Finally! The Daily Mail admits what I already know. This is NOT a revenge blog
So aside from spending my summer knee deep in work and the bambino, there has also been the 'battle' of sorts to get the Daily Mail to admit that not only did I not set up a blog to take revenge on an ex, but that I am not an e-venger. This is what will eventually appear on the Press Complaints Commission website:
Ms Natalie Lue complained that an article in the Daily Mail inaccurately said that she had set up a blog in order to take revenge - or 'e-venge' - on a former partner. In fact, her blog had been set up simply to document events in her life. She had indeed made references to ex-partners and to dates she had been on, but those references - occasional as they were - could hardly be classified as vengeful. Indeed, she had not named her exes on the blog - nor had she disclosed her own identity until 2006, two years after the blog was established.The newspaper accepted that Ms Lue had not started blogging simply to take revenge on her ex-partner. It also accepted that revenge was not the central theme of the blog, even though there were instances of the complainant making critical remarks about her ex and about other individuals she had dated. It agreed to remove the article from its website and marks its cuttings archive for future reference. The complaint was resolved on that basis.
Bearing in mind that the entire article was about revenge and they stated from the outset that I had set up a blog to take revenge, this result pretty much invalidates what they wrote about me because the great majority of the inaccuracies were based around this point.
Finally, after more than three months, they have finally said what I and anyone else who bothered to read this blog knows - I didn't set up the blog to take revenge on my ex, the central theme of this blog is not about revenge, and in actual fact, I blogged in anonymity for almost two years which makes their claims rather ridiculous. If this is revenge, it's a very long winded route bitching about bad dates, smelly commuters, annoying ex work colleagues, and fear of child birth...
But...until a couple of weeks ago or so, it seemed that the Daily Mail was not going to budge. In fact, in an early letter they claimed the only inaccuracy was the length of my engagement (they said 5 years instead of 14 months) which was hilarious considering I was complaining about TWENTY SIX inaccuracies. What ensued then, was them deciding that because Dollymix, published by Shiny Media had published a supportive post about me, which I had also participated in, that I had now taken e-venge on the Daily Mail!
The funny thing was that the primary objective of having the article removed from their website was achieved before the investigation got underway, but as the Daily Mail continued to repeatedly insult me in their letters to the PCC, I wondered if fiction might become fact. The PCC offered the option of publishing a statement where it said I complained about X, Y, and Z, the Daily Mail denied it, but that I stuck to my guns. I found this beyond laughable. Where was the investigation? What was the point in mediating with a party that didn't want to mediate, when I hadn't come for mediation, I had come for frickin' clarification about the inaccuracies. As Yet Another Letter arrived insulting me, I put my foot down and told them to investigate it as I had originally asked.
Sometimes people tell you that black is white and white is black, but I was not some individual that a newspaper had written a story about that didn't have proof and was having a moan. They had written a story about me where the blog was sitting there as proof and I found it hard to believe that they would find in favour of the Daily Mail, otherwise something would have been seriously wrong.
As it was, justice has prevailed, and despite publishing an article in their newspaper and on their website (twice - did I not mention about the accidental re-publishing of the online version for over 10 days....?), they insisted on writing me a private letter, where clearly believing that you should do a backhanded apology, they started off by saying stuff about using my website to attack their reporter (a bit like the public saying a newspaper attacks everyone it writes about when they're not being nice) but eventually they got to the point and expressed some regret.
I bear no ill feeling to the newspaper. I always had this blog as my proof, and I knew I hadn't taken revenge, I knew that I had been anonymous for two years, and believed to be white with red hair from Ireland for the first year instead of my black self. I also knew that even though I haven't said the nicest of things about my exes and some of my dates, I have a lot to say about many things and never cared enough about any of ex to expend the type of energy that revenge requires. Revenge is like saying "I am still emotionally invested in you. In fact, I might be a bit obsessed!" But it's nice to have it clarified, especially when your stalker (the same one they called a "maniac" uses the said article to stalk you and other bloggers with....
So thanks to everyone who has commented, emailed, phoned, left comments at the Daily Mail, or written posts of support. Even when you know who you are, at times, it's good to know that others do too.
Related Articles:
Portsmouthchamber Loveawake NM
Lakesregionchamber Loveawake NM
Adirondackchamber Loveawake NM
Комментарии
Отправить комментарий