If you're anything like me, you follow fashion blogs and news almost
religiously. Recently there's been a bit of controversy about a Texas Monthly article written by Jason Sheeler about Sea of Shoes' Jane Aldridge. The
article, the commentary on the article, and the ensuing he said she said they
said brought up some thoughts that I decided to share.
As a journalist who blogs (yes, I think of myself as a
journalist even though I’m not currently employed and I don’t really think of
myself as a blogger, merely someone who blogs) and follows both traditional
media – the magazines that threaten to bury in my room everyday – and new/social
media – what fills my Google reader, Tumblr dashboard and Twitter feed on an
hourly basis – I thought it was a fascinating insight into the interaction of
the two worlds. Especially because it seems that it's being used to fuel the (what I believe to be fictitious) war between bloggers and journalists.
In a blog post response to the article and resulting commentary online, Aldridge calls a quote from the article (about
her choice to not attend college) “blatantly made up,” even though she’s
clearly made the decision not to go to college right now because she’s in a
position where she’s already doing what she wants. If the facts behind the
quote are true, somehow it doesn’t seem “blatantly” made up. In fact, it seems
more likely that Aldridge said it in passing and doesn’t remember or even
perhaps said it in a way that to her meant something different than it meant to
Sheeler. In journalism school, they tell us that as fact-checkers we should
never read back a direct quote to the person who said it, because invariably
they’ll deny saying what they said (even if you have it on tape) or try to
change their quote so that they sound better. I can’t help but think (and I’m
not at all claiming to know anything at all) that this might be one of those
cases. (And I really think that Texas Monthly is employing fact-checkers who probably vigorously verified this story. Magazines have had to cut back less than newspapers and with the audience demographics that Texas Monthly has, I doubt that changes in the economy affected them as much as other publications).
One thing that I think a lot of people don't understand about journalists is that there's really not that much incentive to lie. That’s not to say people don’t do it; there have certainly been more than enough stories of journalists embellishing or flat out making up facts in their articles because unfortunately the audience’s standards aren’t as high as those of J-school professors. In a case like this you have to think: What’s the motivation? At a place like Texas Monthly, their audience is, guess what? Texans. Whereas a site like Gawker might pay their authors partially based on how many clicks a story gets, at a magazine like Texas Monthly – where 91 percent of their audience is made up of subscribers – that’s very likely not the case. And since they’re not likely to get more readers from stirring up controversy (again, because so much of their business comes from subscribers and they’re specifically writing for a Texan audience) it seems like a pretty big risk – since a lot of writers who get caught fabricating quotes or fact get, you know, fired or at the very least called out in public – for what would be a flash in the pan in terms of readership.
Interestingly, a good part of Aldridge’s ire seemed to be
directed not at the article itself, but at a summary-type piece on The Cut by
Charlotte Cowles. On Sea of Shoes, Aldridge takes issue with Cowles bringing
the younger Aldridge sister into it. The problem is, the profile makes mention
of Carol Aldridge through quotes by both Jane and her mother – what Cowles
commented on. She didn’t bring Jane’s sister into it, Jane and her mother did. I
didn’t find Cowles’ commentary malicious – it was kind of snarky, like a lot of
The Cut, and it used direct quotes from the Texas Monthly article as its basis – and it pointed out some of the obvious disconnects between the
Aldridges and the typical person, or even the typical blogger/fashion writer,
things that might not be so clear in Trophy Club, Texas.
What struck me is that so much of the negative feedback
[Jane] Aldridge had for the two pieces was an issue of image control. Even
though most bloggers aren’t quite celebrities and don’t necessarily have
publicists, their images are no less tightly controlled. For me, it’s partially
a matter of understanding both how one sees their life and how others will see
it. Aldridge’s blog is a site full of beautiful and fantastical clothing, shoes
and interiors. But the life that she leads means one thing to her, another to
Texans in general and yet another to people around the country/world. On her
blog, Aldridge controls what other people see of her life – beautiful images,
descriptions of traveling and shopping trips – with few mentions of what goes
into that life (i.e. a lot of money). Opening the rest of her life up to a
reporter (and thus anyone who reads the article) opens her life up to both
praise and criticism. When you control the dialogue, it’s a lot easier to
ignore criticism.
The truth is, a lot of people hate reading about themselves.
And there’s nothing wrong with that. Seeing one’s self through the eyes of
another isn’t always pleasant, whether it’s the truth or not (and often, the
truth can be much worse). But if you’re open to a profile being written about
you that will be published both in print and online, you have to take the good
with the bad, you have to understand that people who don’t know you or your
life will make assumptions and provide commentary on what has been written.
I don’t know Jane Aldridge. I don’t know her life except
what she has put on her blog and what has been written about her. I found Sheeler’s
article interesting and I didn’t think that Aldridge was portrayed in a
negative light. I didn’t find her particularly unlikeable in the article,
though I didn’t find her particularly likeable either – which is pretty much
par for the course with me and most people. My opinion of her didn’t change as
a result of the article and I’ll continue visiting Sea of Shoes intermittently –
just like I do now. But I'll definitely remember this article and controversy, as a journalist and as a person who writes a blog, as a lesson about image, profile-writing and why I'm glad I don't live in Texas.
p.s. These are my own personal thoughts on the situation, and I'm really not trying to pass judgment on anyone. This is just my two cents.
No comments:
Post a Comment