So, back in May or June, I (and several other NY knitters) spoke with a woman doing an article for Newsday about knitting. I think she posted on the Stitch'n'Bitch list to find us. We had a lengthy phone interview, and she said the story would run on June 4th (it stuck in my mind because that was the day after my birthday and I wasn't sure how old I should say I was when she asked!)
Two weeks ago, I got a call from someone at Newsday asking for photos. I returned the call, leaving a voicemail, and never heard back from them again. Today, the article appeared in the paper. I was misquoted. Actually, more like she made up quotes based on what I said and attributed them to me.
I am pissed. I know, it's knitting, not world peace. But she made me sound like an idiot. She has me saying that I saw my bridesmaids outfits on In Style and decided to make them because of that. No, I told her I saw an In Style Weddings special in which I think the bride had made the girls' sweaters and I got the idea to make them tops from that, but those weren't even close to what I made. She also has me calling knitting needles "sticks," which is something I have never ever done. I use circs, for goodness' sake, most of the time. Not very "stick"y. She also might have wanted to check in since she knew I was now married to see if I changed my name or not (I haven't officially just yet, but I am using my husband's name socially whenever I can.)
All in all, it's sort of a letdown. I feel like I need to give those caveats to anyone I send the article to, and thus I haven't sent it to anyone. My dear friend Leanne is also quoted in the article - she hadn't read it when I spoke to her, so I don't know if she was misquoted, too. Also, the reporter totally missed the point that Deb started the S'n'B, and that that's why she had her book party there.
Bleah. I am disappointed. The woman who wrote it (who was doing it as a freelance job - she's not a staff reporter) was very nice, and the article reads well. The only problem is the facts aren't quite correct. Oh well. I guess "close enough" is close enough these days.