furfright: http://www.hartfordadvocate.com/article.

creatureshock, 2007-11-02 09:17 pm UTC

leswamp, 2007-11-02 09:18 pm UTC

spotweld, 2007-11-02 11:11 pm UTC

iskunk, 2007-11-02 11:26 pm UTC

spotweld, 2007-11-02 11:58 pm UTC

wyld_b_wolfy, 2007-11-04 04:20 pm UTC

leswamp, 2007-11-03 01:16 am UTC

leswamp
2007-11-02 09:03 pm UTC (link)

It annoys me that the media can't find something else to exploit but it could be worse. Still, I'm in favor of not permitting this person to return.

I also find myself somewhat annoyed that a panel on BDSM safety is described as "sleaze." Of course there was no such panel but so what if there was? If it's after 11PM or so, (When kids are reasonably expected to be asleep) who cares what consenting adults do? Who is anyone to judge? I personally have no problem with any panel that focuses on preventing injuries of any kind.

I'm pretty annoyed about the whole thing but that's just me. Yes, her take could have been far worse but I'm still annoyed.

MHO.

Can we make attendees sign something in which they swear not to be reporters? Is it time to consult with an attorney? Just wondering.

	pencollie 2007-11-02 09:07 pm UTC (link)
	Ah, but then you'd be kicking out any furs who happen to be reporters or journalists xD (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

leswamp, 2007-11-02 09:11 pm UTC

talliy, 2007-11-02 09:38 pm UTC

talliy, 2007-11-02 09:39 pm UTC

	boomeroo 2007-11-02 09:17 pm UTC (link)
	Wow. Now if only we could get everyone else in the world to see this too! I had to laugh at a part of that article, because I'm fairly certain that it was me working registration that questioned her address and appearance. (Reply to this)

svankmaj
2007-11-02 09:20 pm UTC (link)

Very interesting article! I found myself kind of cocking my head (as a dog does when communicating "WTF?"), but decided that I liked the article a lot. :)

I never know what to do about media. Accept or not accept? Trust or do not trust? ALWAYS be nice, of course. And as mom often told me, I can be far too honest. LOL

But we cannot deny the media, either. We have to be honest, but let them know WHY we feel the way we feel, so they understand, and hope that they have the moral sensibilities to be honest and say what needs to be said. Ever since those two TV reporters purposefully ripped up the scripts on-air saying that they refused to discuss the latest Paris Hilton scandal, I feel that media workers are starting to realize what really matters to the public and what really needs to be said, rather than what will just spark attention and sensationalism. Or at least, that is my hope.

I knew we had one guy the first day who was asking a lot of questions and whom we thought was a reporter of some kind. Don't know what happened to him, though. Hmmm...

But I think it's kind of funny that the girl was looking for "juicy info" and actually found something better. Sounds like a good plot for a movie on furs (it might come about one day!).

Overall, this is yet another positive move in the good reporting on furs. Let's just hope that it is done in moderation so readers will not pick it up as a trend-setting fad! *shivers in fear*

Really touching the points on the skunk and little girl that she wrote on. *snif* It really does remind me why I love furries so much and is reassuring that, though we grow up, we do not need to grow old (Tabor, the 61-year old friend, proved that to me). I do not fear aging when I am with my friends...

I love you and Belic deeply and thank you for everything you have both done for me and for everyone else whose lives you touch. *snif* Please take good care of yourselves and give yourselves enough well-earned rest for next year!!! *huge flipper hugs*

Furio / Royce

iskunk
2007-11-02 09:44 pm UTC (link)

Oh. My. GOD.

I met her. I actually spent a bit of time with her on Friday. I'm the one she refers to as "Skunk." (That should be "iSKUNK!," but eh.)

She was indeed at the Icebreaker panel, and she drove me and another guy to the Fursuiter Feast in her car. (We even dined at the same table.) From the first, she'd let on that she was a veteran of various sci-fi gatherings, but that this was her first furry con. She was highly curious about the fandom, how it was perceived, truth versus misconceptions, etc. and I was happy to lay down for her the not-so-sensational reality of what we do.

There was nothing to suggest she was a journalist; no notepad, no voice recorder, nothing. Even when I got into her car---and that was apparently unplanned for her, because she had junk strewn across the passenger and rear seats---nothing. The only thing that struck me as unusual was her personality: she had more of a genteel, "delicate" nature than someone who typically frequents sci-fi conventions. (If you'll pardon a little stereotyping.)

The article doesn't seem to be a hatchet job, and I can't say I object to the lines attributed to me, but I'm left a bit conflicted about the experience. Jennifer was a pleasure to speak with (and dine with) in person, and I had been happy to contribute to what seemed a positive impression of the fandom on her part. (I think at one point she said, "Believe me, I've seen far worse at Star Trek conventions.") But for her to have had this article in mind, and the way journalists have twisted our well-intentioned words in the past... I'll have to see more feedback on her work before I really know what to make of it.

	talliy 2007-11-02 09:49 pm UTC (link)
	Ya just have to remember whats the military taught me about media relations. Nothing is off the record. (Reply to this) (Parent)

winged_panda, 2007-11-02 09:56 pm UTC

leswamp, 2007-11-02 10:08 pm UTC

ferdiaferlin, 2007-11-03 12:43 am UTC

iskunk, 2007-11-03 01:00 am UTC

leswamp, 2007-11-03 01:17 am UTC

wally_wabbit, 2007-11-04 12:44 am UTC

skippyfox, 2007-11-05 04:13 am UTC

simbab
2007-11-02 09:54 pm UTC (link)

(partially in response to

svankmaj above)

My instinct with the media is to definitely NOT accept. Maybe in another time and place but today's mass media will only harm the fandom. If they don't, they don't know everything (as seems to be the case here).

We will always be an outcast subculture to the media. The media exists largely to propagate a certain perspective and further the narrative of conventional wisdom, and in that vast American cultural narrative we range from curious oddity to perverted freaks. It's not about "the more they know" or "if they only understood"...these people need to sell papers, subscriptions, and ad dollars, and playing to people's tribalistic instincts is always the way to do that. Furries simply do not have the cultural pull to change the conventional wisdom (you could argue that's on purpose for the social strata we occupy, but that's for another time and place).

The media has no business covering a private event of people who wish to indulge their fantasies and be left alone. We aren't hurting anyone (most of the time anyway). Don't let them hurt you. I would never allow myself or anyone I care about talk to a reporter, or sign any legal releases. There isn't a hell of a lot in it for you, and there can be a lot of downsides.

	leswamp 2007-11-02 10:06 pm UTC (link)
	Sadly, I agree with you very strongly on this. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

svankmaj, 2007-11-02 10:10 pm UTC

leswamp, 2007-11-02 10:28 pm UTC

svankmaj, 2007-11-02 10:08 pm UTC

ferdiaferlin, 2007-11-03 12:49 am UTC

simbab, 2007-11-03 01:07 am UTC

	downeastmike 2007-11-02 10:10 pm UTC (link)
	Goddammit! That Article was atrocious! To suggest, for even one moment that my Safety Furst panel was tame enough for middle schools! I guess it will have to be kicked up a few notches for next year. I'll begin interviewing models for condom demos and discussions of positions at once! snerk ScruffyPuppy (Reply to this) (Thread)

	leswamp 2007-11-02 10:32 pm UTC (link)
	LOL..I'm so glad we had your panel. I think it's important not to let fear of outside perception bully us into being anything other than ourselves. (As long as ourselves have good manners and common sense.) :) I also think programming such as your panel happens to be very important. :) (Reply to this) (Parent)

countrycanid
2007-11-02 11:34 pm UTC (link)

While I may not appreciate her methods, I do at least appreciate the article. What she did to get her story was backhanded, dishonest, and generally unethical in my opinion. At least however thats where the deception ended, and what resulted was an article about what she saw. Let us just hope that "sensationalist" reporters don't use her method to gain access to cons and make up hot sheets from here on out.

What she did is a two-sided coin after all, and I'd greatly encourage it to not be done again, but at least it ended well.

	leswamp 2007-11-03 01:20 am UTC (link)
	I think it'd be a great idea to consult with an attorney just to have an idea what the con's options are, if any, about protecting ourselves as best as possible from people who will do the same thing and be less honest and more sensationalistic in thier "findings." And I can't personally forgive how she got in. Just can't excuse it and look the other way. MHO. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	redcoatcat 2007-11-03 12:22 am UTC (link)
	I like the artical, it was positive and shows furry community in a good light. Her way of getting a story was dishonest, but everyone is always curious when you close the door and say members only. =^,,^- (Reply to this) (Thread)

	kgraleopard 2007-11-03 01:47 am UTC (link)
	Easy, there, with the super-cute icons, Meezer! laughs hugs (Reply to this) (Parent)

scs_11
2007-11-03 02:43 am UTC (link)

After years of working security at Anthrocon, I wish all reporters would come in 'undercover' as this one did.

Why?

When a reporter or news crew hits the hotel, it's like feeding time for the outre. People who I wouldn't let into my house practically line up to spill their stories to the nice, sympathetic reporter. It's as if they think that telling their story will somehow cause the world to suddenly understand them. Does the reporter edit it for oddness? Hell yes. But the interviewees fed them such a steady diet of it that the reporter didn't have to work hard.

Kage and a few others try to run interference with reporters at Anthrocon. Not much in the way of news come out of it. Why? Because the reporters know they're being handled by a pro. They know they're only being given a particular and somewhat sanitized viewpoint. On seeing that, any reporter worth his salt is going to go digging for the 'real' story. Keep the reporters away from 99% of the furries, and the reporters will assume that 99% of the furries have something hidden. So they go looking for that hidden stuff. Eventually, they'll find somebody six sigmas out on the bell curve, and that only confirms their opinion that something was hidden. And who loses? The furries, who get painted with the brush of the most extreme of the crew.

This time something different happened. This woman came in as if she were an insider and wound up getting an insider's view. She liked what she saw. She saw old friends chatting. She saw costumers sharing tips. She saw art. She saw, as she describes it, a family-friendly place. God bless that man talking about his three-year-old daughter, and God bless the reporter for realizing that those two were the average furry.

She never would have gotten that story if she came in openly as a reporter. Instead she'd have been shuffled around by handlers, glommed onto by attention seekers, and avoided like the plague by the very folks who are the best examples of furries.

I'm not a furry in the sense that I don't have a fursona and am not real big on the anthropomorphic art (except Kevin and Kell. Gotta love Kevin and Kell). But I've been lucky enough to get to know the furry community from working Anthrocon and FurFright, and I tell ya, it's a joy and a privilege to do it.

This reporter came in, and by dint of not drawing attention to herself, got to see furries as they are: kind, friendly, fun-loving, practical people who are there to enjoy each others' company. I wish to hell more of them would do it that way.

	slimgatsby 2007-11-03 03:02 am UTC (link)
	I concur wholeheartedly. The fandom generally needs to reconsider their media policy; while some may consider a general blacklist of the press "safer," acting like you have something to hide makes it look like you actually do. (Reply to this) (Parent)

boomeroo, 2007-11-03 06:29 pm UTC

	kwisa 2007-11-03 02:57 am UTC (link)
	This Is a great Article about a FurCon I Hope he gets a invitation to next years FurFright Nice Post scs_11 Squeaks (Reply to this)

slimgatsby
2007-11-03 02:58 am UTC (link)

Only FurFright could spark such an awesome article. It simply has the most friendly, "one big family" atmosphere that a lot of cons lack, and manages to be appropriate for all ages, while still being one incredibly good time.

I, for one, think its awesome that someone from the media snuck in trying to dig up some dirt, but they really dug up gold, in the hearts of furries, or some other sappy mumbo jumbo. ;D

Balance?

ag_wolf
2007-11-03 05:27 am UTC (link)

I'm really surprised at some of the harsh negative feedback to this article... I can understand a feeling of deceit considering she did go undercover, but it's not the end of the world. She went in just trying to get a story, and she got one... people who take offense and say it was an invasion of privacy should realise the con IS open to the public, and unless they themselves exposed any of their own personal opinions/beliefs/interests, then they're not really any kind of "victim," their personal privacy was not compromised.

I can also appreciate people who think that mass media will only do harm to something like the fandom, mainly because they will inevitably focus on the extreme aspects... but I hardly think the Advocate is considered "mass media," not to mention the fact that it WAS a genuinely positive view. It's not trying to attract people to the con or the whole furry thing, it's not trying to draw attention to it... it's just shedding some light on something that the every day person may either know NOTHING about (I think it's a good first impression, personally) or that they may have only heard mention of on MTV or like that Vanity Fair article.

I'm not really involved with a lot of the furry thing, there are both people and aspects I like about the community; and at the same time there are things and people I DON'T like about it, to the point of nearly not wanting to even associate myself with the fandom... but I know those extremes are exactly that, extremes. It's a relieving breath of fresh air, to get a chance to read something like that article because she went into it presumptuous and came out both impressed by and grateful for the time she spent and the people she met.

This is just my humble opinion *cough*, but I don't think it's fair to rag on her too too much... especially when that article generally does us (or the community as a whole, interpret as you like) a favor by giving benefit of the doubt and maintaining a decent level of social dignity.

Who knows, she might have liked some of the people she met and may come back next year for the entire weekend with no pen or paper... it would be really nasty for all of us compassionate and "accepting" people to single her out and make her feel unwelcome.

littlewolfls
2007-11-03 05:34 am UTC (link)

Copied from the response I left on Omni's lj when he posted this:

I liked the article but it still bugs me that people writing on the furry fandom need to reference the mass stereotype of furs as overly promiscuous. Think of it this way: Instead of letting the stereotype die, the media feels the need to keep bringing it up.

Look at the way the media reported on Anthrocon, not a single mention of anything like that. If they want the stereotype to go away, and for cons to welcome media to them, they need to stop with the opening hooks like the one here, and just leave it as the rest of the article.

pkitty1
2007-11-03 05:57 am UTC (link)

I have to say, as much as it may be sneaky the way she got in, the ends seem to justify the means, she got some real insight, and we got a relatively level-headed article basically in our favor.

I look at it less as an article about us by some sneaky person, and more as a very detailed and well conceived documentation of somebody's overcoming the rumors about our fandom and discovering more of the truth, and in that respect i really enjoyed reading it.

(Anonymous)
2007-11-03 04:40 pm UTC (link)

It's funny reading about the reporter's "sneaky" and "dishonest" way of getting into FurFright. She showed up with cash and a photo ID, and filled out the paperwork. Just like all the other attendees. Out of curiosity, does anyone willing to do these three things actually get turned away from registering?

As a couple cooler heads have pointed out, either the con is open to all or closed to those without the Secret Decoder Ring. Seems to me it's really hard to run admissions somewhere in between. Seems to me furry fandom has more to gain by being welcoming to newbies. Hmm, as the article mentions FurFright being.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

ramensnax
2007-11-03 08:13 pm UTC (link)

Yeah, I really don't have much to say that everybody else hasn't - her methods may have been underhanded, but in the end, it actually worked in everybody's favor. There's not nearly enough good press out there for us and the minute we get some people start talking lawsuits? o.O

I dunno - call me crazy, but that's the perfect way to make us look like paranoid, secretive perverts with stuff to hide. The people quoted in her article say they weren't taken out of context and that it's pretty much on point, so who got harmed? We all got HELPED if anything.

We spend so much of our lives on the defensive that we some of us don't know how to react when a blessing in disguise actually hits us. This isn't the first time, nor will it be the last time somebody "undercover" hits a con looking for dirt. Maybe if a few more articles like this one make the rounds in the press, some of the CSI/MTV/VF stigma will start to dilute and fade a bit...

Yeah right...who am I kidding? ;P

She did nothing wrong

lupine52
2007-11-05 05:53 pm UTC (link)

The reporter neither ghosted the con, posted no pictures from the con and obided by the conventions code of ethics. She recognized and only reported on official events of the con and those of public display such as the dinner. She did not go snooping for private parties and try to equate them as part of the convention. I applaud her for that. Media or not any attendee are allowed those privliges. For most it will come in the form of a con report, for her it happened to be a paper.

Was Furfright a private invite only function? No it is open to any attendees that wanted to attend and were willing to agree to sign to the code of conduct.