Washington Post Article Mentions Pricescope's LIW

[Amys Bling]

Well done miss stepcut!

 

[Autumnovember]

Wow. Wow. Wow.

MSC, glad you wrote that.

I'm pretty baffled...and its absolutely someone who comes here...

 

[canuk-gal]

Wtf. I'm changing my username. Is this really even worthy to publish? Bit of a useless "journalist".

sweetpepsigirl wrote the journalist(Ellen) an email and the reply by the journalist was terrible. She claimed she didn't miss quote at all and she ended the email with "I hope you get your ring"
If she ACTUALLY read the forum she would have realized that sweetpepsigirl wants to get engaged to spend the rest of her life with the man... and DOES NOT even want/need a ring at all...

Well I was pretty upset to hear this, so I emailed her and additionally went over her head and contacted Washington Post about their factual error through their form (available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/interactivity/corrections/ ). What I wrote:

What is the specific error and how can we fix it?
Ellen McCarthy mistakenly attributed two posts on an online message board to the same poster, when in reality, the two quotes were from two different posters.

PriceScope's board administrator can be reached at [email redacted], to verify what the posts originally said.

The error was readily apparent to anyone who had re-read the thread. Unfortunately, both posters have had their screen names changed by the board's administration due to their embarrassment at being mischaracterized and misquoted in McCarthy's snarky and misogynistic article, so you will need to contact the administrator to know which posts were originally quoted and who posted them.

What do we need to know to improve future stories on this topic?
Ideally, Washington Post would employ a fact-checker.

Additionally, Washington Post would do well to avoid snarky and misogynistic topics, particularly when women must be mis-quoted to successfully construe those women as being marriage-hungry or desperate.

Whoa MissStepCut--you are good!

cheers--Sharon

 

[daintyG]

Wow. The author of the article is nasty and doesn't have the facts straight either. Shame on her.

 

[missy]

Wtf. I'm changing my username. Is this really even worthy to publish? Bit of a useless "journalist".

sweetpepsigirl wrote the journalist(Ellen) an email and the reply by the journalist was terrible. She claimed she didn't miss quote at all and she ended the email with "I hope you get your ring"
If she ACTUALLY read the forum she would have realized that sweetpepsigirl wants to get engaged to spend the rest of her life with the man... and DOES NOT even want/need a ring at all...

Well I was pretty upset to hear this, so I emailed her and additionally went over her head and contacted Washington Post about their factual error through their form (available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/interactivity/corrections/ ). What I wrote:

What is the specific error and how can we fix it?
Ellen McCarthy mistakenly attributed two posts on an online message board to the same poster, when in reality, the two quotes were from two different posters.

PriceScope's board administrator can be reached at [email redacted], to verify what the posts originally said.

The error was readily apparent to anyone who had re-read the thread. Unfortunately, both posters have had their screen names changed by the board's administration due to their embarrassment at being mischaracterized and misquoted in McCarthy's snarky and misogynistic article, so you will need to contact the administrator to know which posts were originally quoted and who posted them.

What do we need to know to improve future stories on this topic?
Ideally, Washington Post would employ a fact-checker.

Additionally, Washington Post would do well to avoid snarky and misogynistic topics, particularly when women must be mis-quoted to successfully construe those women as being marriage-hungry or desperate.

Whoa MissStepCut--you are good!

cheers--Sharon

I agree with Sharon, MissStepCut. Well done.

 

[iheartscience]

Fantastic email, MissStepCut!

 

[princesss]

What do we need to know to improve future stories on this topic?
Ideally, Washington Post would employ a fact-checker.

BAHAHAHAHAHA. Well done!

 

[kdub79]

How dirty can you be? I can't believe that someone would lurk and lie that way.....I have just joined today, but this does not deter me from staying and venting. Hopefully, those responsible are gone (having got what they set out for) and if not...kdub 79 says kick rocks...barefoot across hot coals and broken glass.

Publish.that.

 

[LaraOnline]

Erk! That really is a nasty, cynical article!

I don't really know why women who wish to marry are somehow fair game to be made butt of the joke.

and who is this journalist to judge how long a woman must xyz with a man before she is 'relevant' in her desire to marry?

I was romantically involved with my husband of eight years for three months before we became engaged!
My mother (now a widow) knew my father for a just over a week! They were happily married until his accidental death.

'cranking up the nuptial machinery' indeed!



perhaps this journalist has never been married, or had an unhappy marriage. She sounds very bitter...but I guess the idea was to poke fun at love, anyway, so who can tell. Ya just gotta love the modern media, with all their happy, uplifting stories!

 

[chel180]

Go Missstepcut, I couldn't have put it better myself. Lets see if there's a response or reaction.

 

[NOYFB]

MSC- you rule!!!