I don't know...I think that people feel violated, and I don't blame them. We may be interesting and different but we also have a right to privacy. And frankly, given the treatment we've gotten from the media in the past I think people are correct to exercise that right when it comes to the media and the fandom.
Rights to privacy have limits. A hotel is a public place, and within public spaces, any rights to privacy -- whether ours or anyone else's -- are limited. Similarly, the convention is open to anyone who wants to register, and as such, anything that such registration grants access to is (de facto
unless there are rules to the contrary) also public to a degree.
I'm with ionotter
here. I look at the author of the article simply as a first-time con-goer writing a report of her experiences in a medium that simply has a bit more exposure than a LiveJournal post. And don't forget that people have used whistle-blower laws and other such journalistic niceties to protect their blogs. We can't have it both ways: if blogs are potentially journalistic, then what she's done here isn't so different from what any of the attendees making a public post about the convention is doing.
Very good article and very good reporter.
... if the article was so good and honest, then why would people be threatening a lawsuit over it?
That's all I have to ask.
I have read said article. I is a very good, objective, and clean piece. The only thing that everyone is having an issue with is that 'OMG SHE'S TEH SATAN BECAUSE SHE'S A JOURNALIST! SHE SNUCK INTO THE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC CONVENTION!'
This seems like an awfully kneejerk reaction over something very minor, and something that says something GOOD about us. It's not like NBC snuck in and did a 9pm special on us. A small, local paper wrote a nice article that likely won't get seen by a whole lot of people besides those in the fandom.
Personally, I think the article is great, despite the fact she came anyway being denied the press pass. I still fail to see why it's so horrible she paid to get in, went to the panels, and enjoyed the experience that she had.
Very well writ! If we act like we've something to hide they'll just dig and dig anyways. We just had a reporter here in my home town post to our mailing list asking for info and interviews, the reaction was to run and hide. Now this local group is TAME (too tame for me! :D), so why not have a chat?
I think we took the right tact on that one, though. If people want to contact her now, they're more than welcome to. I would have preferred that she hadn't joined the list, though. It is a private list specifically for the local group, which is stated when you sign up. The preferred proceedure would have been to email the admin (me) for information. That's happened in the past (I believe it was the same lady, actually) and I forwarded her message to the list, copying her in. If no one want to talk to the reporter, there's not much I can do about it, but having the media trolling the mailing list for info is NOT cool either.
Ah well. The article in question here was awesome, though. It would have been nice if the con had had a media liason rather than just denying her entry, though. But if you read the article, it's telling... She was DISAPPOINTED that she didn't find any sex orgies. That tells you exactly what they're looking for when they decide to write these articles. And I wouldn't put it above a journalist to go looking for the sex if they want to find it. :P
Threatening to sue, though... that's just stupid and childish.
Yes, I read the article and found it t my liking. Reading this is also to my liking. I mean come on. Furries are going to have to deal with more reporters, so give them GOOD things to say about the fandom. Heck the fandom raised over $50,000 dollars for charity last year, point that out to them. I mean come on. There is nothing wrong with what she did. I admire her for having the guts to go through with it... You never know, she might end up being the next undercover reporter for a big paper or news station.
Eh, I don't know. A good article's a good article, but a good reporter should also be respectful and not write one about a private event when asked not to. (Discussing why with the organisers and trying to work out a deal is perfectly fine, of course, but ultimately, if they say no, that should be respected.)
Asking for threats of a lawsuit is over the top, too, of course.
But I'm can't support journalists who write about a private event while being aware that they're not supposed to, either, even if the articles are glowing. The reason for that is simply that I go to cons, and I value my privacy; I won't do anything in public that would be inappropriate in public, but I want to be able to enjoy the con without having to worry about undercover reporters. Con reports that get red by dozens at most are one thing; newspaper articles that might get red by tens or even hundreds of thousands (or even more) are another. It's all about trust.
*shrug* I do find her tactics disturbing. Enough to warrant a lawsuit? No, but she was expressly told she couldn't come in as a reporter and then she wrote a piece for a newspaper. She broke rules. End of story.
That said, look at the comments to the story. The ones from furries- even the comments that are irate- express gratitude at having been portrayed in an accurate light for once. However, the comments from non furries are the most interesting: there are many that say something to the effect of, "Man, I used to think furries were fucked up. Guess I was wrong." I can't argue too much with those sorts of results.
every single article and depiction of the furry fandom created in the last decade has been entirely correct in what it reported.
the fact that this article happened to be balanced continues this trend, because when observing the furry fandom you may see a freakshow or may see nothing, depending on what time of day or where you turn the camera on, or who you turn the camera towards.
only a goddamn moron would even consider litigation against media for its depictions of furry fandom, because all of them have been completely accurate and the only people who bitch about them are people who are butthurt that their oh-so-special desire to hump stuffed animals is showing up on TV.
...has been entirely correct in what it reported.
True. Painfully, agonizingly true.
However, I would counter that Foxwolfie Galen is not representative of the entire-or even a portion-of the furry community? The Vanity Fair article made it look like we were all his disciples or something.
So while it may have been true, its "balance", to use your words, was skewed so far as to send the scale crashing through a hole in the floor.
This article was quite balanced, and hence a wonderful breath of fresh air.
And furries can always use plenty of fresh air.
I think some reporters should be allowed to attend and do reports on cons. But they'll to send the convention articles they have previously done and copies of their newspaper, magazine, website or TV show for the staff to review and approve.
And the reporter should always be with a representative of the convention. But this takes extra personal, time and can create more problems/drama. Thats why most cons just feel its better to keep them out.
Even if Furfright was to sue the reporter-paper and won a substantial reward in court, it's not going to keep the press away. It will probably give them more reason to go undercover.
just need to fix one sentence..
But they'll have to send the convention articles they have previously done and copies of their newspaper, magazine, website or TV show for the staff to review and approve.
And I also thought it was a good article. I discovered the same things the reporter did when I went to my first furry con last year (Megaplex 5 in Orlando).
I can't agree more. This is only GOOD press for us, and furries are whining?
Some people in this fandom need to grow a pair, really. Does the media really matter? If it's affecting your personal enjoyment, you need to reevaluate your involvement in the fandom.
(Personally, I don't mind the bad press. Because I know it's TRUE. Doesn't mean I have to associate with or even be nice to those parts of the fandom though ;) )
I find worse stuff on WikiFur,and people usually put that shit up about THEMSELVES! Who needs bad press when we're willing to do it for 'em?
I actually caught her in the bathroom writing notes, and when I asked her about it, somehow I just figured she couldn't be a reporter. She was GOOD. >.>
Looked like a pretty honest report to me, very balanced and unbiased. About time this fandom had some decent press.
And woah, that's a really cool fursuit in the picture. *Really* cool.
And woah, that's a really cool fursuit in the picture. *Really* cool.
Indeed! Yo! Anyone know who that is? Sound off!
I'm not a con-goer (and that doesn't just apply to furry) and am not American either, so this is a bit of an outside perspective. But one thing that surprised me a bit was this:
FurFright was harder to get into than any sci-fi or comic con I've seen. Con admission's usually easy: fork over your entrance fee and get a badge. The Furries demanded photo ID.
Why is this? If it's because furry cons are more concerned about the "wrong" people getting in, then does that imply that the fandom does have a problem? And if it's because there's more adults-only stuff, then does that imply that the sexual bias really is stronger in furry?
Actually I was surprised in the other direction from what you might think. Since furry cons are the only ones I've read detailed stuff about, I was under the impression that all organised cons asked for photo ID. It seems not. Again, why the difference?
I think it is too ensure that underaged people do not get in without parental approval.
I'd have to say it's a knee jerk reaction. People feel violated right now, because of the subversive tactics she used. The whole talk about lawsuits is likely the slim hope that maybe, just maybe, other media sources will take note and not use such tactics in the future. That they will understand that no means no.