Back in August, Torill was having trouble with her voicebox and wrote a post about her worries that she might lose her voice, finishing with this paragraph:
Yes, I am scared today. Scared enough that I am deeply unhappy about the male locker-room humour of our staff room, which I thought the last 15 years had made me deaf to. The day after tomorrow I may have a wonder drug in my hands and an arrogant laughter in my throat.
Today a journalist in her local newspaper has published a piece accusing her of unethical blogging, titled “Attacked colleagues in blog”. According to the journalist and his (of course) anonymous sources, Torill leaked internal information from a staff meeting” on her blog and accused her colleagues of “toilet-humour”.
The journalist doesn’t link to the actual blog post. Instead he quotes a mistranslated sentence out of context, making it sound as though it’s part of a long post detailing, naming and shaming her colleagues.
Who’s unethical here? Torill, for writing a line in a post about something completely different where she admits that she was upset at a meeting? (Note: she doesn’t say what happened in the meeting or who was involved.) Or the journalist for using his traditional authority in a print publication and his journalistic right to protect his anonymous sources and for misquoting her out of context? Why can a journalist publish a story like that and not even provide a link to the blog post the story centres on? With a link to that post, it would be obvious it was a non-story.
As Torill points out in a post this morning, it’s really hardly surprising that there’s a bit of locker-room humour in a department where until this semester she was been the only woman for fifteen years. That some of those men then anonymously get a journalist to attack her for saying so is, well, past absurd, don’t you think?
Related
Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
