Dear DNA,
One of your reporters, Anjali Thomas, repeatedly called me last week for a story on the dark side of blogging in the context of the attacks against Cathy Sierra and Tim O’Reilly’s blogger code of conduct.
I repeatedly told her that the story she was researching was marginal at best and she should instead do a story on how blogging lets people find their voice and become part of a community.
I repeatedly told her that most of the bloggers I know, including myself, have had mostly positive experiences with blogging and I have rarely seen offensive and/ or abusive comments on the blogs I read.
When she insisted that I tell her about some controversial episodes in the desi blogospehere, I asked her to speak to Saket, Gaurav, Sakshi and Rashmi instead and offered to do an interview if she decided to do an objective story on blogging.
After all that, imagine my shock when I saw myself misquoted in this manner in DNA yesterday –
“Many voyeurs enjoy reading a woman’s blog, especially if she’s writing about incidents in her life. But that’s how it is even in the real world. Also, flaming (the act of posting hostile and threatening messages) is part and parcel of the blogosphere, especially if it’s a popular blog,” says 27-year-old Gaurav Mishra, a marketer. “On a woman’s blog chances are that the comments might take on a sexual undertone.”
- when this is what I had told her –
Sometimes, readers do leave behind offensive/ abusive comments, especially on popular opinion blogs, but such incidents are rare and easily dealt with. Some women bloggers I know, especially those with very personal blogs, have had some issues with comments with sexual undertones, but its not really an issue. Basically, conversations on blogs are the same as conversations in real life; you need to know how to handle them.
Now I know why A-list bloggers don’t do phone interviews. I have always believed in being open and approachable, but next time a journalist asks me for an interview, I’ll be less willing to talk.
And, yes, a written apology from Anjali would be in order here.
Regards,
A very wary blogger.
Update 1: I tried commenting on the story at DNA’s website, but they have comment moderation enabled. I also tried sending a mail to them, but got this message –
I’m afraid I wasn’t able to deliver your message to the following address. Sorry, mail box of editoronline@dnaindia.net is full.
Now, my indignation is tinged with amusement!
Update 2: Anjali’s excuse is that my (mis)quote is in the context of the story and the rest of the story balances out the (mis)quote.
Here’s the question I want to ask Anjali: you have quoted me in what context? In the context of the conversation we had, as you should have? Or, in the context of the spin you wanter for the story, as you actually have?
It doesn’t matter to me if the rest of the story balances out the (mis)quote. What matters to me is whether the quote represents my point of view on the story. It doesn’t.
My disappointment is deepened by her refusal, or inability, to understand this.
