In my games blog, which I haven't posted much in lately, I had a short excerpt and link to an article about living a different life online through the online role-playing communities. This one a little more extreme than some others and more interesting.
I received an email from the subject of the article contacting me and presumably others who might have linked to it that it was based on lies and poor journalistic behavior from someone who may have had a grudge against him.
Excerpts from the email:
The article was a complete lie and an insult to
myself. I'm far from the lonely, social outcast this
twat claims me to be.
This article was absolutely ruinous to me. I was lied
to by the Times about the purpose of the article and
then slandered to hell and back, quite possibly (and
this is only my speculation) for a long term grudge
that the reporter (his ingame name is Amis) has
against me for negatively critiquing an AO related
article he did about a here back. Here's the link:
http://forums.anarchy-online.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=58442.
The article was a lie and a sham and I'm doing my part
to set things right and let the truth get out there.
Below is text from the e-mail I sent Seth Schiesel's
editor at the Times:
------------------------------------------------
To: Kevin@nytimes.com
Before I go into the comments Seth put in his article,
let me first say that our personal information was NOT
allowed to be put into print. We repeatedly told him
over and over that information about our bankruptcy,
etc, were not to be put into this article. Repeatedly
he assured us that this article was to be about the
community of AO as told through our eyes, NOT an
expose on online gamers or my personal life. I am not
the only one he told this lie to. I will also forward
an email sent to me by Eric A. Munchrath, one of the
ingame players he interviewed. In the email, Eric
expresses his disgust over the article and mentions
how he was also lied to by Seth.
This article also shows a conflict of interest on the
part of Mr. Schiesel. Seth also plays Anarchy Online
and he plays a member of the opposing faction. An
ingame enemy if you will. In his faction, he is the
member of a group of players that band together in
what is commonly known as a ‘guild’ or ‘organization’.
Ingame, he despises the guild that I am a member of
and has mentioned while he was here that his initial
reaction to me was negative as well. All of the above
create a definite conflict of interest.
This is a very clear case of defamation of character.
Ingame competitiveness and a past grudge motivated him
to write lies about me and to disclose private
information that he specifically said would not appear
in the article. ESPECIALLY the bankruptcy issue. We
were extremely firm and extremely clear on that. This
was a character assassination in every meaning of the
term. He deliberately exploited his power in the
media to humiliate, defame and discredit me both
ingame and outside of the game.
..."I think people are generally false. Even sitting
here with you, we are putting on a front. But in A. O.
you can really let your true character out. If I want
to be a pervert, I am able to do that in A. O. and be
a pervert right off the bat."
If you’re going to put something in quotation marks,
you better damn well make sure that what you put is
what the person actually said, because it takes on an
entirely different meaning. A quote is a quote.
What was said was
“People are generally false. They put on a front to
please the norms of society. The Japanese have a word
to describe it, but I can’t remember what it is. I
mean, even sitting here right now, we put on a front.
The great thing about games like A.O. is you can be
yourself without having to be judged by the norms of
society.”
Ms. Werner-Stenlund, who seems alternately
befuddled and amused by her husband's other life, put
in, "You are a pervert."
Taken out of context entirely. I remember where this
quote came from. It was the first day Seth had
arrived and we were all in the Ton-Ton sushi bar.
Sarah laughed and said “You are a pervert. No, I’m
kidding. He’s a good guy.”
There is more but you get the idea. So is this just an ingame flame war carried over to the New York Times?
I don't know, but if a reporter mislead me about the purpose of the story, then broke promises not to reveal certain information and then misquoted what I said I would be demanding an apology and/or suing too. Particularly if the article described me as being online sex pervert. Now you can debate the wisdom of him talking about roleplaying a freaky guru with a foot fetish and details of his private and business life but did the reporter cross the line? Or did he knowingly give out personally damaging information to later sue for libel? This is the internet who knows. Still, it is not good journalism.
No comments:
Post a Comment