ChatterBank17 mins ago
So What Are They Afraid Of?
56 Answers
http://
Not only do they take away her child they also take away her freedom to give her side. More to this than meets the eye methinks.
Not only do they take away her child they also take away her freedom to give her side. More to this than meets the eye methinks.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
TTT - //have a day off andy, they are always interviewing people who want to remain annonymous, either on TV or in the press. Interviewing one that has to remain anonymous should not be too tricky. //
Indeed, anonymous interviews are common - but the entire point of this lady being interviewed is to put her side of the story.
If she remains anonymous, no-one will know it is her - and if she is identified by information in the interview, which she must be in order to speak about her situation, then she will cease to be anonymous.
Indeed, anonymous interviews are common - but the entire point of this lady being interviewed is to put her side of the story.
If she remains anonymous, no-one will know it is her - and if she is identified by information in the interview, which she must be in order to speak about her situation, then she will cease to be anonymous.
Tora - // ...Ok we won't know who it is but at least we'll know what her side of the story is.//
Except we won't - we will know 'a side' to 'a story' - but without context, that is meaningless - so no interview will take place.
Without context, which will identify the woman in question, any interview would be pointless, and no journalist would be interested, because no paper or magazine would buy it.
Except we won't - we will know 'a side' to 'a story' - but without context, that is meaningless - so no interview will take place.
Without context, which will identify the woman in question, any interview would be pointless, and no journalist would be interested, because no paper or magazine would buy it.
If she's interviewed as Ms X then that interview is properly checked for identifying remarks or references re names and places and no photographs are taken, then we could hear her side.
If it's good enough for former terrorists and Mafia members it's surely okay for one, possibly slightly bonkers, woman.
If it's good enough for former terrorists and Mafia members it's surely okay for one, possibly slightly bonkers, woman.
TTT - //we all know the context! Andy, you are not normally this obtuse. //
We know the context now, because it is being discussed, and the case is current.
By the time an interview could be organised, written, edited, and printed, this case will have ceased to be news.
So - you have two choices, you have an intervew with the woman who had a court ban her from putting her side of the story about handing her daughter over to the child's gay father - that is news,
or - you have an anonymous woman talking about a case people vaguely recall, but without knowing who she is to jog their memories, the story is of no interest - that is not news.
We know the context now, because it is being discussed, and the case is current.
By the time an interview could be organised, written, edited, and printed, this case will have ceased to be news.
So - you have two choices, you have an intervew with the woman who had a court ban her from putting her side of the story about handing her daughter over to the child's gay father - that is news,
or - you have an anonymous woman talking about a case people vaguely recall, but without knowing who she is to jog their memories, the story is of no interest - that is not news.
douglas - //If she's interviewed as Ms X then that interview is properly checked for identifying remarks or references re names and places and no photographs are taken, then we could hear her side.
If it's good enough for former terrorists and Mafia members it's surely okay for one, possibly slightly bonkers, woman. //
Please see my reply to Tora below your post, which I believe explains why this scenario would not work.
Newspapers and magazines work on interest - the IRA and the Mafia are blanket organisations, and anonymous information comes with a pre-understood context of background.
This is a very specific case and can only be discussed in terms of the court case, the gay father, and the removal of the child - any of which facts identify the mother. Without identity, an interview would be completely meaningless, and would simply not be commissioned, much less published.
If it's good enough for former terrorists and Mafia members it's surely okay for one, possibly slightly bonkers, woman. //
Please see my reply to Tora below your post, which I believe explains why this scenario would not work.
Newspapers and magazines work on interest - the IRA and the Mafia are blanket organisations, and anonymous information comes with a pre-understood context of background.
This is a very specific case and can only be discussed in terms of the court case, the gay father, and the removal of the child - any of which facts identify the mother. Without identity, an interview would be completely meaningless, and would simply not be commissioned, much less published.
// Without context, which will identify the woman in question, any interview would be pointless, and no journalist would be interested, because no paper or magazine would buy it.//
Nonsense.
//By the time an interview could be organised, written, edited, and printed, this case will have ceased to be news.//
Nonsense.
//Without identity, an interview would be completely meaningless, and would simply not be commissioned, much less published.//
Nonsense.
Nonsense.
//By the time an interview could be organised, written, edited, and printed, this case will have ceased to be news.//
Nonsense.
//Without identity, an interview would be completely meaningless, and would simply not be commissioned, much less published.//
Nonsense.
Randymarsh - //Anonymity here is difficult as there are not many cases like this, we could blank out her face and change her voice but will that matter if there is only 1 instance of a judge giving custody of a child to a gay couple instead of the child's mother. //
Exactly my point.
It is impossible to discuss this case with the mother in print or on film without her identity being revealed or deduced - making anonymity impossible.
Exactly my point.
It is impossible to discuss this case with the mother in print or on film without her identity being revealed or deduced - making anonymity impossible.
I'm not sure what an interview would prove or result in really?
Get the public onside? To what end?
Both sides have had their lives opened up in Court and whilst it is hardly surprising (actually it is very understandable) that she feels let down - I cannot see a newspaper or magazine article changing that.
One thing this case does serve is as a warning that surrogacy sounds easy on paper but in reality it is much harder to carry through.
I am amazed there are not many many more instances like this one.
Get the public onside? To what end?
Both sides have had their lives opened up in Court and whilst it is hardly surprising (actually it is very understandable) that she feels let down - I cannot see a newspaper or magazine article changing that.
One thing this case does serve is as a warning that surrogacy sounds easy on paper but in reality it is much harder to carry through.
I am amazed there are not many many more instances like this one.
