3/11/2009
Pam "PAMDEMONIUM" S. says:
Gil "whoo hoo" S. says:
Anyway, she and I exchanged messages about an interview, but when she was evasive about what the article was going to be about and what her angle would be, I politely stopped responding to the email. SF Weekly is already a big danger sign, it's not exactly known for journalism. Lacking writing ability, insight, and other journalistic skills, or much money to actually investigate things, they often just make up stuff that sounds controversial so they can be edgy.
A few rules of PR:
* Know the publication you are being interviewed for
* Know the person who will be interviewing you and writing the story - what else have they written? What is it like?
* Ask them what the story is about, what they will interview about, why, and what their take / angle is. These are fair questions.
Otherwise you might just find someone who wants to make a joke or a point at your expense, as she did to Janney. There is no way Janney said those things about herself, and there is no way the journalist did the background research to investigate Janney's life just to say that crap. So obviously she paraphrased and took Janney's words out of context to make her look bad, just so she (the reporter) could score some creative writing points. It's irresponsible, dishonest journalism.
I hope this is a lesson. When you read anything in the press, and the writer seems hard hitting, insightful, has all kinds of surprising facts, ask yourself if they really know what they're saying, or just made them up.
------------------------------ ------------------------------ --------------------
Although I don't think this article in any way gives a fair representation of who Janney, Anna, or Yelp really is (and it seems people are only focusing on one page, but that may change), I think that there was some naivete on a lot of our parts, including myself. I spoke to her twice, although I guess I also wasn't interesting enough (although I did review "my mom"- which made it in there- yay for me).
The thing about Janney is that she lays herself out there (figuratively, not literally- she's an american prude, after all) in her reviews. My guess is that reporter read most, if not all, of their reviews before taking what she thought would be the most scandalous parts to put in her article. That's what sucks about writing on the internet, even if you write something that is lighthearted and fun, the words themselves can be used against you.
In regards to the "she drank our alcohol" argument, that's like saying a guy paid for a girl's dinner, so she has to put out. Sure, we were nice enough to share those Scorpion Bowls, but we're just nice overall. That didn't make it in the review. Many of us go to these Elite events, get our free booze, and are not always nice to the establishment either at the time or in a later review. Most of us are, but there are exceptio