ambular0133 (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} ambular0133) wrote,@ 2005-07-21 13:12:00 |
|
For those of you who are too cheap to buy it on the newsstands, the summer edition of the rrj is up.
And I already have hate mail from non-other than Warren Kinsella:
Amber Dowling's paean to Paul Wells, in your Summer ish, was nice and so on.
Good for Wells. I write, however, because I was curious, as I stood
reading it (but not buying it) at a newstand.
This is what I was curious about. At what point - when Amber was making use
of some of the time-honoured journalistic sleights-of-hand, like writing
Yours Truly "claimed" something, or that I was a "self-styled" something, or
that something else was not a fact, but merely "according to" me - at what
point, in all of that, did it occur to Amber, or anyone else, to NOT ring up
Yours Truly and, well, get his take on the facts? Or were "claimed,"
"according to," blah blah blah, in some way sufficient for your purposes? I
mean, it's not like it would have been a long-distance phone call or
anything. I'm right in the phone book. I get emails all the time, too.
Anyway. It doesn't really matter, given that I have now been reminded, yet
again, why I and plenty of others chose the School of Journalism...at
Carleton.
Ta,
WK
Of course, having called the guy and having emailed him several times, I'm a little po'd. But having watched Kinsella duke it out with bigger fish than myself (Jan Wong, Paul Wells, Norman Spector) I knew I had to stand up for myself but also put an end to the squabble. My response below:
Sam Irsrael has been kind enough to pass on your comments about my
piece regarding Paul Wells in the Review.
First off, I am sorry that you seem to have such a high disregard for
the Review and for Ryerson in general. But let me assure you, I tried
contacting you several times to hear your side of the story about my
piece. I emailed you three or four times and called as well. I was
thankful your number was a local one as most of my interviews were
long distance.
Secondly, I did not say "according to" etc, etc. I believe what I
wrote was "according to your blog." I made it clear that whatever I
quoted about you was coming from your blog, since you refused my many
attempts at an interview.
Thirdly, if someone had called me a self-styled political attack dog,
I would be flattered, as I hoped you would be when you read the piece.
I have a high regard for your musings, and I'm honoured you would even
take your time to write. Unfortunately it was now and not five months
ago when I initiated contact, but such is life, and you, as a
journalist, should know that since what I reported was not untrue,
that I am not in the wrong, and that since I made every attempt to
talk to you, I had no other choice than to write my piece the way I
did. How Wells responded was telling of his character and I needed to
use it.
Regardless, I apologize that you were offended.
Sincerely,
Amber Dowling
I guess he needed the last word:
No need for an apology. It's not a biggie. I just don't understand how this email got through, and none of your others did. Odd.
Anyway. I've vented my spleen. Best of luck and thanks for your note,
W
Not only is the guy too cool to write out his full name, but he refers to himself as yours truly. No wonder he's so bitter.
