Subscribe
Subscribe to this site's RSS feed.
-
Monday, October 1st, 2007
Recently, a reporter from the Wall Street Journal contacted me about a post I wrote last year. My post, “Plaster Party,” was about how the Work Day Club of Eutaw helped our across-the-street neighbor Denise tear out the disintegrating plaster in her upstairs bedrooms and hallway.
The reporter told me she was writing a story about such work parties. People helping people. That sort of thing. When I described the plaster party to her on the phone, she expressed the usual polite surprise that people still help each other like that.
She asked the standard reporter questions: What were the challenges? How many people were there? How often do you do these sorts of parties?
Then, near the end of our conversation, she snuck in a question I found rather odd: “Was there alcohol served at this party?”
But I’d mentioned how Denise served us lunch, so I rolled with it. I said, “Probably. No wait, it was early in the morning, so probably not.”
The reporter seemed excited and wanted to talk with Denise. So I gave her Denise’s number, knowing she would be perfectly willing to talk about her renovation.
After our first conversations with the reporter, Denise and I were both kinda excited about it. The Wall Street Journal is a pretty big deal, after all.
But then the reporter kept calling. She called Denise four times in one day, each time asking more about the alcohol. Finally, Denise (who takes shit from no one) said, “Just what is this story really about?”
Then the reporter admitted the story was not a feel-good story about people helping their neighbors. It was a story about people throwing renovation parties to save money and inviting inexperienced friends over to mix alcohol with demolition – friends who ended up screwing things up or getting injured.
Uh. What?
Denise, probably shaking a stern finger at the phone, said, “Listen here, I don’t want my name or anything about this used in a story about getting drunk and doing demolition. That did not happen at my party.”
Meanwhile, the photo editor asked me to send her high-resolution versions of a couple of the photos I took at the party, along with caption information, which I did because I didn’t realize the focus of the story had changed.
Then in Friday’s Wall Street Journal, I saw this:
“The Three-Martini Renovation: To cut costs, some homeowners are throwing remodeling parties. Jennifer Saranow on the often sobering results.”
My jaw dropped. The story was all about people doing stupid things to save a buck and their incompetent friends getting drunk and screwing things up. Nothing about neighborly togetherness. Nothing about the fact that the party wasn’t even Denise’s idea – that we OFFERED to help her.
Halfway down the page was a photo of me bashing plaster in Denise’s bathroom, pasted Polaroid style next to some other photos from other people’s work parties, with the word CAUTION underneath.
Oh heeeeell no. Though my name is not used, my image is, and I never signed up to be portrayed as a drunken incompetent.
Apparently, Denise’s warning to the reporter worked enough that her part in the story was reduced to one paragraph, ending with a less-than-flattering quote:
“Last November, Julia Denise Fuller, a 47-year-old saleswoman from Tuscaloosa, Ala., handed out invitations to 10 neighbors for a “stripping” party. By her calculations, using friendly labor to rip out the plaster walls and ceilings on the second floor of her new home saved several weeks and at least $3,500 in contractor fees. Besides, she says, demolition “was something everybody could do, even children.”
In the context of the story (her paragraph was followed by this sentence: “Blame television for making home renovation an acceptable party theme.”), that sounded pretty irresponsible.
Left out was the fact that no children were even present at the party and that all the helpers at Denise’s party were old house owners and experienced renovators.
So I’m a little pissed. Mostly, I’m angry that this reporter continued the stereotype of the reporter who can’t be trusted. I’m a magazine editor and a writer, and I run into people all the time who are terrified their words will be used out of context and their stories will be sensationalized. I expected much more from the Wall Street Journal.
From Denise’s description of their conversations, it sounds like the reporter began to realize our situation didn’t really fit in her story. She kept asking and asking, hoping to suss out some nugget of drunken debauchery so she could shoehorn us into the story.
But what would’ve been wrong with telling us from the beginning what the story was really about? If we’d known the true subject of the story, we would’ve politely explained it didn’t apply to us and declined to participate.
Instead, a reporter at one of the most prestigious publications in the country twisted our truth to fit her story. It’s disappointing on so many levels.
She covered our story, too, and seemed disappointed about the lack of booze at our demolition parties. (At least she mentioned “alcohol free” in the paragraph about us.)
[...] Posted by Mindy on 10.02.07 | Permalink Digg it! | Add to del.icio.us | Subscribe to this feed We love to hear from you, dearreaders. [...]
Kristin,
I had a comment last month from a reporter trying to reach us. I never responded. It is so dissapointing that they were dishonest with you all and twisted it all up. It’s not right.
Jennifer Saranow sucks.
Wow! That is just wrong. Really irresponsible. This is the sort of thing you might expect from the Enquirer, but not the WSJ!
It could possibly be that the focus of the story shifted during the reporter’s research. It is much more alluring to a potential reader to hear about how someone almost cut their arm off during a raging drunken renovation party full of idiots, than it is to hear about how Muffy and Buffy had a grand ol’ responsible time pulling the nails out one by one. The editor probably discovered where the story could go, based on some of the reporter’s initial interviews with her more less-than-intelligent sources, and told the reporter to continue down the drunk route. The Wall Street Journal has to sell, sell, sell, just like everyone else, and if it has to change focus to turn a boring story into one that will be read, it will. That shouldn’t be surprising to anyone these days, especially a fellow magazine editor.
Wow. That is incredibly rotten. A pox on their house.
Just know that those of us who read your blog and are fellow renovators know the real story.
It is those of us who love and treasure our homes that keep Home Depot, Lowe’s and local hardware stores in business-it is certainly not these ridiculous people portrayed in the story.
HOW WRONG! That hateful reporter.
I wonder, do you think this is an example of reporting status quo now that Rupert is taking over? True there maybe story credence to the story, but how one-sided and sensationalist. Also how stupid of WSJ legal to allow the paper to open itself up to legal action for using your pictures out of context.
This is just another example of how the American Media Machine is running with the right.
Yeah, we were in the article, and sort of disappointed with the slant that was taken. The parties we have are about being social and people banding together to accomplish some good work. And if we had alcohol, it was always AFTER work was done as a celebratory, “hey that was a lot of work, but we did a good job”.
Our Wallbanger’s New Years Eve party was initially advertised to friends as a demolition party, but we decided before it actually happened that it would be an unsafe idea to mix a sawzall and vodka. So we just had a party and invited people to write on our walls and do minor cosmetic damage (removing wood paneling covering some walls). Oh well, it was still nice to be mentioned in the WSJ. Anyone who was involved knows the truth.
Wow, I’m truly shocked. I took the article at face value. I don’t understand it when reporters try to fabricate stories out of thin air. The truth is always more interesting!
That is so upsetting! I hope there is some way you could get in contact with a higher-up at the WSJ and discus this sub-par and unprofessional reporter. It’s too bad this happened!
Don’t let the truth get in the way of a good story, eh, WSJ? This puts a real damper on the otherwise positive press my site got in the houseblogs article that accompanied that story.
She contacted me by email to do a phone interview for that article after reading about a loft demolition party I did years ago. There was something about her introductory email that seemed disingenuous to me so I emailed her back that I had nothing to offer her.
I’ve been capriciously bashed in magazine articles ranging from motorcycling to BBSing to telecommuting (one of them in the WSJ), and then there was that This Old House “DIY awards” article back in February which twisted a story I wrote about getting even with an uncooperative landlord, making me look like a complete dunce.
I don’t trust “lifestyles” reporters anymore.
I’m glad to see others are annoyed by this, too. I was a little worried I would be seen as overreacting.
Ted, yes I think that the focus of the story did shift during the reporter’s research, and I do sense the hand of an editor pushing her to send the story in a more sensational direction.
However, our interviews with her happened just days before the article came out (I sent the photos the day before it came out), and I know she started researching weeks before that because she tried to get in touch with me much earlier. By the time she talked to us, and especially by the time I sent my photos, the story had already changed.
Kristin-
We were interviewed too and, sorry Ted, but the focus for 2 hours was our demolition party during which no alcohol was served and no one got hurt. Then the questions (particularly when she talked to my husband) became decidedly directed to things like: “were power tools used?” (yes, by people comfortable with them) and “did you have beer there?” (yes, when we were finished) and “did anyone get hurt?” (not at all. I think she had her story angle from the beginning. I made it clear when I got an inkling of what she was up to (thanks to fellow houseblogger interviewees)that we no longer wanted to be included (although our friend Suz was and STILL our photo made it in the article even though none of our story did and by the time we decided it was not what we anticipated (all the good stuff we got done) it was weeks after I’d sent the photos. I would have preferred to have the option to “opt out” of her story line rather than have her bend the facts to make it fit her premise, WSJ mention or not.
Wow, Mary – I’m really stunned now. I can’t believe how many different people were deceived and misrepresented in this story! I think I’m going to write a strongly worded letter.
We were contacted once by a reporter from the New York Times… I didn’t get a good vibe so I just declined any involvement. It’s despicable that she would twist your words around and try to make something out of a bunch of friends helping each other out. I dugg your post, hopefully that will get it some public attention and get this idiot in the trouble she deserves!
Jennifer, the reporter, actually flew out (from NY) to our house to attend one of these parties that we were having. She was there almost the entire day talking to people, taking notes and just observing. In conversation with her, I did pick up on the direction she was going with her article and wondered since our “party” was uneventful, how it would tie in with the article. We didn’t have any alcohol before, during or after and there weren’t really any accidents (thankfully!) or other things out of the ordinary, just a bunch of friends who came over to help us with the house. I read the article the morning it was published and was shocked that we weren’t mentioned and honestly I was a little disappointed. But then, the more I thought about it, I think it was a good thing that we weren’t mentioned, since the article doesn’t really portray anyone in a good, responsible way, nor does it accurately reflect (in our case anyway) what these “parties” are all about. As cool as it would have been to have our names in the WSJ, I’d prefer it be in a positive light.
Yes, this really pisses me off. She talked to me as well, though I made it clear from the start that I hadn’t ever had a work party (she just found a mention in my blog about wanting to have a “carpet and luan ripping party”). I’m extremely disappointed that what I would normally consider to be a reputable publication would allow something so twisted and biased. Honestly, I think we need to make sure that the reporter’s name is quite “googleable” – I found her name via google by the phone number she left, which led me to google on her name, and if someone else does that in the future I hope they find many mentions of how she has twisted the facts so significantly.
I think a whole slew of letters-to-the-editor of the WSJ blasting the article and talking about the pros of neighbors/ friends helping each other are in order. Especially from those of you who were interviewed! Was there anything in this article that was true? Other than the re-statement of what we already know- that alcohol and power tools are not a good combination…
We did a phone interview with her as well, although we did not appear in the erticle. I was horrified by the interview. She kept asking about “funny” stories involving accidents. My only reponse was that there was no such thing as a “funny” accident when you are using a power tool.
After going back and reading all of these responses this reminds me of one of those horrible stories when someone comes forward to say they were molested by a dentist and then over the next few weeks more and more people come forward with the same story. Did ANYONE interviewed for the story even serve alcohol at their party?
Wow. I just tuned into this. I would be mad too.
It just makes one disgusted with the mainstream media and catering to the lowest common denomininator.
Wow! I didn’t realize the outcome of this until my wife pointed out this post. I also did a phone interview with Jennifer, and near the end of the discussion got the sense that something was amiss. She focused on a minor accident — my sister spilled a half-gallon of paint — and wondered whether we served alcohol during lunch. I explained we were responsible — liquor and ladders don’t mix — and this was all in the spirit of fun. Apparently she was after something much more salacious.
[...] Our Halloween costumes this year are dedicated to Kristin of 1902 Victorian, who wrote this post after her picture showed up in a Wall Street Journal article about idiotic homeowners who drink and renovate. [...]
In my regular line of work, I have to talk with reporters all the live long day. It wouldn’t be too hard for me to find out the name and contact information of her editor and his boss so that they could be contacted, especially since your image is used out of context. So irresponsible.