Zooey Deschanel recently had her words twisted by a reporter to portray her in a negative light
This is just a short and sweet lesson in Internets "Journalism," kiddies.
To get a perspective on how everything I'm going to talk about operates in the larger world outside your window, read this piece about the recent smackdown Zooey Deschanel gave reporter Patt Morrison over her being misquoted and defamed in Morrison's column. Notice that even when corrected, Morrison still leaves the original imflammatory post up, posting a half-hearted follow-up as some sort of non-mea culpa.
Now, this is how a so-called impartial investigation into yours truly gets resolved by a "reporter" with a documented history of harassing me online. When someone goes on the comments section of her site to dispute the claims of her and her "eyewitness" -- citing his own eyewitness evidence -- she emails him for his side of the story. But when his information doesn't match her narrative, she lies on her site that he never responded to her:
However, he DID respond to her questions...because I have the forwarded email right here, reproduced below. That means that this blogger, posing as a serious reporter who only cares about bringing the truth to light, is apparently a liar. Johanna Draper Carlson lied on her blog about investigative "evidence."
From: Richard last name redacted email redacted***
Date: Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 15:59
Subject: Re: Friends of Lulu discussion
To: Johanna Draper Carlson email redacted
Many of Kynn's statements are outright false, but short of forwarding email chains involving all parties I see no reason to deny his/her current and curious stab at attention.
I am also aware that you yourself and Valerie have quite a bit of history that seems to have nothing to do with FoL. That is between the two of you and nobody else. Regardless, the article is painfully obvious at trying to pin some imaginary blame on Val. If your concern for the charity matched your seething hatred for her, then what stopped you from picking up the mantle of president? This is kicking a dead horse, Johanna. Everyone knows the group ended last year, after pleading and pleading for assistance. If it wasn't for her efforts at guiding the group into some degree of closure then the entire organization would've been M.I.A. well over a year ago. She did not bail early. She announced her resignation for the end of that year, and as the fellow board members were all too incommunicado to so much as return calls or texts or email, she recruited the help needed to see through to the end of 2010. And we did it, despite efforts by you and certain others to muddy the tracks, creating sensationalist melodrama where none existed. Your innuendoes accomplish nothing positive. You attack the wrong people.
I tried to steer the comments into a direction of clarity, but I am unwilling to participate any longer.
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 07:58, Johanna Draper Carlson email redacted wrote:
Given your comments in the thread at my site, I was wondering if you'd care to provide your answers to the same questions I asked Kynn for a followup piece. Here they are, and thank you in advance for your help.
Q: So what happened?
Q: Do you have any of the group's records, or know where additional records are? What will happen to them? (Rephrased given additional information.)
Q: What do you think could have been done differently?
Q: Is there still a need for a “women in comics” organization?
What is the lesson we learn from this minor blip on the minor blip on the minor blip of a news item in the far corners of the journalism galaxy?
It is extremely easy to use selective information to libel somebody on the Internets. It's your blog. You control everything. You can say you're a journalist, but you truly have no oversight. You can create a whole narrative from scratch, with no back-up, with pure hearsay. You can easily wrangle a person or two to help destroy someone's reputation, if you need to. It's very very simple. And when elements come into play that contradict your story? Well, you ignore them.
So say I didn't like you. And I wanted to really ruin you. I could create a scandal on the Internet about you out of nothing. I could even make up a narrative that, say, you're a homophobe, or a thief, or a racist, or a sexist. I could do that easily, with no proof necessary. Or I can even just cut-up little bits and quotes you've made and twist them hopelessly out of context. I mean, who has time to read whole text, anyway? I've made it easy for my readers by just "just getting to the good stuff."
I could even populate my comments section and message boards with fake accounts backing up my story. But I wouldn't even need to get fake accounts -- I could simply use triggering words, incendiary language, to stir up a lynch mob instantaneously. And now people are after you; I can even send them to your site to fill your comments section with attacks and threats. And now, whenever people do Google searches on your name, you are connected with scandal -- even if you force me through a cease and desist to put in a piddly little retraction.
Best of all? I can then demand to have a public dialogue *with you* -- demand that you speak to me personally about the scandal I have created. And if you refuse, because you think I'm not a legitimate news source -- I can point to that as further proof of your assumed guilt.
As you can imagine, a lot about this scenario is not about actual journalism at all -- it's a question of asserting power.
It's been questioned why I took my original site offline. Part of that is because I decided I did not want writing that was personal and emotional in nature being construed as actual journalism -- which, in some circles, it was. It was because, after years of reflection, I did not want to see people hurt -- regardless as to how I might disagree with some of them. I evolved as a human being. But some people never do.
At any rate, if you have half-a-brain in your head, some degree of success, and a pocketful of opinions -- you're probably going to be targeted by someone at some point in the manner I have just described. Here is my best advice:
1) Really accept that this is likely to happen at least once to you, and run through your head how you might deal with that. Don't wait until you're clobbered over the head with it. Accept that this is part of life on the Internets -- not that it's right, but that it's very easy for a person to do to you at any time.
2) The types of persons who do this sort of stuff really thrive off of your attention. I have to accept that even writing this now, catching this "reporter" in a lie, she on some level is thrilled that she's getting the attention. It's all about keeping the dialogue going. I'll write this, she'll go write something else that's 10x more extreme and then hope that the dialogue continues. At some point, you need to grit your teeth and shut the dialogue down -- even if that means enduring another day or days or weeks of one-sided attacks.
3) You know that saying, don't negotiate with terrorists? Extend that metaphor to this situation.
4) There's a certain point where things turn into libel. Educate yourself as to what is libelous on the Internet, and what can be prosecuted by law. Admittedly, it's hard to do -- but more and more cases are arriving in the courts, and the laws are evolving (albeit slowly) to protect you.
5) DON'T LINK BACK TO THE BLOGGER. It's like putting money in their hands through increased hits and ad revenue -- which is largely why they pull this sort of stuff in the first place.
6) In the end, realize -- especially in regards to "niche" media -- that all this does not matter in the end. You should stand up for yourself when appropriate -- but in the end, you have your family and circle of friends. Your circle of friends does not include all of the Internets -- though certainly Facebook, message boards, Twitter etc. can give you that illusion. You have a core of family and friends who love you and look out after you. If you keep focusing on them, you can weather the worst of any storm.
So that's it.
And thank you, Richard.
Postscript: while you will see plenty of play online for repeating scandalous claims with little backing and/or one fabricated out of thin air, you'll rarely see the opposite -- sites interested in running the retractions or correcting the truth. Regardless, the "reporter" -- such as Patt Morrison -- will win in the end as long as the item is discussed, regardless of those who take issue with her questionable reporting style. She or he might even be encouraged to continue such types of dubious journalism or vicious opinion pieces noting increased traffic to the site in question. A good deal of media is run in this fashion.
Rise above.
