Skip to main content


in reply to Sarah Brown

My dad once told me that politicians, when stuck on a question, or accidentally saying the wrong thing would just start say fuck fuck fuck...This made the comment un-reportable on the nightly news. Gave them a retake and time to think.
@VickiWoodward
This entry was edited (9 months ago)
in reply to The Boobook

@Boobook @VickiWoodward apparently mel giedroyc and sue perkins used to watch out for people crying on the british bake-off and then run over and start swearing and slandering famously litigious people so the camera crew couldn't do that grotesque "zoom in and relish their tears" thing
in reply to The Boobook

@Boobook @VickiWoodward
Mel and Sue did this when they were presenters of the Great British Bake Off. If the pressure was really getting to any contestants they knew it would be used in the standard reality TV exploitation, so they'd just swear constantly to make the footage unusable.
in reply to Sarah Brown

that’s awesome advice. Just be annoying enough. Thanks for sharing.
in reply to Sarah Brown

Back when I was studying, I was approached for an interview. The original title was 'up and coming women in tech', but the real angle was just apparently make fun of 'angry feminist girls'. Originally excited, I tapped out of the interview midway, as I saw it as nothing but fishing for a 'crazy' anecdotes and proving their stereotypes. It was still released as a web article, but at least they left my name out. It was just practically taking my every answer and framing it as edgy as possible.
Unknown parent

wizzwizz4

@metacosm It's the thing that is done, and there's a *kind* of obligation. See, for example, the Editor's Code (https://www.editorscode.org.uk/downloads/codebook/codebook-2023.pdf p21):

> If you can demonstrate your story is true, then it is unlikely that you will breach the Code if you do not approach the parties involved for comment. And if individuals have not been approached and dispute the story after publication, it is wise to publish their denial as swiftly as possible – unless you can prove the story is true.

in reply to Sarah Brown

The goal of a castle was indeed to make any siege cost more in time and manpower than it would take to break the castle. Holding out until allies could arrive, winter could set in, or food stocks in the surrounding area could be exhausted was the point. But it was a gamble because, if the invaders broke through, the retribution for forcing the siege would be terrible indeed.

The press doesn't have nearly that kind of power behind them. I love the idea of using their own impotence against them.

in reply to Sarah Brown

similar tip from doing press office stuff for the Vagina Museum: we get the occasional fucking awful requests for comment on what's clearly going to be a hit piece about a post using gender neutral language. Always reply with something steering away, e.g. if it was sparked by ovarian cancer they'd get a reply to the effect of "ovarian cancer is very serious. Here's the symptoms, it's important to be aware" and they'd never print it because they never wanted to talk about the real

reshared this

in reply to Another Angry Woman

personal favourite was when they decided go after a Polish activist doing a takeover on the abortion ban. Ignored the first couple, hit pieces were published. For all latter ones, just responded with "they're banning abortion in Poland, stop derailing" and those ones never went up lmao

Another Angry Woman reshared this.

in reply to Another Angry Woman

@stavvers are there any good guides on "here are the red flags that an article is going to be a hit piece"?
in reply to Advanced Persistent Teapot

@http_error_418 honestly, if a journalist ever requests comment on something controversial, assume it's in terrible faith because it definitely will be

jwz reshared this.

in reply to Advanced Persistent Teapot

@http_error_418 @stavvers and if they are asking in good faith, something like "ovarian cancer is very serious, here are the symptoms" will actually be helpful
So it's a win-win strategy
in reply to Sarah Brown

I wonder if it is also worth suffering that you will refer th to the regulator if they refuse to publish verbatim what you said. As without doing so it would mean they are being biased.
in reply to Sarah Brown

@goatsarah LOL! High five! Great advice!
This entry was edited (9 months ago)
in reply to Sarah Brown

I LOVE this. It's so much better and more effective than the normal strategy people suggest for bullies which is "ignore it and they'll go away". No they won't.

Become and annoying target! Make them rethink their priorities if they're not going to get what they want out of you without a ton of effort.

in reply to Sarah Brown

Seems to me they’re not screwed at all, as they can either flat out lie or hedge with, “did not reply to our question by press time.”

Which is technically true: even if you replied to their email, if your response didn’t answer their question, then they can simply say you didn’t answer their question.

Sadly, the only real solution to this problem is for the general public to move to better press outfits, which is an issue coming and going, the lack of better press outfits PLUS a public that kind of likes the rubbish.

in reply to Sarah Brown

There should be an AI bot that churns out dense but meaningless text, sort of like lorem ipsum with actual words. If they get pages of it in response to questions maybe they'll look elsewhere or reconsider the topic. :ms_pen:​ 🤖​
Unknown parent

Mx Amber Alex (she/it)
@msbellows @http_error_418 @stavvers then again, the NYT especially is notorious for bad-faith, outright un- and anti-scientific reporting on trans people and running hit pieces on doctors and the community.
in reply to Sarah Brown

> [the British press] They're on a deadline, and if you make them conclude that life is too short, they will leave you the fuck alone.

That's fucking gold, thanks for sharing it.