Alex Callinicos/SWP vs Laurie Penny/New Statesman Facebook handbags

[articul8]

Not clear exactly what JB is objecting to - has she changed her views from those given in the phone interview? Was the phone discussion supposed to be an off the record conversation - and did she make that clear to Laurie? Books can be researched over a number of years, and research can be cumulative, pieced together from work done for other projects. Unless LP has made some gratuitously false claim (JB sat down and agreed to be interviewed in person for this book) it seems like a bit pointless strop

 

[DaveCinzano]

the same as he did with that porn actress a few months back.

Are you talking about Anna Span and the article about the Shaftas? Anna Span is a director, so do you mean her, or have other 'interviewees' come forward to dispute Penny's version?

 

[Kid_Eternity]

...and given that she already has her own record of making stuff up

Almost doesn't matter how long it may be, one infraction in the current climate is good enough to tarnish a rep and be strung out to dry to deflect from greater scrutiny...

 

[Kid_Eternity]

Not clear exactly what JB is objecting to - has she changed her views from those given in the phone interview? Was the phone discussion supposed to be an off the record conversation - and did she make that clear to Laurie? Books can be researched over a number of years, and research can be cumulative, pieced together from work done for other projects. Unless LP has made some gratuitously false claim (JB sat down and agreed to be interviewed in person for this book) it seems like a bit pointless strop

Her agreeing to give an interview lends weight to the book overall.

 

[temper_tantrum]

Not clear exactly what JB is objecting to - has she changed her views from those given in the phone interview? Was the phone discussion supposed to be an off the record conversation - and did she make that clear to Laurie? Books can be researched over a number of years, and research can be cumulative, pieced together from work done for other projects. Unless LP has made some gratuitously false claim (JB sat down and agreed to be interviewed in person for this book) it seems like a bit pointless strop

It's generally considered good practice to contact the interviewee if you want to re-use their material in a different format, or if you end up doing a piece of work with a different premise/angle/audience (etc) to the one you originally told them you were putting together.
In this case, JB (and Finn Mackay, I think) objects to her old quotes which she gave for LP's blog being re-used without her permission for a book which has (according to JB) a totally different angle. JB says that she would refuse to contribute to the book because she disagrees with LP's subject matter/perspective on the subject.
I think.

 

[butchersapron]

Are you talking about Anna Span and the article about the Shaftas? Anna Span is a director, so do you mean her, or have other 'interviewees' come forward to dispute Penny's version?

I meant her.

 

[butchersapron]

Something else she shares with Hari - threats of libel.

 

[articul8]

It's generally considered good practice to contact the interviewee if you want to re-use their material in a different format, or if you end up doing a piece of work with a different premise/angle/audience (etc) to the one you originally told them you were putting together.
In this case, JB (and Finn Mackay, I think) objects to her old quotes which she gave for LP's blog being re-used without her permission for a book which has (according to JB) a totally different angle. JB says that she would refuse to contribute to the book because she disagrees with LP's subject matter/perspective on the subject.
I think.

if the book genuinely has a "totally different angle", and hence the original quotes given would be misrepresented by their re-use then yes. But this is quite a grey area - and consent for the publication of the orginal interview can't just be withdrawn retrospectively on the whim of the interviewee.

 

[butchersapron]

But there was no original interview published or consent given! That's the point - it's bindel's point anyway. It was a phone call for background info. See any interview quotes from bindel in the article LP wrote? I don't.

 

[articul8]

The radical gender fluidity within the trans movement is exactly what Bindel, when I spoke to her in the process of writing this article, emphasised above everything else: "Normality is horrific. Normality is what I, as a political activist, am trying to turn around. Gender bending, people living outside their prescribed gender roles, is fantastic - and I should know. I've never felt like a woman, or like a man for that matter - I don't know what that's supposed to mean. I live outside of my prescribed gender roles, I'm not skinny and presentable, I don't wear makeup, I'm bolshie, I don't behave like a 'real woman', and like anyone who lives outside their prescribed gender roles, I get stick for it."

Is this not a quote from JB? LP says she "spoke to her in the course of writing this article" - was that an off-the-record briefing type conversation? Did JB make this clear at the time (I'm not in a position to tell - but I can see how this is a grey area)

 

[butchersapron]

What i meant was, that you appeared to think that the article consisted of an interview with bindel, one that was by definition consented to for publication - and so the later withdrawal of consent would be dodgy as you suggested. But it's simply not, there's one quote from a phone interview almost in passing, as the body of the article is a response to another one that bindle had written.

(why the fuck am i writing about this?!!)

 

[articul8]

LB gave an interview over the phone - ie. not an off-the record conversation (JB isn't complaining about being quoted in the orginal blog). So why the retroactive withdrawal of consent when said material makes it's way into a book? It's upto JB to demonstrate how the implication that she said these things in an interview for LPs book changes the terms are so dramatic as to change the terms on which the original interview was given.

It's like having consensual sex then later deciding it was actually rape because you were wrong to have consented in the first place.

 

[butchersapron]

One last time - bindel claims that LP says in her book that she was interviewed for the book. The 'interview' wasn't for the book - it couldn't have been, as there was no book. LP using past interviews is fine, to claim that she had been interviewed for the book is not. You're looking at the wrong part of the picture.

 

[articul8]

OK, if she did that it's stretching the truth of a bit if taken literally - but if LP considers the research for the blog a constituent part of the research for the book then it's a grey area.

No need for JB's histrionics.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

OK, if she did that it's stretching the truth of a bit if taken literally - but if LP considers the research for the blog a constituent part of the research for the book then it's a grey area.

No need for JB's histrionics.

How could she consider it research for a book when it's meant to have happened a few years ago?

 

[articul8]

Books can be years - decades even - in gestation. I'm not saying this was automatically the case with Laurie, but it's not unusual for writers to synthesise and build on previous essays/articles into longer projects.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

Books can be years - decades even - in gestation. I'm not saying this was automatically the case with Laurie, but it's not unusual for writers to synthesise and build on previous essays/articles into longer projects.

Very true but she hasn't said that this was the case from what I can tell. Either way she should be careful with what she thinks the relationship is with people she's talking to that she uses later in published material and what the person involved thinks the relationship is. She's made errors before which are either just sloppy journalism or (if you're a detractor) cynical opportunism so needs to be a bit more careful now with everything else going on than ever before.

 

[temper_tantrum]

if the book genuinely has a "totally different angle", and hence the original quotes given would be misrepresented by their re-use then yes. But this is quite a grey area - and consent for the publication of the orginal interview can't just be withdrawn retrospectively on the whim of the interviewee.

If someone interviews me for an article in Newspaper XYZ in 2006 on the subject of ABC, then I would be rather concerned if they took the quotes and re-worked them for a book on DEFG in 2009. Firstly, you're taking the quotes out of context. Secondly, my views might have changed in the meantime. Thirdly, yes, radical thought but interviewees do have a certain amount of rights over their public representation. If they say you are misrepresenting them, then that deserves consideration.

Edit: From my perspective, if I was LP ( ) and I wanted to use the material for my new book project, here's what I would do. I would contact JB. I'd say that I'm writing a book on blah-blah, and I'd like to use material from the interview we did in the past. But I appreciate that she might not hold the same views anymore, so therefore does she have any updated opinion on it, and would she like to elaborate on the earlier material?
Then, if I used the original material again, I would simply cite it clearly. Eg. 'In 2006 Julie Bindel argued ... XYZ (reference to original article)'. If she gave me new or more detailed views for the book, I could then add: 'More recently, she has said ... ABC'.
That's the way you handle prior material, imo.

 

[articul8]

As a say there's a certain grey area here. Obviously it's wrong if quotes are totally ripped out of context and an interviewee wholly misrepresented. But at the same time no interviewee has the right to retrospectively withdraw consent to publish the results of an interview they freely entered into. Any more than consent to sex can be withdrawn after the event.

 

[TruXta]

As a say there's a certain grey area here. Obviously it's wrong if quotes are totally ripped out of context and an interviewee wholly misrepresented. But at the same time no interviewee has the right to retrospectively withdraw consent to publish the results of an interview they freely entered into. Any more than consent to sex can be withdrawn after the event.

I dunno about journalism, but that's not the way it works in academia. When I do interviews I must get people to sign an informed consent form that clearly states that consent can be withdrawn at any time during or after the interview. Fail to include that clause and you fail to get clearance from the Research Ethics Committee. And rightly so.

That said, the situation is obviously different if an interview has already entered the public domain via airing or other publication. But even then I think the interviewee should have the right to refuse publication of material that hasn't been made public.

 

[temper_tantrum]

at the same time no interviewee has the right to retrospectively withdraw consent to publish the results of an interview they freely entered into. Any more than consent to sex can be withdrawn after the event.

If I agree to fuck a guy in his room one night in 2006 on our own, does that mean he has the right to fuck me in public in 2009?
You give an interview in a context, for a particular publication, at a particular time. Re-using that material long after the event in different circumstances, in a different context,without your interviewee's consent is, I'm afraid, unethical.
As I said above, if the quotes were on the record at the time, you can use the old material IF YOU REFERENCE IT PROPERLY.
In the terms of your metaphor, that means I can't stop you from thinking about the past sex having occurred, for wank bank material.

 

[frogwoman]

Unless the interviewee consented tho obv

 

[lazyhack]

LP isn't a journalist, she has a lot in common with Hari, but has a bit more radical cover. Well positioned people with cultural capital who write themselves into everything they produce, its a good recipe for coming undone in the end.

I heard she got shouted out of the free school squat by a particularly over eager anarchist kid, but the door wouldn't work so she was left trapped there with him shouting in her face about being 'journalist scum'.

 

[temper_tantrum]

Penny's 'book' is not well-received, it appears:
http://madamjmo.blogspot.com/2011/07/laurie-penny-looking-familiar.html

 

[frogwoman]

Wot happened to the book she was writing with clare solomon?

 

[butchersapron]

Penny's 'book' is not well-received, it appears:
http://madamjmo.blogspot.com/2011/07/laurie-penny-looking-familiar.html

£9.99 for 68 pages!!!! And it appears much of it is recycled anyway. Fuck me she's desperate, I've written longer fucking pamphlets than that.

 

[TruXta]

£9.99 for 68 pages!!!! And it appears much of it is recycled anyway. Fuck me she's desperate, I've written longer fucking pamphlets than that.

Links?

 

[butchersapron]

Wot happened to the book she was writing with clare solomon?

They weren't writing it, they were collecting others writings and plastering their own names on the book cover. It appears Penny was given the boot from this project.

 

[temper_tantrum]

She's got another 2 books due out in the next year, according to the latest piece on her blog.
Edit: 'Collected columns' 2007-11, this autumn, and a 'proper' book next spring ('a big book of feminist essays and insurrectionary tactics').
Edit again: Is this the Solomon book?: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Springtime-Student-Rebellions-Clare-Solomon/dp/1844677400

 

[butchersapron]

Links?

Nah, not yet anyway.