Owning the words
EDIT NOTE: In getting an article to print many people are involved. This is no one person’s fault. It makes me uneasy to think any one person would be singled out. This is not my intention and neither should it be the intent of anyone who chooses to comment on this post. Further to that, I have been contacted by the magazine editor and offered a printed correction. I am considering it.
Ah, the things you learn.
Yesterday, along with three other bloggers, who I have great respect for, I was in the Sunday Life Magazine. The article was titled Life on the line.
The article was about blogging. About us as bloggers. Mummy bloggers. Whatever they are.
Eden, BabyMac and Kerri Sackville. Writers, bloggers who made me want to write, made me want to blog.
Sure, back in January when contacted I was more than a little pleased to be asked and interviewed. Flattery is always nice, and if I’m being honest it felt good. I felt validated. The interview took place via phone. It was informal. I rambled, I chatted, I shared. Just like I do on the blog. Note to self, interviews are not blog posts.
This is what I learnt. Never, ever again do an interview. (Because clearly I am an über blogger now, and the journalists will be beating down my door.) *cough*
No. What I learnt was if I ever give another interview, don’t talk like I am blogging. Be more guarded. Open the door but keep the chain lock on. Tomorrow I will line the bottom of a guinea pig cage and life will go on. It was just a little unnerving to see my words as written by someone else.
On this blog the words are mine. I own them. I control them. In that article I did not.
For one thing, my dad is very much alive.
Whether it was bad wording, over editing or oversight, reading this was not the best way to start my day. The first thing I wrote about depression was admitting to it, saying it out loud: “I need a bit of help here.” And it coincided with my dad dying of cancer.
Yes he has terminal cancer. But when I spoke to him yesterday morning on the phone he seemed very much alive. I don’t write about it because it is not my story to tell. It is a fact of my family’s ongoing life. We all deal with it. But we do so privately. It is not for public consumption. I thought I was guarded. I write in public but keep things private.
The article said I write for sympathy. I write with my heart on my sleeve. I also live my life that way. I am not sure how this translates to me writing for sympathy. I do not ask for, nor do I expect it. If I write about a shitty day it is to let people know we all have days we’d rather forget. To let people know they are not the only ones who yell at their kids, make bad parenting decisions, tell their kids to fuck off. Sympathy? No thanks. I hate it. It is false, often unwanted and to me smacks of voyeurism.
Writing with my heart on my sleeve means I open up about myself. About the way I love, the way I cope, or don’t. It is for camaraderie. To say, see, none of us are perfect. Sympathy is the furthest thing from my mind.
That’s the thing about blogging. You open yourself up to the internet. But as the blogger you have the end say. The ultimate control over what is and is not written. The way I see it I have responsibility for what I write and how I write it. I am honest about my life and short comings and am prepared to let people I know, and those I don’t, in to read and comment on it.
It is about trust. Readers trust that what is written here is real. In turn I trust so is what they add in the comments. It is a conversation, like the ones I have with friends around my kitchen table. We support each other most definitely. We can empathise. But sympathy? The word makes me uneasy.
As for being a mummy blogger. I am a mum. I blog. The end. I also post creative writing pieces and about running. I never get called a writing blogger, or a running blogger. I work three days a week. I never get called a working blogger. My blog started when my youngest child was eight. I am not sure you would come here to read about issues if you were an expectant or young mother. Unless you want to be put off, or know what not to do. Some days you might want to vomit because I write about how great things are. While I’m on the subject, not all parents who blog are mothers. Or write about parenting.
I write with my heart on my sleeve because if I am being honest that is my best writing. Funny and witty is great and some bloggers do it so well. But I don’t do my best writing that way. Blog readers are a clever, switched on group of people. They can see bullshit miles away. Sniff it out before they get through the first paragraph. When I write from the heart I get the biggest response. Because it’s honest. I write that way because it is my truth. Not to chase some illusive sympathy comment or response. Shit, I’d write it even if no one read it. Because blogging gets under your skin, like a tattoo. It’s real, it’s honest and it takes guts. Even the light hearted posts.
The final word though, goes to the cost on my family. If I for one moment thought that my being a blogger was at a cost to my children, my husband, my family I would stop. Just like that.
My family are patient. And loving. I may be a blogger but I am their most fierce protector. I may be small but I pack a punch. My words are my fist. I use them sparingly, with thought and with consideration. Perhaps some journalists could learn a thing or two from that and from my fine fellow bloggers.
Last week I wrote about why I blog. About how each post leaves me more open. I said; This does not mean I post about all of my life. Just my own stories. And not even all of them. Many are not mine to tell. I alone do not have the right to them. If I write it, I must own to it, even the posts I’d rather delete. And I do. I own it all.
Today as you read this, I am in a room with twenty five children. None of whom know anything about blogs. They don’t care if I am in a newspaper. I am nothing but Naomi the teacher. Not blogger good or bad. Just Naomi. The noise and the joy will quieten my mind. Take the focus off me and the article. And that is a good thing.
I was going to close comments to this post. Then I realised if I did that it would be the the first time I did. The first time I let something else dictate what I did on my blog. There would be no truth in that.
To all who contacted me yesterday. Thank you.
To twitter and blogosphere you are so awesome.
For more thoughts on the article and blogging there are links below – and to those who wrote the posts, thanks so much.
Louisa Claire - Inside scoop: Mummy bloggers ignore their husbands feelings and write to get sympathy
Carly Findlay On why we need to value bloggers
Alexandra Wrote A Blogger, A Writer. Same Difference
And then read this, from Eden My Life. On the Line.
* please note I linked to the article so those who may want to read it for a clearer idea on this post could. I have not name the journalist. They were doing their job. It’s about my feelings on being in the printed press and assumptions about blogging.
Please be respectful of all people concerned in any comments made here, or they will be deleted.











As a novice blogger this whole conversation has been really helpful.
Helpful in clarifying why I like it.
So thanks in a wish it was different kinda way…
I think you’ve articulated yourself really well here.
(I was going to call my own blog “On my sleeve” when I started, teacher thing?)
Lotsa oxox
[Reply]
I am relieved to read this post from you and appalled at the situation. I am so sorry I wasn’t around yesterday. I wish I could wrap you up in good coffee and a long walk. But I sense that being in class with the chaos and joy that that brings will a be a tonic.
And I shall say this again – you are so bloody graceful and dignified, even in this shit situation. Which is why I love you…
xx
[Reply]
Beautifully said as always.
The word that jumped out from your post is camaraderie. I think that may be the best thing to come out of yesterday’s article. “Our” blogging community’s camaraderie just became stronger and more evident.
Love your work.xoxoxo
[Reply]
I was so disappointed for you all yesterday. But the grace and integrity you each showed was a credit to you.
Love your work, N. x
[Reply]
I was so disappointed for you all yesterday. But the grace and integrity you each showed was a credit to you, and to the blogging world.
Love your work, N. x
[Reply]
Yes, camaraderie is the word that describes the blogging community. And grace and dignity describes you and the three other bloggers. You have handled this so well.
[Reply]
Naomi, beautifully written. I hope you are having a good day today, a better day. Good on your dad for being so understanding!
Sad that you even have to justify why you blog. And you most definitely do NOT blog for sympathy, bloody hell.
It’s like, we took a bullet for the whole team. The whole big, beautiful blogging team.
XX eden
[Reply]
Naomi this is a beautifully honest open heartfelt post and I know you would have read my comment I left yesterday over at Edens.I meant every word to all you wonderful bloggers.Thanks again for all the good you do xxx
[Reply]
Beautifully said Nay. This is why you blog not me, because whilst I did laugh at the discovery my dad died years ago unbeknownst to any of us, including him, I am also pissed off enough at the misrepresentation of your writing and why you write to want to address the author and give them hell. I wont, I just really want to. None of you should have to justify your writing or intent. Hope you, Eden and the others have a much better day today. Xxx
[Reply]
I read the article and it definitely reeked of rotten fish. This thing about young and expectant mothers?
And I love what you’ve just said about writing for sympathy. We are often accused of this, that we are attention seekers, wanting people to feel sorry for us. Until just now I wasn’t quite sure what it was that we were doing, if not seeking sympathy and I love the way you put it – showing others that they’re not alone, that we all have crap in our lives and that someone understands.
Thank you…
Dorothy @ Singular Insanity recently posted..I just want to sit down
[Reply]
I must admit when I read the interviews I sat back for a moment and thought, “am I reading the same blogs” because that’s how false it rang. I am glad at least here you get a right of reply, unedited. That it is a well written and thoughtful response is not surprising, because that is you. I hope today is a better one for you all. (hugs)
[Reply]
A journalists “job” is to research facts and report them accurately without bias. I don’t believe she did her job, personally.
Cate Bolt recently posted..Great Acts of Human Kindness
[Reply]
kelley @ magnetoboldtoo Reply:
April 16th, 2012 at 9:59 am
took the words right out of my mouth Cate.
But said much more eloquently. Mine would have been peppered with swears for punctuation.
Naomi, you were too kind.
[Reply]
Well said Naomi.
Don’t let bad journalism cloud your view on the writing world. There are good and bad scribes in all forms of media.
Lucky you’re a good one.
[Reply]
I don’t know if I can even string a coherent sentence together about this. About how ludicrously written that article was. Sure, she was doing her job – but what exactly was the pitch? It was certainly very different to the one she used to rope you four in to do this. You responded to the pitch she levelled at you… and then she’s used your words (loosely) to furnish an entirely off-point agenda. Low blow.
[Reply]
Twitchy Reply:
April 16th, 2012 at 11:26 am
Exactly what Kirrily said. When I read the accounts of those approached to be in this story- then compared them to the rotten offering- I could not be more offended for those misrepresented. They were sold one thin in good faith only to be insulted with another.
Let’s not lay all the blame with the journos though. Editors are accountable for the agenda they set their staff and have ultimate control over the end result.
I hope your day with little people and their games takes your mind off the grown up ones xx
[Reply]
Beautifully written – and the upside is that I am finding some great bloggers I hadn’t found before. Like you!
I’ve tried to blo about why I think this happens to so called mummy bloggers at http://workingmumsaustralia.com.au/2012/04/15/a-blog-about-blogging/. Since posting last night I keep thinking about all the things it doesn’t say – but it’s a small set of words and an attempt at a contribution to this.
Thanks so much for all your great writing.
[Reply]
The thing that ‘really’ gets me about the *ahem* article… is it wasn’t open to comments. I searched the page looking for a button or link to respond, but nothing. I suppose in hindsight that’s a good thing… I’m sure I wasn’t the only one wanting to tell THEM some truths.
Perfectly written
I don’t think I could have been so ‘calm’ if I was the one having to set the record straight.
xxx
[Reply]
[...] own (deeply disappointed, hurt and mortified) responses. Eden’s is below. Naomi P-T (Under the Yardarm: Owning the Words) Beth MacDonald (BabyMac: Ghost [...]
Blogging for sympathy? What a bullshit article, Naomi, I’m so sorry they twisted your words and took them out of context.
[Reply]
What should have been a wonderful moment for you all was ruined for the sake of sensationalism.
I was thinking: maybe the writer of the article’s hands were tied on this? Who knows what she submitted? Editors can work a story anyway they please.
In any case, whoever’s fault it is, it’s a shame and does nothing for the magazine’s reputation.
This too shall pass… xox
[Reply]
A beautiful post Naomi, and very generous of you re the journalist too. x
[Reply]
I am horrified that the paper/journalist got things SO wrong and that they tried to skew the article SO much. But I LOVE that the platform of blogging allows the feedback. No longer is it so easy to get away with things – we bloggers won’t stand for it.
[Reply]
I suspect that there may be a few “corrections” in next weeks Sunday Life Magazine. Oh I just felt so horrified when they said you dad was dead, when he was not. How horrible for extended family and friends and acquaintances for them to read that.
Blogging for sympathy? What that fuck does that even mean?
My understanding was the pitch from the Editor was about bloggers “Blogging from the Heart” Not breaking hearts.
xxxxxx
[Reply]
Wow I mean really just wow… I missed all of this and am only reading the article and the aftermath now, as everybody else has said this was such a wasted opportunity to show the non blogging community the wonderful the writing of you four ladies, the genuine care and yes the camaraderie that is shared. I can understand how you would feel betrayed and so very disappointed.
Enjoy the kiddoes today they are such a healing force.
xxpt
PS. I really was very happy to hear that your dad is still around.
[Reply]
I personally, was really offended by the notion that you blog for sympathy. Of all of the bloggers interviewed for that article, you’re the one closest to me as far as blogging styles go (that’s not me with tickets on myself. I’m not saying I write as well. I don’t. I just mean that I started writing for therapy, we have somewhat similar families and circumstances…oh shut up Melissa). And to be accused (as I have been also) of writing for sympathy. It implies a lack of honesty, a lack of truth.
It’s not at all how you write. Like Miss Cinders, I HATED that there was no opportunity to correct anything onsite. It was closed to comments. That infuriated me on your behalf.
[Reply]
I found your blog via the Sunday mag piece, so I guess it worked in that regard.
I’m sorry to hear about the errors, your poor dad x
If it makes you feel any better I don’t think it was meant maliciously. Fairfax recently layed off a lot (most?) of their sub editors and outsourced it to another company so it was probably a subbing error that didn’t get fixed. Unlike blogging where you can control your words, when you write professionally you don’t get to own your words, they get changed by sub editors and editors and you don’t get the final right of approval. Or maybe the journo just got it hopelessly wrong. Either way it sucks and is inexcusable. I hope you get a correction printed next week.
I’m glad I found your blog, I look forward to reading more of it
[Reply]
Melissa Reply:
April 16th, 2012 at 5:23 pm
I’m not convinced at all that this can be written off as a subbing error. It was the whole tone of this article that was off. This wasn’t just about factual errors. She had an agenda and she twisted their words to meet it.
[Reply]
edenland Reply:
April 16th, 2012 at 8:12 pm
No this wasn’t a subbing error. I was emailed by the journalist last week to clarify if my father was alive. (He’s not.) So, the last-minute fact-checking was made with the wrong blogger.
I asked the piece to be taken offline, as it is defamatory to me. It was taken down within minutes.
[Reply]
You’ve shown a lot of restraint and class and I commend you for it and it’s lovely you have your class to keep you sane today. I am reserving the Sunday Life for the next dead mouse I find in the backyard courtesy of the neighbour’s cats.
[Reply]
I was shocked and saddened when I read the article. It certainly appears as if the journo did not do her job properly – they are major mistakes which should have been checked and double-checked. If not by her, then by the sub-editors. HOWEVER, she is probably a freelancer and the article may have been changed after submission. But certainly, the feature misrepresented not just the wonderful people it featured, but it misrepresented bloggers as well. I do hope Sunday Life corrects the errors and makes amends.
[Reply]
I didn’t see the article Naomi. My daily read of the blogging news led me here. Fabulous words, I look forward to reading more in the future.
[Reply]
I’m a little late to the whole scenario, (only ever seem to read the Sunday papers on a Monday!) and was gobsmacked to read of such inaccuracies. I mean, there is a huge difference between a living and dead parent and you’d think one would double check such a fact… *shakes head in disbelief*
If its any consolation I hope that somehow there is a silver lining in all of this for you who have been mis represented. A link to these correction posts would be a good start!
[Reply]
I’ve fallen out of the habit of reading the paper, due to the time I now spend blogging and tweeting. My husband pointed out the article in Sunday Life. He was wryly amused that he wasn’t the only one ‘putting up with’ living with a blogger. He was joking; knows I’m a writer/blogger and that blogging satisfies me.
Like some others who’ve responded to your blog, I’m so happy to have found four more great bloggers to follow. I’m sorry you were all misrepresented somewhat in the process. (Personally, I blathered to a politician and an Age journalist who knocked on my door a while back. Yes, course I didn’t mind being interviewed re the upcoming election. Couple of days later, there am I looking stupid and squinting into the sunlight in a shit photo. Despite having chatted intelligently, I thought, about local issues for about ten minutes, the tiny quotation that appeared in the article made me look like an idiotic wanker. Happily, I have a sense of humour, and so do most of my teaching colleagues.
So, pleased to have found you. Cheers.
[Reply]
Respect xx
[Reply]
Wow, this is so typical, i’m so sorry you were completely misrepresented. Thing is, they could possibly have gotten most of the information from your blog, then got it right!! Wishes to your papa, love Posie
[Reply]
[...] other bloggers have updated their posts in reaction to the articles. Read Baby-Mac’s here and Under The Yardarm’s here.justb did contact Julietta Jameson for a response to the online fallout from the article, but she [...]
On the upside, the photo was sublime *cough*
Um.
Yup.
You have handled this beautifully Nay. No sympathy saught. No sympathy given.
Just you. Honest. Real.
Moving on.
You are inspiring as always x
[Reply]
Naomi, there are bloggers I love to read but you have an amazing gift in making me think and I learn a lot from. I admire you greatly. I love your way of expressing yourself, the “stories” you share. I too see blogging as a conversation and am so glad to be conversing with you. I’m just super sorry you and the other gorgeous and talented women in the piece were so misrepresented. Big, big, big hugs from me and a sloppy 6 month old baby opened mouth slobbery kiss from my littlest man. Xxxxxx
[Reply]
I read that article over breakfast and mostly just thought, boring, not insightful or interesting, and yes a bit snide. I think it would have grabbed the attention of very few readers, so hopefully not too many have changed their view of blogging.
I guess that is the beauty of a blog, we can waffle as long as we like, in any old way we choose, without the pressure of selling papers, or concern about being misquoted. Very disappointed in our weekend paper.
[Reply]
I read with real interest this article as someone I knew featured in it! Did not like the angle they went for & it was not a true reflection on your blog or your writing…sensationalism really.
People follow a blog for a reason, to read well written pieces that resonate with them (an article in Life never does that).
Keep up your great writing x
[Reply]