The Mail in “Not Telling The Truth” Shocker
If you bought the Mail on Sunday today, you may have spotted me as a double page spread in the accompanying YOU Magazine (page 67). If you didn’t, you may have (or still can) see me sprawled (fairly literally) across the front page of the Femail section. It’s an article called “My fast life craves fast food“. Unfortunately it’s not my own byline, but I do appear quite heavily (see what I did there?) in this feature about eating takeaways as part of a modern life.
I should make it clear that I am not an avid Daily Mail reader. In fact, more often than not only pick it up when one of my friends has had an article published, or to scoff at the more preposterous articles by the likes of Samantha Brick or Liz Jones. However, when a contact asked me if I’d have a chat with a Journalist about the amount of takeaways I’d been eating recently, I found it quite amusing and agreed.
Not a penny changed hands for this “interview”. Nor did I meet the Journalist in question. I had a lengthy yet informal telephone chat with her a number of months ago, and I did have a long (and wonderfully fun) photo-shoot in my flat, with numerous costume changes, make-up retouches and hair swishes. I then kind of forgot about the whole thing and got on with my life.
Cut to this morning when I woke to a handful of friends congratulating me on appearing in the piece. Half asleep, I logged on, read the article online and laughed. Not because the article was particularly funny – but because it was almost unrecognisable to the interview I had given.
OK, so some of the article was loosely based on fact. I did go through a period last year when I ate takeaways almost exclusively. I did eat rather healthily despite this, and I didn’t gain any weight, meaning I got to stay a size 8-10. I occasionally ordered Sushi, and we usually ordered through Hungry House. But that’s pretty much where the facts stop. My group of friends don’t order in Sunday Roasts on the back of mopeds (even though I did mention it was possible), I don’t order 3 course meals from Housebites and while I probably do have a friend who hasn’t used her kitchen for 6 months, she wasn’t mentioned.
All of that is nothing in the grand scheme of things. More worryingly, for me at least, is the pure use of fiction in the rest of the piece. You will notice (if you bother to pass more than a cursory glance at the article) that I am listed as “The Workaholic”. Those of you who know me will appreciate that unfortunately, this couldn’t be further from the truth. A number of months before this interview, I’d been forced to give up work due to my chronic illness, and had spoken about this at length with Ruth, the Journalist. I had explained that the reason I was forced to order so many takeaways was that I was so ill I rarely had any energy and was not strong enough to cook. I mentioned in conversation that I was often up at 3am answering emails, but that was because I was unable to do much for many hours in the day – BECAUSE I WAS ILL.
How odd, then, that none of this was mentioned in the article, and it seemed as though I was a career woman with numerous jobs and a life – rather than an ill person in my bed most of the time. She knew that I was unable to leave the house, she knew my situation, and yet my article sub-heading states “JJ Miller, 33, a blogger and events organiser from London, has lunch and dinner delivered – despite her desk being mere metres from her kitchen.” Makes me sound a little lazy, doesn’t it? A fact that couldn’t be further from the truth.
I guess their version of events was a little bit more “sexy” and fitted the sub-editors headline better. I don’t mind a few words being manipulated, but the piece they ran contained very little truth. All a little bit concerning.
Some people have asked me if I’m going to speak with the mag. Despite my annoyance, the answer is no. I’m not going to complain or have a go at the Journo involved, because;
a) she was freelance and was possibly happy to twist some truths in order to get paid.
b) this is The Mail on Sunday and we’ve all heard that The Mail tells fibs.
c) I believe a lot of this may have been down to the editing. It may have been changed by now, but at the time of going online, my web link (which is the old one, which goes to show how long ago the interview was) was followed by [please leave in] – indicating that the Editor may not have been too good at their job.
It just goes to show though that you really can’t believe everything you read in the papers. If they are prepared to skew the facts when it comes to little old, unimportant me – what lengths are they going to go to when it comes to celebrities?
I’ve never put much faith in what I read in the tabloids. Now this experience, fun that it was, has confirmed that they just can’t be believed.
For me, this is a huge shame. With the future of newspapers constantly being questioned, and a number of friends who are Journalists and really pride themselves on the quality of their work, it upsets me that more publications don’t value truth, research and great editing over fiction.
Much as we all like the Mail Online’s trashy celebrity sidebar, I urge you to take it with a pinch of salt. I’m sure you do already, but this has served as a sharp reminder for me.
From now on, I’ll only pay for quality Journalism – in the likes of the Times – and actively avoid The Mail (and the Mail on Sunday). If the future of newspapers is in question (which I hope it is not), I’d like to support the ones that still value quality over an incorrect story. I hope that you do too.
Follow-up: Lots of people are asking why I didn’t ask for a fee. A couple of reasons. Firstly, when I was originally asked, it was made out to be a quick chat/quote as part of the article. I only realised the extent when the Photographer arrived and we chatted about what the piece would entail. Secondly? I was a bit naive.
(PS. I have has lots of compliments on my shoes in the featured photo. They’re cute little snakeskin numbers I picked up at Dune in 2012, very affordable, and I’m flattered so many people seem to like them!)
Oh yes how true this is. My hubby had an event causing him to be in the papers – and what happened and what was printed was completely wrong putting him in the wrong – but of course it involved a celebrity so who cared about him. I now never buy newspapers or magazines and even some of the headlines on TV are looked at doubtfully….
It’s not nice at all Deborah. I have fairly thick skin and I’m not upset as such, just wanted the truth out there. The piece they ran gives completely the wrong impression of me and that’s not fair. Sounds the same with your man. UGH.
I had a beautiful message from an old friend on this matter this morning. She said, quite simply, that anyone who reads this blog, or follows me on twitter or reads my updates on twitter would have read the article in disbelief. I’m not that person, even slightly.
Other people have asked if I received a copy to read through before publication. Clearly not. If I had, I would have stopped it happening, and would not have needed to write this follow up.