Hi all. I am a bit distracted today because a reader from the UK (Hi there, Georgia!) let me know that an article came out in a magazine in England that I did an interview for months ago. I was wondering when it might be printed, if at all, to be honest. I was happy to hear it had been published and I was excited to get the chance to read it. HOWEVER, I was horrified when I saw the title of the article, "Oprah Nearly Ruined My Marriage." I was shocked. My mouth literally hung open. I never once said anything to the reporter (who was absolutely lovely when I spoke with her over the phone, incidentally) about this project putting my marriage in danger. I told her certain assignments put stress on us and Jim got irritated at some of the suggestions I followed, but to see such strong, negative and sensational language made me really upset. There are several sections of the article that dismayed me, actually.
Not too long ago, the reporter read me the article for approval and I told her that there were sections that I wanted changed because they simply weren't true. She very nicely agreed. Sadly, few of those instances were removed. For instance, it overstates my chronic pain (calling me bedridden at one point). I remember telling her this wasn't the case. And, to be honest, I try to underplay my scoliosis when I speak about it publicly. Because so many people have far more perilous physical conditions that they're fighting, I'd never say such a dramatic thing about my own back. Also, this is minor, but I never lie on my back in bed when I'm in pain - I lie on the floor. But, that's probably just mincing words and I'm a bit defensive now.
My husband's favorite part of the article is where I'm falsely quoted as saying, '...there were times when I wanted to shout, "Stuff you, Oprah!"' Um...I've never said 'stuff you' in my life, but now Jim and I have been giggling and trying to say it around the house. Since Americans don't actually say 'stuff you,' it sounds so awkward when we try. As you can tell, we're trying to find some humor in this. It's not everyday you read a headline that insinuates that your marriage almost ended due to a talk show host.
I don't want to fall into pettiness. What's done is done. I'm not going to break down the article word by word for you, but the overall tenor made it sound as if I feel negatively toward Oprah. Simply not true. After all, I chose to do this experiment. Oprah didn't force me into it. Do I appreciate all of Oprah's methods, behavior and advice?? Well, if you've read the blog, you know the answer to that. But does that mean I dislike Oprah? Nope. Does that mean I'd disparage her in the international media to sound hip and funny? No. I can sound hip and funny without resorting the mudslinging, thankyouverymuch.
I don't know - I guess this allows me to understand what Oprah and her celebrity guests (like the Olsen twins on today's show) go through when they feel they are misrepresented in the media. It's not something I was able to empathize with before. Now I get it. It's frustrating. It's disappointing. It makes me feel powerless. I also feel as if I don't really have any recourse. I'm small fries to such a big magazine. I'm also feeling a bit let down by the journalist who was so delightful to chat with and who really hit the nail on the head with certain aspects of the story. That's one of the most frustrating parts of this. I wish it wasn't necessary to make the piece more interesting by making me sound bitter.
I've been given the good advice to let this go and learn from the experience. Shake it off - like water off a duck's back. I shall try. My question is this: Should I be less trusting in the future? Or just think of this as a one-time instance? What do you think I should do? What would YOU do?
Thanks all! I hope you have a terrific weekend. Oh - and If you'd rather write comments about today's rerun, instead of joining my pity-party, please do! Your thoughts are always invited and appreciated.
xo
LO
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
30 comments:
Wow...that's beyond words. I'm really frustrated for you! Sadly, the British press is known for making things juicier than they really are. I'm sorry you're a victim of this. However, if the article references this blog, anyone can come over and read the truth. ::hugs::
Hello LO,
keep your sense of humor and keep on trusting - don't give them that part of you, just because they have been twisting the truth.
That's my 2 cents ;)
Take care, Mel.
Oh, LO, don't take this wrong, but that's the British tabs for you! Good thing you didn't tell them about the Kindle, I can only imagine it would have arrived in flaming dog poo or something, according to the article. You're lucky if she took *anything* out that you asked her to. Anyone who is used to the British press knows to take all with a big grain of salt. Anyone who is not and comes to your blog will be quickly set right.
I don't mean to make light of this--being misrepresented is no fun at all, and it's "out there" forever. It happened to me in a minor way in an article about my job once, and I remember getting so tired of explaining that it wasn't exactly as the reporter described it at all. So I do feel your pain, a bit, as it was annoying enough for one line, let alone a string of inaccuracies!
But, you are right, Oprah herself gets this All The Time and it's the price of being Out There. But now you know the right thing to do when the BritTabs call--say "Stuff you!" and hang up! At least you'll be accurately quoted!
Happy weekend.
Oh, yeah, the show. I LOVED the Zappos piece and, it worked on me, I totally want to shop there more now to support them!
Wow. I have never commented before (i don't even have a google/blogger identity) but I just have to write to say I am really so sorry that happened to you.
But yes, you should let it go. ASAP. Just a little bump in the road of LO.
And yes, I think you should be more cautious in the future with similar publications.
But don't let this experience haunt you in all future interviews. Just take note of what you have learned and move on!
People will write what they will write and think what they will think. Just be true to what you believe and everyone else can go 'stuff themselves'!
Anyone who has read your blog knows your "voice" and wouldn't be fooled by this silliness. Even Oprah's people know how evenhanded you are. If they didn't Oprah never would have made contact with you via the kindle. You will set everyone straight in your book.
I was wondering how you felt about "Living Oprah" in a year in which Oprah herself sort of admitted she wasn't walking her talk or living her best life. It seems like she is recomitted this year to so many aspects of her life, including her health. Is it strange to think that Oprah wasn't even following her own advoce, while you were busing in your LO bubble?
I had to laugh about the "stuff you". UK and Australian magazines always "translate" American dialect. So they claim that some American actress said she "just wants to see her mum" (hint: an American wants to see her mom, not her mum) or they replace certain phrases with more localised ones, etc.
They assume that their readership are too incredibly stupid, despite watching hours and hours of American movies and television, to figure it out if they use the American dialect.
And in this case, it appears that they just plain made up some stuff, in the bargin. Tabloids...
I will admit that we buy tabloid magazines (not British ones) and keep them in the room where the toilet is. They make appropriate reading there, and pretty much only there. I rather suspect that most people who read tabloids keep them for that purpose, plus they make good liners for the cat box when you've finished reading them. ;)
I would have fired off a strongly worded letter to the "editor" of that publication.
If you can't let it go, you are certainly within your rights to send a letter to the editor with the concerns you have. It might not make a difference or even get published but it is an option.
Too bad they didn't link you in a torrid affair with David Beckham.
LO - I'm sorry this happened. This actually happened to me, with a slightly more potentially-damaging outcome. 5 years ago, I wrote a play based on my one-time job as a phone sex operator. Jack Helbig from the Reader thought this was fascinating, and interviewed me for a story. (I also knew him personally, so I was very trusting). Long story short: the Reader pulled the story, but he got it picked up elsewhere, in a smaller Chicago publication. When the article came out, I was shocked to see that I was called a "sex worker" -- and my full name was used.
This was super upsetting for me, because at the time I was unemployed and applying for full time work. If you googled my name, the online version of that very article with "[my name] was once a sex worker" came up.
I had harsh words with the writer, a long discussion with the publisher and editor of said article. They agreed to change the verbiage on the website, but did nothing about the print version.
Oh, and I've also had members of the press attend one of my business seminars under one pretense, then print my most valuable info in a local magazine. (stuff I don't give away/say for free to reporters).
The second one I let go, but I wish I would've called the editor to say, "Your reporter told me X, and then printed Y, which is not cool."
Perhaps a thoughtful, businesslike letter to to the editor of the British magazine is in order? I'm a big fan of speaking up.
ps-not to mention that "sex worker" [ie, a prostitute] and "phone sex operator" are two different things. the definition of "sex worker" is easily found in the dictionary. just wanted to clear that up for anyone who thought the def'n of "sex worker" is loosey-goosey. it's not.
Don't trust magazines. I learned in my own life how biased newspapers and radio are. I'm sorry it happened to you.
I must agree with bonni. I spent six months in the UK last year and every time a magazine interviewed an American celeb, they had, in direct quotes, all kinds of phrases that Americans don't use. It was even more hilarious when the celeb was somebody like Jennifer Lopez, who not only would never use some of these phrases, she has a very distinct cadence in her voice that was completely ignored in the overwrite.
You could always write a letter to the editor with some mild corrections.
Yipes! I guess this is the sort of thing where you have to remember your own true self and tune out other people's misconceptions.
I'm also for writing a letter, or maybe your husband can write it verifying that your marriage was just fine throughout the process. Your letter might very well be ignored and have to impact on how the article is perceived, but at least you'll know that you defended yourself.
In the future you might want to ask if you will be allowed to see the article before it goes to print.
Perhaps it is best to stick with radio interviews. Although they can edit radio interviews also .
If this is the first time in the entire experience with LIVING OPRAH that this negative thing happened then perhaps this reporter was untrustworthy and you can try again with other magazines.
I would not respond to that particular publication because they could change the wording to your response and publish THAT!
Go stuff em! I agree with the writer that said we know your voice.
Maybe the article will bring some traffic to your blog - then the readers can see (er...read...) who you really are. That way they can choose to judge you based on the article or your own words. And really, as long as the people who are near and dear to you know the truth it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks, right?
I'm in ireland, i bought that magazine and read the article, i think you need to understand that in England, in the media eye, tragic storys and a putting a cult like appearance to a celebrity like Oprah is what sells.... its the only reason i googled your blog, otherwise, i, like many, would be oblivious to its existence.
Now someone living by Dr. Phill would be beyond hilarious...
Oh that´s awful and unfortunately to be totally expected. I hope you are able to get a letter to the editor fired off (by either you or your husband) at least to set things straight for the regular readers of the magazine.
Hi LO,
Sorry this happened to you. I understand how you feel. I have been in similar situations before... maybe not on this big of a scale, but at least among my friends. You know how it is you say something, and they spin it and say something completely untrue just to have someone to make fun of. It's not fun, when it happens, but the best thing is to just explain oneself and then ignore if they are unwilling to listen. It's not your problem anymore, they should worry about the reputation of their magazine.
Oh, Living O... So sorry to hear you've been misquoted in the press. We deal with that fairly regularly in my workplace as reporters call in for quotes from our legal industry consultants. We then have to field the calls from upset consultants who've been misquoted, and are able to obtain retractions or clarifications less than half of the time. Agree with Paula and others that you can always submit a letter to the editor, and you could perhaps post that to your blog as well for extra coverage. May help the letting go a bit - at the very least, you will vent your frustration...
do you want me to go to england and whoop some bloody arse?
Oh LO I too am sorry this happened, It is such a blow to your trusting others. But as many have concurred it really is not surprising it happened, the wonderful lesson of it is now you and all of us can empathize with the celeb.s like O that this happens too continuously.
I agree with the others that say you should write a letter to the editor though ..use that wonderful wit of yours to make it clear that although you appreciate sensation sells articles and perhaps this has brought more people to your blog, you don't appreciate deliberate falsehoods. You should also add how dissapointed you are with the Journalist who misrepresented herself as an honest person. Simple plain to the point.
The most important thing is to not let this one event change who you are and what you believe. Keep being yourself and if honesty and open still feel natural stick with it. You rock as you are :)
Cheers to you Miss!!
Paula from A2
Oh dear. The double-edged sword of publicity.
I'd vote for shaking it off and ignoring it - and declining future interview requests if this kind of thing is going to bug you. After all, you already have your public voice - here - and can explain yourself fully.
If you really are bothered by what unknown readers of the tabloid might think of you, you could attempt a humorous letter to the editor. Having it come from your husband is a swell idea. The more entertaining, the more likely it is to be published and left alone. But it may not be.
It is a reporter's job to make you trust them. This does not mean they are trustworthy.
Glad I directed you to the interview - sorry you were misrepresented! Grazia is a weekly gossip and fashion magazine but presents itself as being more high brow than the tabloids and tends to mix serious news stories with the endless articles about Angelina/Jennifer/Victoria Beckham.
The article didn't really credit you with a sense of humour or irony - both qualities which seem fairly evident in your blog - which is in itself ironic because us british always say you Americans have no sense of irony! It also made no direct reference to how your marriage was nearly wrecked! Don't worry - we're used to this type of journalism here and know how to read behind the headlines. There's no point contacting the journalist. In my experience these kind of women have no understanding of why you would feel bothered - they tend to be quite sweet girls (always girls, even the middle-aged ones) but as they genuinely feel that celebrity and fashion are vitally important issues, what could they understand about morals?
In your honour, and as a goodbye to your blog, I'll cancel my subscription!
G x
i'm so sorry this happened to you - as your other commenters have written, your regular readers, family, friends, coworkers, etc all know better than to believe everything the media prints about you. i hope you don't feel too badly about it. ultimately, there's probably not much you could have done about the bad press, beyond refusing interviews, but you seem like an open, trusting person, so that wouldn't be your style.
thanks for keeping up with your blog - i don't comment often, but i read regularly and always enjoy your posts.
all the best -
red headed linguist
Hi Robyn,
I'm a Grazia UK reader from Singapore, and I'm one of those people who were sufficiently intrigued by Grazia's story to check out your blog. :)
While I understand your disappointment with the sensational language Grazia may have used, I think that many UK magazine readers (um, or at least myself) would know to take their stories/headlines with a pinch of salt and lots of humour -- especially their headlines, which can be quite over the top!
I think the headlines used by several UK mags are seldom verbatim quotes, or if they are, they're usually a little taken out of context.
Regarding the Grazia LO story, I didn't think that the headline they used came from you, especially after reading the story -- which, personally, I felt did not make it seem like your marriage was in danger at any time; in fact I did get the idea that your husband was pretty supportive about the whole project.
To address another of your concerns, from reading the story, I also didn't get the idea that you were negative about Oprah -- there was one point in the story where you were quoted as saying that the LO project was meant to be a critique of Oprah as well as yourself.
Anyway, just thought I'd give you my take on the Grazia piece, to give you an idea of how a reader might have reacted to the story.
Also, I felt compelled to leave this comment as I quite like reading Grazia, including their feature/celebrity stories -- although I definitely read them with the aforementioned pinch of salt. :)
Also, I myself am a writer, so the idea of misrepresentation holds special interest for me. Personally, I make it a point to make my stories as interesting as possible while being honest to my interviewees, yet still protect my interviewees' interests. Yet there have been one or two incidents where the interviewee was unhappy about the stories I did on them. Those were not happy moments for me either for sure..
That's all for now. I know this post was lengthy, I hope it helps you somewhat! Good luck writing your book!
Stuff You, British reporter!
As someone in the publishing industry who also writes articles based on interviews, sometimes it's the publisher, not the interviewer, who pushes for the juicy details. She could have been backed into a wall. Just a thought. Though I'm surprised she didn't make your suggested changes. I always send articles to my interviewee before publishing and always make their changes. As for the misquoting, it's common practice for some people to "clean up" quotes if they are sending the article to the interviewee for approval. The reasoning is "I'm making them sound better by taking our unnecessary words, correcting their grammar, etc. They'll correct it if they are misquoted. Otherwise, they've given me their final approval, so it's good to go."
That's just my two cents.
I do want you to know that sometimes (most of the times) the author doesn't get final say on the title of the article. So for that small thing it could be the editor's call. The rest, well...
Post a Comment