Bad Art Friend

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP here. I meant to add that the unique thing about the this is that we can all see the distortion by Kolker and the NYT up front, because of the court case. Normally we don't get that opportunity to independently fact check the NYT, but here, unusually, we do. And what happens, the one time we can fact check a piece of investigative journalism? We see just how overtly misogynist the NYT is. We see the classism. We see the institutional pass that the NYT gives other institutions with power. Why did Kolker, an investigative journalist, never once ask GrubStreet who handled Dorland's complaint? Why, with all the evidence of institutional failure, did Kolker turn this into a misogynist cat fight article, in the process smearing the reputation of at least one person who didn't deserve it?

And that is what is unusual here, because it raises questions about what happens when we can't fact check ourselves. What else does the NYT distort? What else can't we trust?

YES — YES — YES.

— depressed and sad PP from a few pages back

+2. If you watch 15 Minutes of Shame on Netflix there is a guy at the beginning who says the times totally misrepresented him and ruined his life. They deny it but after this I am not inclined to believe them at all. This is a very very big deal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP here. I meant to add that the unique thing about the this is that we can all see the distortion by Kolker and the NYT up front, because of the court case. Normally we don't get that opportunity to independently fact check the NYT, but here, unusually, we do. And what happens, the one time we can fact check a piece of investigative journalism? We see just how overtly misogynist the NYT is. We see the classism. We see the institutional pass that the NYT gives other institutions with power. Why did Kolker, an investigative journalist, never once ask GrubStreet who handled Dorland's complaint? Why, with all the evidence of institutional failure, did Kolker turn this into a misogynist cat fight article, in the process smearing the reputation of at least one person who didn't deserve it?

And that is what is unusual here, because it raises questions about what happens when we can't fact check ourselves. What else does the NYT distort? What else can't we trust?

YES — YES — YES.

— depressed and sad PP from a few pages back

+2. If you watch 15 Minutes of Shame on Netflix there is a guy at the beginning who says the times totally misrepresented him and ruined his life. They deny it but after this I am not inclined to believe them at all. This is a very very big deal.

I was thinking the same thing. I think in the past I would have believed the NYT. Now, not so much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can't stop thinking about that Arthur Chu thread about why giving up on this and agreeing to "apologize" to Larson might be worse for Dorland than continuing to pursue a resolution that feels just to her. Even if her odds of getting it are slim.

I have some events in my past that are similar in some way to what Dorland is going through right now. I chose to let it go. I didn't apologize (I had nothing to apologize for), but I chose to walk away and give up on ever getting justice. I was just tired of feeling terrible all the time and having to relitigate these events, and I was tired of being told what a terrible person I was and how I had deserved to be treated as I was, or that what had happened to me was "normal" or that it was all my fault for being too sensitive and not getting over it. I was just tired. I wanted to spend my life with people who didn't treat me like garbage and stop thinking about this awful thing that had happened and the awful people who had done it.

It's hard. I'd love to be able to say that I have gotten over it and it doesn't impact me anymore. This would not be true. This continues to be something that comes up in therapy. I definitely have trauma from not only the original events that harmed me, but from the subsequent gaslighting and fighting about it. I do sometimes think the aftermath was worse that the original events. The main issue is that when my memory of those events are triggered, it makes me feel the way I did when these people were shaming me and telling me I didn't deserve an apology or to be treated better. Even though I know, intellectually, that everyone deserves to be treated better than that, there is still a part of me that can feel worthless when I am reminded of what happened. Because, like Dorland, I was treated like someone without worth.

And that's why I'm still following this story and why I feel so angry at Kolker and Larson and Ng. The worst part to me is that if Larson just admitted "Yeah, I should not have copied that letter and the way I handled this situation was unethical and very hurtful and I regret it," it could change everything for Dorland. And it would cost her nothing. It would make her look like the bigger person, her powerful friends would forgive her instantly, and everyone would forget about this. But if Dorland had a record of acknowledgement that what happened to her was wrong, it could save her from having this event define her for the rest of her life. It would be a true kindness.

That Larson can't see this and will never give it is crazy to me. Especially because Dorland would obviously do this in a heartbeat -- it's a lot easier than donating a kidney.

I disagree with the bolded. Larson is doubling down because she knows that admitting plagiarism and bullying would cost her EVERYTHING. She knows that her writer friends would drop her like a hot potato because 1) by admitting wrongdoing, she's making THEM look bad too, and 2) once she admits to being a plagiarist, she's toxic. They can't admit to being her friend at that point, and no publisher is going to touch her with a 10 foot pole.

Once Larson sued and all that stuff came out in discovery, she has backed herself into a corner. She either fights, and hope she comes out of it in a way that she can spin it to look like she was vindicated, or she loses her career. There's no in between any more-- that ship sailed a long time ago. So she's never going to apologize to Dawn. Not ever.

[Anonymous]

Grub Street has to fire Larson, no? Didn’t she run the program that Dorland used to teach at and then resigned from when Larson cold shouldered her at the conference, after having plagiarized her letter?

[Anonymous]

I disagree Larson’s life or career would be ruined by apologizing. She doesn’t have to say she committed plagiarism. She can continue to argue, legally, that her use of the letter was fair use under copyright law because of her creative choices in the use. That’s actually a separate issue as to whether she did something morally/ethically wrong to Dorland by choosing to stay in the private group, lie about her intentions, and trash Dorland extensively to fellow writers. Also icing Dorkand out at professional events. Larson could admit all of that was wrong and hurtful and it would have no bearing on the question of whether she plagiarized.

But it would make her look like a human being who can admit her mistakes and has the confidence to apologize when she’s wrong. I think most writers would applaud her for this, congratulate her on her courage, and then throw in their own platitudes about professional bullying. And then move on.

I mean, I agree Larson will never apologize. But it’s not because doing so would wreck her professionally or socially. It’s because she has defined herself around the idea that what she did was okay and that Dawn deserved it. Larson is deeply insecure and she doesn’t want to admit certain things about herself. Apologizing is scary for her mentally. That’s all this is about - her fragile ego and need to believe that she was “making art” and not just writing a third rate story that grew out of being a nasty two-faced frienemy to someone who was never anything but kind to her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I disagree Larson’s life or career would be ruined by apologizing. She doesn’t have to say she committed plagiarism. She can continue to argue, legally, that her use of the letter was fair use under copyright law because of her creative choices in the use. That’s actually a separate issue as to whether she did something morally/ethically wrong to Dorland by choosing to stay in the private group, lie about her intentions, and trash Dorland extensively to fellow writers. Also icing Dorkand out at professional events. Larson could admit all of that was wrong and hurtful and it would have no bearing on the question of whether she plagiarized.

But it would make her look like a human being who can admit her mistakes and has the confidence to apologize when she’s wrong. I think most writers would applaud her for this, congratulate her on her courage, and then throw in their own platitudes about professional bullying. And then move on.

I mean, I agree Larson will never apologize. But it’s not because doing so would wreck her professionally or socially. It’s because she has defined herself around the idea that what she did was okay and that Dawn deserved it. Larson is deeply insecure and she doesn’t want to admit certain things about herself. Apologizing is scary for her mentally. That’s all this is about - her fragile ego and need to believe that she was “making art” and not just writing a third rate story that grew out of being a nasty two-faced frienemy to someone who was never anything but kind to her.

I think this is right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Grub Street has to fire Larson, no? Didn’t she run the program that Dorland used to teach at and then resigned from when Larson cold shouldered her at the conference, after having plagiarized her letter?

GrubStreet needs to fire Castellani and Bridburg more than Larson.

[Anonymous]

Okay I’m going to cancel my subscription. Is anyone tweeting thst they are doing the same? I’ve been a subscriber since the print edition when I was in college (not in NY). This is a big deal. But probably long overdue. Print journalism is dead, Kolker and his editor are abusing their power, and harming a regular person. All of it is so disgusting. I’m not triggered by any of this - it’s worlds away from my life - but i see this very clearly as bullying. And now with these two articles the NYT is organizing the bullying. It’s wrong and unethical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP here. I meant to add that the unique thing about the this is that we can all see the distortion by Kolker and the NYT up front, because of the court case. Normally we don't get that opportunity to independently fact check the NYT, but here, unusually, we do. And what happens, the one time we can fact check a piece of investigative journalism? We see just how overtly misogynist the NYT is. We see the classism. We see the institutional pass that the NYT gives other institutions with power. Why did Kolker, an investigative journalist, never once ask GrubStreet who handled Dorland's complaint? Why, with all the evidence of institutional failure, did Kolker turn this into a misogynist cat fight article, in the process smearing the reputation of at least one person who didn't deserve it?

And that is what is unusual here, because it raises questions about what happens when we can't fact check ourselves. What else does the NYT distort? What else can't we trust?

YES — YES — YES.

— depressed and sad PP from a few pages back

+2. If you watch 15 Minutes of Shame on Netflix there is a guy at the beginning who says the times totally misrepresented him and ruined his life. They deny it but after this I am not inclined to believe them at all. This is a very very big deal.

the NYTimes is just people. I know Times reporters and have been quoted by the times. All they care about is stories. WSJ has more integrity IMO.

[Anonymous]

If Kolker had never written the story, no one would know anything about what had happened. Boston Globe wrote a story and no one cared. If you think about it in this way, at least Kolker’s story caused many people to understand the truth and to root for Dorland. Jmho.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Okay I’m going to cancel my subscription. Is anyone tweeting thst they are doing the same? I’ve been a subscriber since the print edition when I was in college (not in NY). This is a big deal. But probably long overdue. Print journalism is dead, Kolker and his editor are abusing their power, and harming a regular person. All of it is so disgusting. I’m not triggered by any of this - it’s worlds away from my life - but i see this very clearly as bullying. And now with these two articles the NYT is organizing the bullying. It’s wrong and unethical.

A different poster who canceled my subscription today. They offered me a sweet deal not to cancel and it was tempting because it’s a lot cheaper - what they offered me. And I’ve been a subscriber for a long time. But it makes me ill, what they did here. How can I trust anything else from them? I see they side with the powerful and I’m disgusted. And in the face of facts. Some of the facts are: Larson plagiarized and this was made light of in the freaking NYT by a “serious writer”. Dawn lives in a different city and waited a long time before contacting Larson. There is nothing unusual for kidney donors in creating a small group of supportive friends- in fact they are encouraged to do so. Dawn gave many graceful outs to Larson to disengage from the group but she declined because Larson was harvesting material from Dawn. She was harvesting material for her story and she was harvesting material to gain mean girl social capital in her mean two faced frenemies text group. (borrowing from PP above because it was so perfect to call her a two-faced frenemy).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay I’m going to cancel my subscription. Is anyone tweeting thst they are doing the same? I’ve been a subscriber since the print edition when I was in college (not in NY). This is a big deal. But probably long overdue. Print journalism is dead, Kolker and his editor are abusing their power, and harming a regular person. All of it is so disgusting. I’m not triggered by any of this - it’s worlds away from my life - but i see this very clearly as bullying. And now with these two articles the NYT is organizing the bullying. It’s wrong and unethical.

A different poster who canceled my subscription today. They offered me a sweet deal not to cancel and it was tempting because it’s a lot cheaper - what they offered me. And I’ve been a subscriber for a long time. But it makes me ill, what they did here. How can I trust anything else from them? I see they side with the powerful and I’m disgusted. And in the face of facts. Some of the facts are: Larson plagiarized and this was made light of in the freaking NYT by a “serious writer”. Dawn lives in a different city and waited a long time before contacting Larson. There is nothing unusual for kidney donors in creating a small group of supportive friends- in fact they are encouraged to do so. Dawn gave many graceful outs to Larson to disengage from the group but she declined because Larson was harvesting material from Dawn. She was harvesting material for her story and she was harvesting material to gain mean girl social capital in her mean two faced frenemies text group. (borrowing from PP above because it was so perfect to call her a two-faced frenemy).

Out of curiosity, what did they say when you told them the reason why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If Kolker had never written the story, no one would know anything about what had happened. Boston Globe wrote a story and no one cared. If you think about it in this way, at least Kolker’s story caused many people to understand the truth and to root for Dorland. Jmho.

Mikki Kendall said very early on that the one silver lining out of all of this is that Dorland might now get a publishing deal she would not have gotten otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Kolker had never written the story, no one would know anything about what had happened. Boston Globe wrote a story and no one cared. If you think about it in this way, at least Kolker’s story caused many people to understand the truth and to root for Dorland. Jmho.

Mikki Kendall said very early on that the one silver lining out of all of this is that Dorland might now get a publishing deal she would not have gotten otherwise.

True! Eager to read more from Dorland.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Kolker had never written the story, no one would know anything about what had happened. Boston Globe wrote a story and no one cared. If you think about it in this way, at least Kolker’s story caused many people to understand the truth and to root for Dorland. Jmho.

Mikki Kendall said very early on that the one silver lining out of all of this is that Dorland might now get a publishing deal she would not have gotten otherwise.

I hope so. She sounds like a talented writer from the snippets I’ve read, and she certainly has a story to tell.

Some writers really benefit from a writing partner or a ver involved editor. Writing partners are hard to luck into and it’s impossible to get an editor before you are published unless you can afford to pay one. If Dorland gets a book deal out if this, it might be precisely the support she needs to get her book into good shape for publication.