Thursday, February 5, 2009

Tragic Rebounds, indeed.

Looks like Meghan is taking all this to heart. Today, she writes (in a strangely backdated post--she inserted it between two that were already up):

REPUTATION DOGFENDER

Sorry, I couldn’t help myself from writing that pitiful pun.

Um, that's not really a pun. I digress. She continues:

Joking aside, I can’t stop thinking about reputation. What it all means? Why I care so much? How it affects the future?

I’m speaking with the CEO from Reputation Defender (sic) today; I know that some of you have strong thoughts on the company and service. If you have questions, email me (Meghan@NonSociety.com).

For now, I’m sitting with Mason, asking him what he thinks of my rep?

Mason’s response is a booming ‘WOOF!’

I guess, that’s as good an answer as any…

Well, it's good to know she reads RBNS! We have to hand it to her for actually wanting to improve her limited blogging/reporting skills. (Next up: Take a class on writing.) Good to get the CEO's perspective, but bunny, it's pretty predictable what he's going to say. Read our whole post and get it right next time.

31 comments:

  1. In all of Meghan Asha Parikh's earnest and in-depth research, interviewing and reporting do you think she will address the fact that if she was so worried about her online reputation it might have been foolish to "put it all out there" in the first place? Will she ever acknowledge that she might have made a mistake?

    ReplyDelete
  2. She might pass the laugh test for NS's claims on being journalism if she were to find out what some qualified detractors (who have credentials and are willing to be quoted on the record) have to say about Reputation Defender.

    As an actual journalist, I'm curious to see if she asks any tough questions, or if this is just another ass-kissy PR stunt, in exchange for undisclosed freebies.

    ReplyDelete
  3. @[redacted] NonEntity: If I were a betting woman, I would say that Meghan Asha's online presence will soon be getting a freebie scrubbing (insomuch as the pee can ever be taken out of the pool) my Reputation Dogfender.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Yes, but they don't scrub "irreverent" blogs! Is RBNS irreverent? Does Meghan even know what that word means?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Color me clueless but I'm not even sure I understand the intent/content of her post. I'm not trying to be nitpicky. Seriously. However, this happens often when I read nonsociety. Is she saying:

    (1) She trying to discuss criticisms of RD to the company and provide a fuller analysis of the product?

    (2) Is she simply telling us that she's increasingly worried about her reputation and is discussing options with RD, despite our criticisms of RD.

    (3) I don't get the pun but perhaps I'm dense. Apparently RDNS doesn't either.

    ReplyDelete
  6. OOps.

    Should have read:

    (1) She is discussing criticisms of RD with the company in order to provide fuller analysis of the product?

    And

    RBNS, not RDNS.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Like most of their endeavors, I would guess that this one is completely selfish as well. She's probably visiting with the CEO and doing her interview because she's interested in the product personally and wants to know more about it for her own personal use. Meghan Asha Parikh has expressed dismay in the past of "online reputation" being sullied, which makes me wonder why she ever agreed to be part of Nonsociety in the first place.

    ReplyDelete
  8. When was Meghan Parikh's reputation good? Oh right, when she was an anonymous person not dragged into the JA crapstorm. She had no reputation.

    Sorry Hello Kitty, you reap what you sow. Get over it.

    ReplyDelete
  9. mama baugher weighed in on the "hatchet job" TONY did on pretty princess' matchmaking story. how dare they cut her words!

    hopefully they cut up her paychecks next.

    ReplyDelete
  10. where is this story?

    ReplyDelete
  11. julia fucking allison:
    http://vimeo.com/2963344

    ReplyDelete
  12. Julia's TONY matchmaker article. It really is awfully brief for all that exhaustive research (snicker):

    http://www.timeout.com/newyork/articles/sex-dating/71229/matchmaker-matchmaker

    She's probably just embarassed that the matchmaking services didn't get much good publicity out of it, after providing her with free services.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Oh, wowza, the commenters on TONY don't think much of that article...

    ReplyDelete
  14. "Ah, yes, the “stigma.” So why do men hire her? I ask. “Because I do the EDITING for my guys and I NEVER try and fit a square peg into a round hole,”"

    Now, please tell me that isn't Janis Spindel talking. Because, and I know this for a fact as I know several of her clients, she does in deed RAM square pegs into round holes.

    That article, the original version, was exhausting. Too long, lots of unnecessary info. Could it be that Julia bailed on the 24 dates in 24 hours promotion and this was pay back? Me thinks so. Start looking for another job, Jules. Didn't you badmouth AM New York on your blog and then find yourself out of a job? Way to learn a lesson, kiddo.

    ReplyDelete
  15. And why is she dating men 15 years older than her? Oh, that's right, because the losers that pay these hacks are all looking for trophy wives. The matchmaker set her up with mostly men 40 and over.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Once again, Julia Allison transparent revising history game is in full swing. She's really just too easy to figure out.

    1. Latest TONY column gets ripped apart by its commenters for lacking depth and substance.
    2. Julia's Internet is mysteriously broken so she disappears for the day.
    3. Magical "email from mom" shows up explaining TONY's "edit" of her illustrious article.
    4. "Original" longer article shows up on Julia's blog later that day. Three times as long and three times worse than what made it into TONY.

    Julia Allison? I'd bet that after throwing TONY under the bus like that (accusing them of cutting your article instead of just owning up to a craptacular article in the first place) you'll be out of a job.

    ReplyDelete
  17. No wonder JAB is always so exhausted. She is like a one-woman marionette show.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Oops -- someone posted part of "Mom's letter" deriding T)NY's editing job...as a comment. EMBARASSING...

    ReplyDelete
  19. That was meant to be "TONY's"--thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  20. i hear tell that TONY is cutting salaries across the board by 5%. but why not instead fire JA and hire an intern who will work for free and produce content 100% better? the thing about journalists (or the REAL ones anyway) is that they're hungry... and not just for cupcakes. the matchmaking story, especially in our current economy, does not resonate, though in the hands of a non-navel-gazer it might have turned out half-way decent. also, how does she get away with recycling the same ideas in TONY as she uses in TMI? all she offers is stale bread that not even pigeons would eat.

    ReplyDelete
  21. In the instance of the Qik blog, at least Meghan's mom actually came out to defend her daughter, however embarrassing that may have been. Poor Julia has to make up emails from her mom, which is quite possibly even more embarrassing and pathetic. And yes - I totally believe she made up that email from her mother, just like she gets a flood of "reader" emails to come to her defense after whatever her failure of the day might be.

    It really is quite amusing to see Julia flip out when there are negative comments about her A) posted in places she can't control and B) posted in places that could potentially cost her her "real job."

    "Former dating columnist Julia Allison" just doesn't have quite the same glamorous Carrie-esque connotation does it?

    ReplyDelete
  22. I must be going soft because I agreed with Julia's mom; the article needed editing for sure (she does tend to go on, excess verbiage), but I think it was a lot more interesting in spirit than what TONY printed.
    And, I gotta say, Julia seemed, well ... likeable to me today. She did a variety of interesting things, blogged about them regularly
    (I even felt bad about her shivering in Starbucks), posted maybe one or two "here's me" face shots than were strictly necessary ... but it seems as though she's more of a person than a "persona" today.
    What the heck is going on? I even think Mary's been doing a decent job over the past couple of days, too; I've written as much here.
    Believe me; this is a radical change in my opinion. My friends on here will know be shocked at my sudden tolerance, possibly even take me to task over it, but there it is. I sense a change for the better in NS and I honestly wish them well.
    Authentic is always going to win out over fake.

    ReplyDelete
  23. mrs. baugher?! who let you in here?!

    ReplyDelete
  24. Isn't it plagiarism to reproduce the matchmaking article- admittedly in an unedited form- on a different media forum without giving correct credit to the original publisher? Or even asking their permission? In the scientific publishing community this would be professional suicide.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Anon 5:43, I'll believe Julia is being "authentic" when I see her do something like post a photo without makeup, post a photo from her "bad side" or acknowledge at least one of her fuck ups or failures. Until then... FAKE.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Anon 5:51, quality of the article aside, I'm pretty sure you can't "plagiarize" yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I'm not sure what the contracts are like at TONY, but many reserve exclusive rights, which means republishing online is a no-go. Maybe she got permission first? Doubtful, since she sorta slagged them off after.

    ReplyDelete
  28. @Anon 6:52: Anon 5:51 was referring to the fact that once in the hands of a publisher, the author's rights are waived -- thus, it is legally not the author's right to reproduce her own work in another publication. the copyright is given to the publisher, not the author. Anon 5:51 is correct that in scientific publishing it would not be allowable to to re-publish one's work on one's own website if it had been published in a journal which would not grant permission to do so. however, the nih's open access policy is basically forcing scientific publishers to allow this (and the publishers have of course been resisting for years). i don't think that magazine publishing functions in the same way but certainly JAB, though vapid, inane, and self-obsessed, would have secured permission to reproduce from TONY, if it does function in the same way. she's not unintelligent. also, the matchmaking article isn't the first for which she has published the original on nonsociety.

    ReplyDelete
  29. but hopefully it will be the last!

    ReplyDelete
  30. You absolutely can plagiarize yourself. You must cite yourself if you use words of yours that have been previously published, and you must have the rights to whatever you publish (and no, just because you wrote it doesn't necessarily mean you have the rights to it, for instance, if you are working for a company or publication).

    ReplyDelete
  31. Poor Meghan. She's so stupid she can't figure out that they'll never be able to erase the bad reputation they have offline.

    ReplyDelete