It’s official, the Wall Street Journal is clueless. Here’s their response to my strongly worded e-mail:

“I’m writing in response to your email of October, 4, 2007 objecting to certain aspects Jennifer Saranow’s Sept. 28 article on home renovation parties.

There is no mention or suggestion in the story that Julia Denise Fuller served alcohol at her party. Her comments were not taken out of context. The context, which she agreed to be interviewed about, where the cost-saving benefits of renovation parties.

Thank you for your email.”

No, the story did not explicitly say, “Denise served alcohol. She is a drunkard and an unsafe renovator.” But her part of the story was included smack in the middle of a bunch of stories about such escapades, condescending warnings about such behavior, and under the headline “Three-Martini Renovation.” Tell me what that context says, WSJ.

Ugh. At least they removed my photo from the story.

posted by K | filed under Friends, Grumpy Bear, Work Day Club | 3 Comments

Comments

3 Responses to “Covering One’s Hindquarters”

  1. Tom (www.casadekitty.com) on October 9th, 2007 2:58 pm

    OK – that’s totally messed up.

    Based on what seems to be their definition of context, each paragraph in the WSJ is a separate story.. NOT.

    Per Merriam-Webster:
    Main Entry: con·text
    Etymology: Middle English, weaving together of words, from Latin contextus connection of words, coherence, from contexere to weave together, from com- + texere to weave — more at TECHNICAL
    1 : the parts of a discourse that surround a word or passage and can throw light on its meaning
    2 : the interrelated conditions in which something exists or occurs

    Based on that definition the context of the story in which Denise was mentioned, was renovation parties where alcohol was served with dire consequences. The statement when viewed by itself is of a singular context – home improvement. However the overall context of the story is “alcohol and renovation” and by association, the statement paints Denise in the same light.

    I’d be PISSED! In fact I AM. :-)

  2. Trissa on October 9th, 2007 8:12 pm

    Well, at least we all know that they’ve lost a lot of credibility with many of the Housebloggers and we will all be weary of any requests from them. Good job sending them an e-mail and I think the title of the article alone speaks volumes…

  3. Jocelyn on October 15th, 2007 9:13 pm

    I hate to say this because it’s mean but just one word comes to mind: LOSERS.

Leave a Reply