious for bad-faith, outright un- and anti-scientific reporting on trans people and running hit pieces on doctors and the community.