I am not Marilyn Wann

13th July 2008

posted in Arts and Music, Fat Bias, Pop Culture |

I find it ironic that Chris Matyszczyk’s column over at CNET is titled ‘Technically Incorrect.’ Perhaps he should revise it to ‘Quotationally Incorrect.’

Matyszczyk quotes liberally in his entry here from a blog entry I made in the fall voicing my concerns with the way fat people are characterized in the film Wall-E. At the time, the film was not completed but Pixar had allowed some critics to review the then unfinished film and their comments all overwhelmingly remarked upon the sad, fat state of affairs humans had (de)volved to. Despite the fact that no one except these choice reviewers had seen the film at the time, Matyszczyk seems amazed by the fact that I would raise an issue with the film despite not having seen it. He writes:

Here’s the truly amazing thing, though.

She hasn’t seen the movie. …As it stands, isn’t it something of a stereotype confirmation to criticize a movie you haven’t bothered to actually see? Isn’t this the very logic of the lazy she is warning us against?

Hey, Chris. Wanna know what’s even lazier? Shoddy journalists who can’t bother doing their homework. All those quotes Matyszczyk lifted from my blog he attributes not to me, but to fat activist extraordinaire Marilyn Wann (whose name he also misspelled). He also attributes this blog as belonging to Marilyn. And not only are my quotes erroneously attributed to someone else, they’re also taken out of context. I added a note at the top of the page on the post in question explaining that these comments were made before the film’s release and were based on the reviews of the critics I link to. I also note that Pixar appears to have toned down its negative characterizations of fat people in the version released to the public. Matyszczyk ignored this caveat, however, despite the fact that I reiterate this in a blog post I made on Friday about Wall-E, which he also linked to.

So, for the record Chris, and other CNET viewers: I am not Marilynn Wann. I am not a member of nor am I associated with the National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance. In fact, I don’t even call myself a fat acceptance activist; I am a fat rights and body-size acceptance activist. And if you had bothered to read my about page or anything beyond your knee-jerk reaction to my posts on Wall-E, you’d discover my name is Rachel Richardson. This blog touches on issues of fat rights, yes, but its primary purpose is to serve as an eating disorders awareness and education site.

It appears as if we don’t have to wait 700 years for humans to become unbelievably lazy. CNET’s bloggers are doing a fine job of it already.

Click to Bookmark

This entry was posted on Sunday, July 13th, 2008 at 10:32 pm and is filed under Arts and Music, Fat Bias, Pop Culture. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

1 On July 14th, 2008, Meowser

said:

Wonder if he’ll publish a retraction. (Holds breath for the next six weeks)

posted on July 14th, 2008 at 12:33 am

2 On July 14th, 2008, Kate Harding

Sheesh! You even refer to Marilyn (and spell her name correctly) in the post he links to! How the hell did he decide you’re her? Because there can’t possibly be more than one fat rights activist in the world, I suppose.

Bleh. Sorry this happened, Rachel.

posted on July 14th, 2008 at 1:08 am

3 On July 14th, 2008, Gerald

outrageous

posted on July 14th, 2008 at 2:23 am

4 On July 14th, 2008, D

He’s changed your name in the post without noting the change in post-script or any other way within the post itself (only in the comments). He also still hasn’t noted that your post was based on reviews by people who had seen the film.

posted on July 14th, 2008 at 4:03 am

5 On July 14th, 2008, AnnieMcPhee

Looks like he fixed it already. And he links back to this post. I would have liked to read the original.

posted on July 14th, 2008 at 6:08 am

6 On July 14th, 2008, AnnieMcPhee

The comments section was appalling. I left one of my own, I hope it was scathing enough. People suck.

posted on July 14th, 2008 at 6:31 am

7 On July 14th, 2008, Paul

Ah, c|net: “We’ll Get The Facts Right Later.”

As of this morning there are only (?) 10 comments… did they blitz a bunch of them?

posted on July 14th, 2008 at 7:01 am

8 On July 14th, 2008, Rachel

The comments were light last night, Paul. I’m just surprised he didn’t blitz my comment in which I inform him just how lazy of a journalist he is.

He’s correctly attributed the quotes now, but as D notes, he still hasn’t amended the context from which he pulled those quotes. If he were just another Blogspot blogger or blogger hosted on Wordpress, I wouldn’t even waste my time typing, but CNET is a CBS company. I really expect better of them.

posted on July 14th, 2008 at 9:41 am

9 On July 14th, 2008, pennylane

Yes, but are you Kate Harding?

The article still seems to imply you have ties with NAAFA. And I’m bothered–as D noted–that there is no indication of a correction. That is some lazy journalism there.

posted on July 14th, 2008 at 10:57 am

10 On July 14th, 2008, Rachel

Yes, but are you Kate Harding?

Nope. I’m just plain old Rachel Richardson. Less glamourous, for sure, but the only person I know how to be.

posted on July 14th, 2008 at 11:22 am

11 On July 14th, 2008, pennylane

I think you’re both pretty darn cool!

Your point about blogging vs. “real” media is interesting. Frankly his ability to read and report on what he’s read (it’s not like there was even fact checking involved–he was just quoting other peoples’ writing and then adding a few fat jokes and attempts at commentary) does not inspire confidence in his skills as a journalist. Most good bloggers I know (present company included) are more careful with facts but importantly are willing to post corrections when they err, or circumstances change, or a commenter changes their mind, etc. I wonder if there is a certain amount of sloppiness when real journalists write in more informal settings online (I don’t include you in this, Rachel!)? I know a lot of bloggers who are quite careful because they want to be taken serious while some journalists don’t take the medium seriously so they feel free to be sloppier? Dunno.

posted on July 14th, 2008 at 12:02 pm

12 On July 14th, 2008, JeanC

Typical media, can’t bother to fact check anything. Why should you expect better from CNET just because they are part of CBS. Remember, CBS gave us Dan Rather and that lovely little “can’t bother to verify the facts before broadcasting a story about Bush and his service record” fiasco. Hubby no longer refers to it as the news, he calls it “the speculation”.

posted on July 14th, 2008 at 12:06 pm

13 On July 14th, 2008, Rachel

Chris may have amended his post, but he’s still putting words in my mouth that I have not said. He quotes Marilyn Wann and then claims that I have agreed with her and said the same thing.

“‘Pixar should be out of business for portraying this level of prejudicial bigotry-mongering,’ said Wann. ‘These are 19th-century hatreds repackaged in modern animation. It’s amazing.’

In fact, these words have been now claimed by Ms. Richardson.”

If he had bothered to read further on my site, he would know that I am not claiming anything of the sort nor do my comments on the film that has been released to the public indicate a boycott of Pixar. In fact, I even go on to extol my love for Pixar and its films, and my advocacy of the environmental messages I see emanating from the film. And I fully admit that I have not seen the film and I specifically state that I will withhold my personal judgment on the version that has been released to the public until after I have seen it. In the meantime, I offered a link to a review on Slate.com from someone who has seen the film for my readers and then invite their comments and perspectives.

I wish Chris would choose his words more carefully and avoid putting words into my mouth. I find it very unsettling that this kind of “journalism” is coming from a site owned by CBS, an otherwise reputable news organization of high ethics and integrity.

posted on July 14th, 2008 at 12:24 pm

14 On July 14th, 2008, Devi

It’s unedrstandable - even over the internet all us fat girls look alike

posted on July 14th, 2008 at 5:04 pm

15 On July 15th, 2008, Alex Steed [of Make Something Happen]

I am curious as to what web-action is being taken with regard to opinions of/allegations towards the film.

posted on July 15th, 2008 at 12:23 pm

16 On July 15th, 2008, spinsterwitch

The author is correct, though, that there was much private conversation about Wall-E at NAAFA…and it was mixed. I didn’t have a strong reaction, but I wasn’t really drawn to the premise too strongly either.

I was very amused though that it seems like a bad idea to have a conversation about the cultural impact that media has when it is clear from our own past that negative images and stereotypes have ALWAYS been conveyed in such a way. It’s only a surprise to those who never open their eyes.

posted on July 15th, 2008 at 3:09 pm

17 On July 16th, 2008, Marilyn Wann

Wow. Stupid, stupid journalist. I certainly, desperately hope there’s more than one fat rights activist in the world!!! I’m glad you’re speaking up, blogging, alla that good fun, Rachel! Rock on!!!

I gave comment to two UK newspapers last week about Wall-E, with total caveat that I haven’t seen the movie. Sunday Telegraph and Telegraph News Review. Could be two writers for same story, dunno. I haven’t heard whether they’ve run anything yet.

posted on July 16th, 2008 at 2:24 pm

18 On July 21st, 2008, Cherielabombe

They did finally run something with an amazing load of typos in it. The comments section though will use up your Sanity Watchers points for the next decade or so, so beware.

posted on July 21st, 2008 at 5:20 pm