Dissecting #therealFake issue (part 2)

As I mentioned in my earlier entry, this issue earned its own rightful place in my blog because mainly, it questioned my integrity as a business person.

Allow me to cover the points covered by Preview’s article on the infamous shirt.

The title-

Did Marian Rivera Really Wear a Fake Dolce & Gabbana Logo Tee?- suggestive much?

Marian’s personal shopper “sets things straight.”- the bunny ears have so much meaning to them.

The use of a more subtle and more positively scripted words such as “has been caught up” seemed to make the critic the protagonist in this story.
Coupled with “taking a firm stand,” this seals the image they created for the commenter as someone who has rock- solid proof of her claims.
Meanwhile, when it was yours truly’s turn to be added to the mix, I was introduced with such a strong a word as RETALIATE. Which could have been easily replaced with “also came to answer or reply.” Which would have balanced out the portrayal of both sides. Whatchathink?
This section made it look like namedropping is a bad thing. Don’t you think? Plus the use of claiming in such a strongly worded sentence paints a picture of doubt, making me look less and less credible.
A good portion of the article as published focused on the “facts” as supplied by a certain Anne Bonhomme. Adding the statement “This is the only only design D&G authorized for release in the women’s line blah blah blah” kind of seals the argument presented by the Parisienne regardless of the subsequent sentence stating Marian’s was wearing a shirt from the kids’ line. The first sentence is irrelevant as the bone of contention is whether the shirt is authentic or not. Irrelevant yes, because the shirt is not from the women’s line so NO NEED to bring that moot argument up. It overshadowed the latter sentence stating that the design in question can be found in another line. As if it weren’t enough, another paragraph was dedicated to strongly emphasize the points brought up by Anne which again, bags the question “Why?”
This could have been worded differently if the voice of the article is to be consistently objective all throughout. To make her case could have been replaced with- In addition, Aimee sent the receipt of the shirt purchase. She also furnished us a copy of a service agreement memo between her and D & G. Again, incorrectly using the terms “make her case,” “backs up her claims,” “that were said to be issued,” paints a picture of a shady character in me. Why can’t they exercise parallelism and quote me the way they quoted Anne Bonhomme who they just caught snippets of comments from and have not directly interviewed unlike me?
Again, “claims.”
Looking for proof to corroborate my “assertions,” when they took Anne BonHomme’s comments on IG as gospel truth with very minimal to zero critique of the same. Now tell me, am I paranoid or was I really roasted in this article?
Lastly, they went to the website to validate but they have YET to get an official statement from the brand itself. So why the strongly worded article then?

Several points I want to make in response to the writer’s Facebook post directed to me (This was all after I made my thoughts public after reading the article):

  1. This article was written in good faith and without malicious intent.– see my points in every photo grab from the article and you be the judge whether it was malicious, subjective or not.
  2. I included what I included and I did not what I did not because, as an editor, I am morally obligated to verify, and in effect filter out, all the relevant information (given statements, its inconsistencies, and the so-called “evidences”) before presenting them to the readers.– so how come no effort to talk to Anne was made to support her claims and why did you not wait for D & G to respond prior to posting the article?
  3. If you’re really a writer as you claim to be, then you should know that THIS is exactly how responsible journalism works. It means not being in the business of protecting anyone, so I honestly don’t understand why for some insane reason you think you should have been an exception.– I only asked to be put into a fair light in the same manner you pretty much did to Anne. 
  4. You do not get to violate my privacy and post my number on social media. You do not get to question my integrity as a writer especially after I even made a follow-up and gave you the chance to clarify your statement (so at least now you know there’s no “teens line” in D&G). You do not get to post snippets of our conversation and falsely imply that it’s the entire thing. You do not get to be inconsistent about your statements and then cry foul after. So no, you do not get to tell me how to do my job when you’re the one being questioned here about how you do yours.- a) You reached out to me in a professional capacity so it is my understanding that the number you are using is publicly listed as it was used for business purposes (see the contact’s name? It said Preview not yours). In the same manner that my number is posted on my IG account as a seller.; b) I did not question your integrity. I questioned the wordings and since you said you quoted me verbatim in our exchange after I commented on the article, I questioned if it were verbatim, then how come there are so many omissions?; c) Yes I posted snippets but never have I claimed that they were the entire thing. I just highlighted the ones that were not included in the article that’s supposedly quoted me verbatim.; d) You implied that I am inconsistent because you interviewed me via chat which translates different meanings based on interpretation. I specifically informed you that Marian wears teens’ sizes but you implied that I was referring to the shirt in question when I was stating a general truth about her dress size. Had you called me up and recorded the conversation as any other reported would, you would have noted that I was not inconsistent, just misunderstood. I now go back to the point you said that as a journalist, you have the responsibility to validate and verify things, if things were unclear after our exchange, why did you go ahead and publish it without verifying from me first? Why did you even ask if you can publish the receipt without anything being blacked out even when you know my information including Amber points can be hacked when posted online?; e) Lastly, I thought it was an article to validate the authenticity of the shirt, how come now you say it is now about how I conduct my business?
  5. P.S. I’ve been struggling with myself trying to hold it in since yesterday, but I’ve had enough of bullies like you. #sorrynotsorry– I think you had it wrong. Who bullied whom? Who is at the receiving end of all the hate? Whose business stands on the line here? 

There you have it ladies and gentlemen. Now, back to regular programming. 🙂