| |
[May. 8th, 2008|10:33 pm] |
I kind of dread posting information from Elanor after that one time I bent too far in that direction and didn't say immediately that she was the source. But... here we are again.
I've been thinking a lot about the idea of being "neutral" lately; I think we're beyond the point where it's something I can aspire to, if there ever was a point where it was possible. I'm a writer, and I think of myself as being a writer before being a fan; I'm going to side with a writer. I'm hoping that it's possible for there to be a distinction between "neutral" and "fair," at least for a certain value of "fair"--"neutral" means you don't take sides. That's not possible for me. "Fair," I'm hoping, can mean that even if you do take sides, you try to give the other side equal time and consideration. A lot of times, in compiling these entries, it hasn't been a matter of what I've included--it's been a matter of what I've left out. (See below.) There are some very pro-SVA LJers that I could have linked to in the interest of equal time, but I was concerned that it would be taken solely as "Here, let me link SVA supporters for you to mock," causing more grief to those LJers than "equal time" would be worth to them. So if people have asked me to link to things, or they've posted in a common area like Leaky Lounge, I've included it; otherwise, I haven't gone looking. That's also why I've said several times that if anyone wants equal time/exposure to tell me, as an opt-in, basically. And that still stands: tell me, and I can link you in the next update or ETA.
There's also the issue of us cutting off potentially sensitive (yet related) personal-life discussion when pretty much no other wankee gets that kind of consideration. My thought going into this has just been that there are innocent people involved as well, but on top of that, there's also the problem of this being an ongoing, high-profile thing. It's extremely likely that WB's lawyers got leads for some of their evidence from FW. We know for a fact they got some from Leaky Lounge, because LL posts ended up as evidence. I'm not saying that, as wanks go, the Lexicon thing is more important than Random Dragon Guy Who Wants to Be Eaten; I'm just saying, for whatever reason, people in the case are aware of FW, and it's not like so-and-so finding out they've been wanked and being outraged or thinking it's funny. It's people actually using the information FWers have gathered, sometimes in court, and some of them pointing other people to the comm and saying, "Unlike the mainstream media, these people actually seem to have a handle on what's going on." I mean, FW is not srs bsns, was never supposed to be, nor do I want it to be. At the same time, it's kind of like--these are bigger stakes now, you know? It's not just a small ("small") community of 4000 people having fun; it's a number of communities and blogs and lawyers bringing us up in discussion. I haven't tried to make anyone be v. v. srs in the comments; I've just felt like the main entries themselves, the part visitors are most likely to read, need to be relatively... "fair." And the whole court case is such a clusterfuck that it just seems like keeping the personal out of the discussion as long as possible--until "the personal" shows up in a mainstream news article or has legal ramifications--is the decision we're least likely to regret later. But, you know, since we don't really have another place to discuss it, if you want to weigh in on that decision (not the particulars) here, go for it. |
|
|
| Comments: |
For what it's worth, I think you're striking a good balance, being fair and yet not pretending to be neutral. Honesty rather than hypocrisy. I do wonder if there's any way to link to the people with the other opinion without the FWers doing a dogpile.
Well, I've come across a couple of things, so I guess we're about to find out. People aren't allowed to go troll at links anyway, and the poster in question seems to want to be heard.
As far as the personal stuff goes, on the one hand, I can understand keeping it out of the discussion because yeah, not so much with the relevance and at least some of the folks involved in that do not deserve to be dragged through the mud. (I'm sort of of the opinion that there isn't enough mud in the world to cover what SVA needs, but the mud probably ought to stop at him and him alone.) On the other hand, the more it's kept out with veiled (and not so veiled!) hints tossed in here and there (like the posts by SVA's ex on LL) the more curious people are likely to get and the more likely folks are to start imagining that the personal situation is something even more salacious/outrageous/heinous/whatever than it actually is, which could lead to other forms of unpleasantness.
As for the the rest of it, I think you're doing a brilliant job of keeping things fair.
Thank you :)
There's also the issue of us cutting off potentially sensitive (yet related) personal-life discussion when pretty much no other wankee gets that kind of consideration.
Other wankees do get that consideration. We're not always as diligent as we should be, and it varies from wank to wank, but things like contact information are not allowed, kids are off limits, and crossing certain lines will get you dogpiled or banned pretty quickly.
It's extremely likely that WB's lawyers got leads for some of their evidence from FW.
Oh certainly. But it's nothing that wasn't available to anybody with a keyboard, and (assuming they know their jobs) they would have found it eventually.
This kind of thing goes on a lot more than fandom realizes. PTB's legal departments and, more often, security people do pay attention to certain boards and blogs. Not in the way a lot of fans seem to think ("OMG Jared totally reads here!!!"), but as a way of keeping an eye on potential threats. One fan 'journalist,' for example, had her X Files set visit permission cancelled when someone did a background check and found out she was a fairly insane David/Gillian shipper.
"Unlike the mainstream media, these people actually seem to have a handle on what's going on."
I'm astonished at some of the coverage. There was a fact-free article in Newsweek which referred to JKR as greedy and mean (their words). For defending her copyright in a blatant plagiarism case.
Other wankees do get that consideration. We're not always as diligent as we should be, and it varies from wank to wank, but things like contact information are not allowed, kids are off limits, and crossing certain lines will get you dogpiled or banned pretty quickly.
Well, that's true; there are a few hard-and-fast lines that are never crossed. I think when a couple of people brought up the "no one else gets that consideration" part, they were thinking of personal things that did not actually cross those lines. I mean, Usagi Kou's crazy boyfriends are about as on topic as someone close to SVA saying, "Let me tell you exactly what his private motives for doing all this are." I think the argument is simply that the lines not to be crossed seem way closer in the Lexicon case than usual.
Oh certainly. But it's nothing that wasn't available to anybody with a keyboard, and (assuming they know their jobs) they would have found it eventually.
Well, true. I guess my point is that they could find the information elsewhere, but since they are using us, we have more impact than usual.
Well. You've been doing an outstanding job keeping all this stuff straight, and they apparently know a good resource when they see it.
*points up*
What she said. | |
![[info]](http://www.journalfen.net/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}