Filed under: Uncategorized
Dubbed by a certain writer for a certain LGBT-portal as a “spokesperson” I have to quickly point out that:
1. I have never claimed to be a spokesperson for the topic of HIV, I’m merely another person sharing my life experiences semi-anonymously (I find that the reception to actual people with a face – or whatever’s not obscured – relating their experiences is greater than an organisation or faceless individuals behind pseudonyms).
2. I’m not ready, or even looking to become the next Paddy Chew – I ain’t nearly as selfless or “brave”.
I got a call from a friend this morning telling me, not only was I on the said LGBT-portal, my face was on it as a “click me” link as well. The writer had actually approached me for an interview, which I had declined. He said he would mention my work in his write-up. This however, feels more than a mention, as I’m the opening image to the story. It really brings to mind the 2010 reporter who went “fuck you, I got my story” on me… and people wonder why I refuse to do interviews and hold reporters with distrust, and instead speak on my own accord?
I don’t get how an article of someone else, for an interview I declined, has my face as the headline image.
Make no mistake, I am wholly comfortable with my diagnosis, but while I have come to fully accept the disease I live with, not everyone echoes my stance. Such reckless reporting does not consider the implications with the individuals concerned, such as my current occupation’s reaction to such news if it were picked up by mainstream press. Also, I am a staunch believer in coming out at your own time. I fully believe that a HIV diagnosis, is a second “coming-out” for most gay men, and my stand on the issue is similar to the first closet you walk out from; it should be done at your own time. If you have to be dragged out of there, then chances are you’re going to find yourself sneaking into another recluse.
While I am keen on spreading hope, truth and humor as I’ve stated in my Twitter profile, I want to do it my way, at my time. This is exactly why I chose to write for an online-publication an entire continent away, and not one local or even regional. I thank everyone for the kind words and mentions saying how “brave” I am, but truth is, bravery and foolishness tread a thin line. I am not ready to come out of this second closet in full battle armor to take on a majority of people still mis-educated and holding dated and downright false notions about my disease. One step at a time, no point coming out now, in full battle-gear, to a fight I’ll probably lose today.
For now, my profile and all pictures have been removed, and I have requested for it to be pulled from the publishing site, and from my editor at the publication I write for. As I said.. dragging someone out of the closet can get them running back in. How’s that going to help a local community, already in need of activists?
—UPDATE
Fridae editors has refused to withdraw the incriminating pictures which reveal my real name and profile photo the writer dug up from a Canadian HIV+ publication I write for, after explicitly stating my wish that it be removed, and having my editor write to Fridae to remove the screenshot (it was a screenshot of my profile from the site). The author has also responded, saying that this wouldn’t have happened if I agreed to speak and be interviewed by him. Also, my friend who did agree to the interview said he was not sent a copy to be vetted (as was previously agreed) since he would have objected to such identity-compromising information being published. Empowering Asia? I really think not.
6 Comments so far
Leave a comment
We’ve had our differences but I am appalled by this. Fridae has gone from leading the Asian response to HIV to gutter journalism. I would seriously recommend talking to a lawyer.
Comment by Daniel Reeders July 28, 2012 @ 7:43 amI’m the reporter who was involved. I’d just like to apologise for what happened and explain the incident from my perspective.
Initially, I was profiling Zack alone, but reading about J, I felt it would be unjust not to recognise what he was doing. This is why I wrote about J at length.
Since J was already out on the Internet (his face was shown in both his WordPress “About Me” page and on the Canadian website) I wrongly assumed he would be ok with being out on our website. I did e-mail Zack the final story, but for some reason the e-mail bounced after a few days. I didn’t choose the photo for the front page.
J can attest that I SMSed him back saying we would take down the photo as soon as I woke up. However, my editor believed that it would be against protocol to take down the photo and information. I argued with her about this, but since she has more experience than I do in journalism, I accepted her decision and communicated it to J.
Zack tweeted that Fridae would expose any HIV+ person we talked to. I tweeted back, “Actually, this happened because J wouldn’t talk to me. If he’d talked to me, then I would have known his limits.” I.e. after an interview, I would’ve known that these public photos were not meant to be viewed by Singaporeans.
J got in touch with AfA and they spoke to my editor. She spoke again to me, and I again recommended that the photos and text be taken down. They were taken down about 30 hours after they went up.
I know we screwed up, and I apologise. But I don’t see this as a case of gutter journalism. My editor chose the PositiveLite photo because it was the least sexualised photo available, and she believed it represented J in the best light. We included J because we wanted to tell a story in full, and because we wanted to inspire others.
I don’t expect to be forgiven. But I just want to let you guys know: all of us are just trying to do the right thing.
-Ng Yi-Sheng
Comment by Ng Yi-Sheng July 30, 2012 @ 10:30 pmYour mistake is worse than gutter journalism. Calling it journalism at all is incorrect. What you’ve done is unconscionable and it flies in the face of journalism. You’re no journalist, that much you’ve proven. Now how about proving you’re a human being and doing something to help all the people you’ve harmed with your irresponsible lack of integrity? Donate what you made with your irresponsible actions to the charity of his choice. Any real journalist would. I know that because I am one.
Comment by paul klees August 2, 2012 @ 6:44 am“Email (took days to, lol) bounced so we published without go-head” is a crap excuse indeed, and so is the accompanying story about “oh I tried but things happened so it’s not really my fault it took so long to be removed”. Stop making excuses and show some sincerity for goodness sake. The truth is out there, and I’m sure emails and messages proof can turn up if you continue to try to disguise it.
To J, I only hope the damage control is enough. All the best.
Comment by Z August 24, 2012 @ 8:39 amI’m really not kidding – you should take a print-out of this page to a media lawyer and ask about your options. Mr Ng has just said his thought process was ‘unless J gives me an interview, I will publish his photo on my own say-so’, which is clearly coercive and is not how copyright law and confidentiality principles work. Finally, that your editor had even a single moment’s hesitation taking the photo down is a sign she should be sacked. I hope current and future partner organisations and funding agencies pay close attention.
Comment by badblood August 1, 2012 @ 9:49 amYou’re not as innocent a party as you’re presenting yourself to be Yi-Sheng, and you know it. It seems that you knew this story would amount to something only if there was a little bit of dirt in it.
Please don’t play the hero who valiantly wrote this for the betterment of a community, while I cannot fault your write-up or it’s message, anyone with any common sense can deduce from my rejection of your interview that:
1. I DID NOT want anything to do with your story by rejecting your request to be spoken with, and
2. I CERTAINLY DID NOT WANT TO BE OUTED THE WAY I DID, regardless of whether my picture was up in front or somewhere in the midst of it all or whatever. The fact that I explicitly said no, your blatant disregard for that wish shows you are in the wrong.
Your rhetoric of ‘it isn’t fair to me because I am a young HIV activist too, and portraying ‘Zack’ as the only one would be injustice’ is ironic stupidity at it’s best. What you did, dragging my identity into the community’s eye, was the exact opposite of fairness.
‘The mail bounced back, after a few days?’ That is a fucked up excuse, and I even dare call you a liar. What mail provider do you use, snail-mail? Also, you couldn’t call/text ‘Zack’ personally, as is customary for writers seeking to get their stories vetted, to check if he got the mail so he can promptly look through, before publication, as was agreed on? Total BULLSHIT. You wanted the story to be read as you wrote it, and you couldn’t have cared less at whoever’s expense is was so long as you got your story.
————–
Here is the entire truth, since you’re so keen on having it heard:
8AM: I personally contact you to request removal of photos and highlight that the “pseudonym” you picked out was my actual name. I also wrote to Fridae to state that I did not give permission to use my images. My editor mails Fridae to request removal of the screenshot, taken from their site.
9AM: You reply, and “will forward to your editor”
10AM: I tell you that I am not comfortable, and have since removed all photos of me online. I again request removal of photos.
10.30AM: You suggest using one of my “more obscured photos”. I reflect my concerns with this, and decline, again asking nicely to understand that I am not comfortable. You say you will try.
1.00PM: You stand with the editors and state that you don’t see how my concerns are valid, and will handle future problems that should arise from the article, and that I should leave it to Fridae to “manage the media side of the issue (if this does not reflect their thinly veiled desire for the story to be picked up by mainstream press, then I don’t know what does).”
You agree to swap the homepage photo but insist on keeping the article in it’s entirety using the argument that it is “public knowledge at time of publication” (this is a weak one, the public I am open to is a specific and selected demographic I am comfortable with, while you’re obviously seeking to open this to a wider audience, against my wishes).
You tell me in your text “I know this is scary for you now but it is going to work out. Wait and see. You are a hero to many already.” (I don’t even have words for your closing “assurance” to me.)
1.30PM: I tell you further correspondence between us is pointless. I’ve tried asking the source to remove it to no avail. I assure you that this will do more damage than good, and could drive me to silence and even quit at being a semi-open-HIV-activist. You offer no reply.
3.00PM: I pull strings to get the story taken down. One string led to someone who knew someone up in Fridae, who spoke to an editor and managed to get the image of me removed. My real name remains reflected in the story (it was a half-arsed removal).
Evening: AFA speaks to your editors to remove mention of me and to issue a note. This is done only hours after my initial request.
9.20PM: You inform me that all mention of me has been removed. You apologise, – saying you’re sorry your actions have hurt me and that it wasn’t intentional.
I have yet, to this day, receive a reply from Fridae regarding my request, or an apology. Shows how sorry you guys really are.
————–
You know Yi-Sheng, I’d dislike you a lot less if you had just quietly disappeared after your “apology” (which, as everyone can see, was only done *after* AFA had come into the picture), but you seem to remain in oblivion to the gravity of your mistake, and how lucky you should feel that I’m willing to let the whole thing boil over and not pursue anything legally (if only because it risks implicating my identity even further).
If Fridae’s definition of “doing the right thing” is dragging people out of the closet against their explicit wishes, then way to go… What a vibrant, positive, non-fearful community we’re headed towards. Bottom line is, if we can’t even trust our own circle to respect it’s own people’s wishes, then what trust would you propose myself, or others like me, would hold for the press at large? Last I checked, leaving people completely traumatised didn’t count as empowerment.
Comment by J August 1, 2012 @ 10:15 am