tell me what I did wrong

I am sitting here in tears over a conversation I just had. I feel like a total slimebucket, and I'm too emotional to know if that's justified or not.

I am working on a freelance article that I got backed into by someone who thought he was doing me a favor. It has been a nightmare from the get-go, and is the first, and will be the last time I work for these people.

At any rate, the woman I was interviewing is the principal of a startup high school. She kept talking about how serving children was her life's work and a calling and blah blah blah. It seemed logical to me to ask if she had children of her own. She said no. I said, speaking from MY experience as a birthmom, that I taught at the college level for a number of years as a way of connecting with my son, even though I hadn't gotten to raise him.

She just called back and raked me over the coals for being so insensitive, and for assuming that my experience translates to everyone else's, that it wasn't a choice for her and her husband not to have children, it's very painful, etc, and now she doesn't trust me and wants to see the article (a big no-no) -- not to mention that she thought it was horribly rude of me to do what I did, which *I* saw as making conversation. How was i supposed to know?!

I fell all over myself apologizing about 10 times, explained my situation, and she just kept telling me over and over that I shouldn't make assumptions and how awful it was of me to do that -- completely dismissing the fact that I understand what it's like not to have children, and how much that pains ME.

I explained that it is very hard for me to talk about the adoption, and that when I run across a woman who seems to be in similar circumstances, I feel a kinship and like to try to talk about it. She blew that off, too.

Am I wrong? I don't know what else to do but sit here and cry.

:~(

CB

Sometimes you hit someone's "hot button" without realizing it or intending it. I remember crying in church when the pastor's wife got up to announce she was pregnant with her 3rd child & I couldn't have any more (I desperately wanted more children but have come to accept it now).

I think you have done your best to apologize & you just have to realize now that it is HER problem. She's the one who is overreacting, since you explained yourself quite capably & apologized for any pain you caused her.

As far as her reading the article, I don't know if you have any choice if she wants to approve it. I'm sure it will come out fair & she will see that. You aren't doing a hatchet job on her--just trying to get the correct info. & writing it an informative way. Take care & lighten up on yourself.--Suzy

I agree with Suzy on this.
At this point it is her problem, after all you apologized and didn't say anything intentionally.
I think you did just fine.

((((((( HUGS ))))))) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ((((((( HUGS )))))))

From my side of this story - I would say that YOU hit a sore spot that still lives from within this lady, strong and fully active.... it sounds as though maybe she has not healed from the pain of them not having had children - even if at one time they agreed not to have children, therefore, she too took it hard - from her own inner personally wounds.

BTW - know that we cannot always please everyone all the time and that we are not always going to be aware of what might send another person running in fear.... trying to hide.

LoVe,
Rhapsody -

Candy(Poopie)Bear -1
Ignorant woman - 0
your not the problem she hasn't finished dealing with hers yet

good grief Very normal question to ask someone working with children, very normal for you to try to converse from your perspective..... boy howdy, she needs HELP!!!!

sheeeeesh, good time to review your relationship with #2 of the four agreements: Don't take things personally. (tuffy)

You have my vote. I believe you have tried to rectify the situation by explaining again, what your intention was. If she won't accept that, well, then that is HER problem.

And, if you don't have to, don't show her the article before it is published, because if she hasn't accepted your explanation for the misunderstanding, do you really think she will be accepting of your article? Me thinks not.

Personally, I would take great pleasure in not allowing her to read the article beforehand, but these are my own control issues. I'm so mean....

Altered State

http://myself.psychcentral.net/2006/...s-of-interest/

Since you were interviewing "her" I wouldn't have put myself in the conversation at all (unless she asked). I don't think you were "wrong" but, since her experience was different from yours, you did leave your article up for attack, pointing out that your experience was "different" from hers.

You're not "wrong" -- your experience is just different from hers! She feels threatened. Shrug, don't cry!

Part of the art of interviewing has to involve building a rapport with the subject. It was an attempt at making related conversation. Unfortunately, it backfired -- and that's the first time it's ever happened to me!

Well I'm sorry ... I've interviewed a lot of people firstly for my thesis ... criminals ... and what I disclosed to them was extremely controlled and only in response to WHAT THEY ASKED ME.

I've been taught to interview by real professionals (thank god) and in my current job, if I introduced bias while interviewing something (which is what you did) I'd be unable to use that interview as valid data

If she'd asked you about your kids ... yes, you could have introduced what you did.

But as an interviewer your job is NOT to 'bring in your experience as a birthmon'. If you are going to challenge your subject - which is perfectly acceptable - you may call on your own experiences, but you'd ask in a different way - e.g. neutrally - if that was appropriate.

i'm sorry but protocol dictates that you're careful about who and how you disclose personal information to. It doesn't break the ice. You may normalise something in terms of says 'Some people I've spoken to think .... do you agree / disagree' ... but unless it's asked of you you keep your own history out of it.

Otherwise you're introducing bias.

Good luck

My language etc is all outta whack here ... but it is 2am, so I apologise.

candybear, you are a very bright lady, but in my experience one has to be extremely careful about personal information. it's okay to normalise if you wanna challenge, it's fine to question (you're a journo, i know you know that), and it's all right to give something personal if that's what your subject asks for - carefully, of course.

i'd just be wary of bringing up something personal as a means to gather more info or challenge something. that's all i meant

good grief, i guess i couldn't be a professional interviewer, I go heart to heart lilke Candybear..... "intoducing bias" my goodness, I am on a different page in a different book on that one. my brain is blubbering with itself to find words to express my dismay at this, my first peek behind the scenes of jurnalism. No wonder communication has gone doody in this country. Yooo Hooo we're all human and that provides context for what we do and think..... Linear, sterile reporting leaves me frustrated and wanting more backround. I guess I'm shocked they teach people to be that way. It's like the rule about "anthropomorphizing"-- "don't emotionally connect, that will scew your results"..... downright missed the whole point thinking to me. )))))))) ) )candybear((((((((( ( (

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
hillbunnyb said:
good grief, i guess i couldn't be a professional interviewer, I go heart to heart lilke Candybear..... "intoducing bias" my goodness, I am on a different page in a different book on that one. my brain is blubbering with itself to find words to express my dismay at this, my first peek behind the scenes of jurnalism. No wonder communication has gone doody in this country. Yooo Hooo we're all human and that provides context for what we do and think..... Linear, sterile reporting leaves me frustrated and wanting more backround. I guess I'm shocked they teach people to be that way. It's like the rule about "anthropomorphizing"-- "don't emotionally connect, that will scew your results"..... downright missed the whole point thinking to me. )))))))) ) )candybear((((((((( ( (

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

You completely miss my point.

Okay for example (and this is a very blatent one).

My phd was in substance abuse and criminal offending.

I couldn't just go 'hey dude i have taken heaps of drugs too, meth makes me angry, how about you?'

I would connect with them in OTHER ways (of course you need rapport, you're never gonna get real information out of someone you don't do this with).

If they asked me about my drug use then I'd have to choose what to disclose and what not to. It's a delicate issue, but you need to make a judgement call. For me, I'd place it in the past but say enough so they knew I was forreal.

However if I wasn't getting enough information about their meth use and how it influenced their choice to for example commit money-generating crime, maybe I'd normalise it - I might talk about how other people i'd interviewed had done this, was it the same or different for them?

It's really hard to keep 'you' out of it but ... you have to work out how to do it or you may end up in %#@&#! or messin up your material

First rule of journalism? Good catch, Perna!

Oooh, oooh, oooh!!!

What makes a journalist good is the fact that he/she can leave their biases at the door. If I want to read about an event, etc., I do NOT want their opinion. I just want the FACTS! Free will (which we all have) allows me to make my own judgement of the situation. If you are American, then you should absolutely understand this. It is what your whole society is based upon...Free Will!

News reporting should be treated like science, in my mind. Just the facts. Do you actually WANT someone to tell you what you ought to think about a situation? I can't count the times I have been inflamed to the point of losing it, only to realize I had been duped by false reporting or exaggeration / under-exaggeration of a certain event later on as more FACTS came to light.

As for "anthropomorphizing" (thanks for that word, by the way - had to look that one up! Love it!) by an individual reporter - IT DOES SKEW REALITY. YOU ONLY GET REPORTING FROM ONLY ONE PERSON'S PERSPECTIVE - HARDLY THE POINT OF JOURNALISM. The point is, it SHOULD make you want to LEARN more. A newspaper cannot possibly cover all that you should/could/want to know... It is only meant to get you information on "current" situations. The motivation to learn more about what is happening in the world around you, especially things that are meaningful to you, is really, your responsbility.

In my opinion, too much bias has entered mainstream journalism - mostly for entertainment value and to capture the attention of as many viewers as possible - for strictly financial reasons. Most people today, take biased news reporting as fact and are therefore, skewed, not by their own volition, but by those reporting their opinions as opposed to the FACTS. Mind control to a certain extent comes into play here. (Like the justification of the war in Iraq, for instance. Skewed reporting (of the reality of Iraq having nukes) put the U.S. in an impossible position and is costing the people untold billions and billions and billions of dollars, not to mention the precious lives of a countless number of people)!!!!

Do you ever get a chance to see how news about the same topic is reported by the "other side" or a relatively neutral side? Very, very different! Expand your mind and don't let the mainstream MEDIA tell you what to think!!!! Their motives are strictly profit-driven. My motive for watching the news is to learn the facts, and I hate being screwed over when I find that what has been report is just a bunch of ********, especially after I have research deeper into the subject at hand!

Altered State

Oh yeah, one more thing - you are suppose to think for yourself.

Oops, if you're a republican and support the war. Hey, it's your right to have that opinion - hopefully it is based on fact and not political "spin."

Well sorry, but I have an advanced degree myself, and I never claimed to be a scientist. I'm a reporter. I don't deal in precise, statistical data, I deal in human beings. You're comparing apples to oranges (and insulting my professionalism in the process.)

((((( Candy )))))

Fuzzy

How does that saying go? "The first rule of journalism...."

Altered State

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
candybear said:
Well sorry, but I have an advanced degree myself, and I never claimed to be a scientist. I'm a reporter. I don't deal in precise, statistical data, I deal in human beings. You're comparing apples to oranges (and insulting my professionalism in the process.)

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

LOL!!!!

My job is with human beings as well.

So was my doctorate

It's having the skills to extract information both personably and professionally ...

I'm more than happy to share my knowledge and training, Candybear

I deal in people, and what people need and want.

Maybe upskill before you apply for any more jobs - I am sure there are courses out there!

Very best of luck to you

!! (Man, I have a gas with these emoticons!)