Okay, I did say that I was going to go on a hiatus and was planning not to come back till the website is up (yes, Zhiyang, it’s my very own domain yay!) but I’ve been surfing around and I’m rather unsettled by what I am reading.
So, there was this gigantic hooha about She-Who-I-Shall-Not-Name (henceforth known as SWISNN) and her nude photos which she had posted on her blog. Discussions ranged from her right to do so to the (ab)normality of her nipples.
I’m not interested in all that. Frankly, I think she has a nice body, puffy nipples and all, and if she enjoys that wee bit of exhibitionism, then that’s her choice. What is more disturbing is bloggers’ reaction to the small Stra*** Tim** article which picked up on her blog posting.
There are those who have bashed the article, wondering why the local press ran the story. Big brother is watching! they rant. Why are you intruding in our privacy and publishing our blogs, they harangue.
I’m genuinely puzzled. When the press doesn’t write about issues which the blogging community deems as ‘big’ or ‘important’, they smirk and say that the media is not catching on to breaking news fast enough and question the professionalism of journalists. And now that the naked SWISNN picture has created a stir in the blogosphere and the journalists write about it, they are considered as being intrusive and their professionalism is questioned.
If SWISNN doesn’t enjoy the attention, why would she put up her nude photos, debatable nipples and all, on her blog which has a healthy readership of 3,000? If nobody likes the attention, why would people gush coyly about being browned and tomorrowed? You enjoy attention, here, it’s served to you on a silver platter.
The Internet is an open world. There is no such thing as privacy. Simply put, if you won’t want people to pick up on it, then don’t publish it.
But it’s the way the journalists have portrayed SWISNN that pisses us off, they argue.
I have read the article and I dare say that it was pretty
unobjective, factual. I didn’t come away feeling as if SWISNN had been wronged or portrayed as a slut. She gave her comment, edited or otherwise, and there was no judgment made on her by the journalists. They ran a comment that was for her, and one that was against her. They questioned a lawyer about the legality of the issue. In what way was she ever portrayed negatively?
Look, all you journalists like to edit comments that render them out of context, they sneer.
Of course the comments are edited, there is only so much space in a publication for a story. In this case, looking at the supposed original comments, I don’t think the published ones deviate very much from them.
If you agree to be interviewed, please do not expect all your comments to be published. And as much as edited comments should retain their original meanings, there can be times when journalists have to extract certain quotes to fit the chosen news angle.
You as an interviewee may have your own idea of how the story should go but ultimately, the journalists and the editors are the ones who pick the angle. They are the ones in the business of media, not you, and they know what would appeal to the wider audience that their publication targets. You may have written it with a different angle but that’s you, targeting your audience.