Journal GMontag's Journal: The "Just Following Orders" Defense of Eve Fairbanks and TNR 5
Seems one of the other "dates", Harold C. Hutchison, was informed, no better than I was, that he was a subject in "Mr. Right" (free copy, free copy and another free copy) by Eve Fairbanks in The New Republic. However, he does not see it as a reporter problem; he puts all blame on the editors. Sounds to me like it is just a difference of opinion on how far culpability should extend. I find the editors AND the reporter at fault.
He also admits to a faulty memory, where I still remember my "date" vividly. I wish it were real, but my current feeling is that the "date" was an interview disguised as a date.
Additionally, I keep e-mail archives and was able to look back and confirm events and details. No, it is not perfect. There were several other things that I wanted to mention [hearing everybody sigh], but without an e-mail backup I did not feel comfortable doing that. I wanted to make a factual criticism and I think that I did. My treatment is FAR from an "every detail" account as the "date" lasted over one and one half hours. Harold does not mention if he kept e-mail.
As far as posting comments and responses, they are welcome here, but Harold thinks otherwise for his blog. Well, it is his blog and not mine, so you won't see me over there any more. He asked me nicely to leave and I have. (I posted as 'Shooter' over there) Comments can be made on the article at The New Republic, registeration required.
Harold also states that Eve is not over there to defend herself. Seems to be a choice on her part as I had no problem finding it and posting. She and her editors are free to post here as long as they behave. Yes, they were informed of this journal, and my other, several times. The people who really do not have an opportunity to "defend" themselves, or agree with the article for that matter, in the same place that the article appeared, are the subjects of the article who (understandably) do not have editors rights at The New Republic.
Class is in the mind of the thinker. But Harold's saying that "class" is something that I lack for criticizing what was said about me and for telling Harold that I had a different reaction than he did, plus what he said about a critique of another article just confuses me. (that run-on sentence confuses me too)
I did go back and re-word some of strong language in the previous entry (the fisking). It was not proper before and it is proper now. Also added even more truthful items that could have been used instead of 'hybrid'
Also note (see the fisking): the Outside reader mentioned in the 'hybrid' paragraph is that of a 33 year old woman who's profile was never browsed by anybody owning up to being a 22 year old frmale.
Again, my position is that it is unethical for reporters to go out pretending to be on a date and it is unethical to make up facts. This story could have been easily done without pretending to go out with me and others on dates just to get interviews, especially in my case pretending for almost a month with a first date and a followup. Point two, it would have been almost the exact same story with the correct details.
The actual details of the story make the same story, other than the age difference, which could have made a completly different story.
Some folks are saying that comparing Eve Fairbanks to Stephen Glass is unfair, because Fairbanks may have actually went out on three dates, where Glass never went to the events that he made up stories about. Sounds like a perfectly fine comparison to me as Ms. Fairbanks made up most of our "date" and might as well have cancelled that one at the last moment too. Perhaps this is a New Republic technique to avoid "the Glass Effect"? It is fine to make up stories as long as you meet sombody in-person that you make your stories up about?
So far, Ms. Fairbanks has two public accounts of the accuracy of her story, one from a guy who can not remember the details and one from me, who can and began writing about them as soon as I saw her story.
So, what thinks y'all about editors and reporters creating fake dates and then fabricating the facts to fit their story?
[sighs]
Restating the important points (from my experience only):
1. Failure to notify subjects of an article-for-publication that they were subjects for an article, i.e., misrepresenting the intent of the meeting.
2. Blatant false quoting.
3. Most minor, bending reality to create a more interesting story (worded by 'Erick' better than the way I was going to word it)
Note: my opinion, just because your date tells you her profession is 'reporter' does not give her license to print the accounts of a date without permission, or at least notification, accurate or not. I thought of an analogy involving a bill at the end, but will pass on printing it.
Well (Score:2)
To be honest, it's only barely kept me awake at night that she misrepresented the size of your shirt.
She wasn't looking for facts, she was looking for an environment to provide her with ideas and background for a story.
I don't think anyone would read it as a factual in-depth analysis into dating right-wingers.
It's a people interest story, not a research paper.
Re:Well (Score:2)
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
Re:Well (Score:2)
heh... this might go a long way to eliminating road rage incidents.
jason