matzoball Report post Posted January 29, 2010 Last year I went on the plinth in trafalgar square to try and raise awareness of asd and as such, the nas kept my name on file as they helped me get publicity to raise money for them. About a month ago they passed my name on to be interviewed about women and aspergers which i had no objection to as i think it is important to educate nt people about what we go through and promote understanding. it turned out to be an interview about my life and going through the diagnostic process which in itself was alright as again it shows what people with asd have to go through. the 'journalist' sent me a copy of her article and it was awful, kept going on about how i was 'always different', that my partner 'knew something was wrong with me' - didn't mention a thing about all the positive things that have happened since i got diagnosed and how i have actually gained a lot of confidence. she used all the wrong terminology and basically wrote a really patronizing article. and it turns out it's for that's life magazine, who's readership has a reading comprehension of a 6-7 year old. i decided against it and emailed her saying i didn't want it published, and all of a sudden the nas were involved again saying that they wouldn't publish it if i was really upset, but they think it was important to get it published because it offered a first person perspective which has never happened before(yes it has) - so they went through the article and corrected the things that upset me and more or less made me feel obliged to let them publish it because i didn't want to let anyone down. i feel like i have been strongarmed into this just so they can get asd mentioned in the media again if it goes ahead i just want to let people know that this isn't something i am happy about - i'm actually pissed off because they are showing a skewed perspective and that is not what having asd is all about. we're not to be pitied or patronized. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
baddad Report post Posted January 29, 2010 (edited) just stick to your guns and tell them no - The NAS might want publicity, but it's in their interests and the interests of those they lobby on behalf of that the publicity they endorse is accurate. I think the problem you have is one of 'editorial control' and if that wasn't expressly part of the deal you may find yourself inappropriately represented whatever you do, so if you are happy with the NAS's amendments then go with them. But if you really feel that you are misrepresented even in the NAS edited version then all you can really do is push to stop them publishing and hope they'll agree. L&P BD PS: Having said that, though, if you were the person protesting on Gary McKinnon's behalf then you've probably painted yourself into a bit of a corner... the whole basis of that 'defence' was that G McK was completely willing to presnet himself and allow himself to be represented as a feckless victim... It's not entirely surprising, then, that someone protesting on that basis who has autism themselves will be represented in the same way... Please appreciate I'm not in any way endorsing that representation or making any 'judgements' or anything like that; I'm just pointing out an uncomfortable but possible angle... Edited January 29, 2010 by baddad Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matzoball Report post Posted January 29, 2010 just stick to your guns and tell them no - The NAS might want publicity, but it's in their interests and the interests of those they lobby on behalf of that the publicity they endorse is accurate. I think the problem you have is one of 'editorial control' and if that wasn't expressly part of the deal you may find yourself inappropriately represented whatever you do, so if you are happy with the NAS's amendments then go with them. But if you really feel that you are misrepresented even in the NAS edited version then all you can really do is push to stop them publishing and hope they'll agree. L&P BD hi bd they said that the magazine will read the final version over the phone to me - at that point i will be telling them i am not happy regardless and that i don't want it printed. they've offered me money but i've told them to put that somewhere else if you get my drift. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
baddad Report post Posted January 29, 2010 hi bd they said that the magazine will read the final version over the phone to me - at that point i will be telling them i am not happy regardless and that i don't want it printed. they've offered me money but i've told them to put that somewhere else if you get my drift. Just say it nicely - otherwise they'll print a first person article by the interviewer saying that autistic people are rude and unreasonable! Very best, I hope you can get this resolved in a way you feel happy and comfortable with. L&P BD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
julie1 Report post Posted January 29, 2010 this is awful poor you pleased dont be offended with the remark poor you i would say that to a NT person as well. Its a shame they dont want to publish what you really have to say. If you are really unhappy just say your sorry but i do not want you to publish anything that is incorrect about yourself. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
call me jaded Report post Posted January 29, 2010 Say no but offer to write from your perspective. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kathryn Report post Posted January 29, 2010 Don't feel pressurised into agreeing if you're not comfortable with what's been written about you. You're lucky to be given the opportunity to refuse - a lot of mags would just publish the article. K x Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matzoball Report post Posted January 29, 2010 i did some checking up with their publishing company after i posted and they can't publish it without my written permission - apparently i have to sign a release form allowing them to do it. so will definitely be giving them a resounding no Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matzoball Report post Posted February 4, 2010 just a wee update - the national autistic society arranged for a photographer to come to my house this saturday - they gave the photographer my direct dial at work! the photographer then told me not to worry and that it would be an 'edgy portrait' which we all know means 'as unflattering as possible'. I emailed the nas to tell them clearly that i didn't want the article to go ahead, and phoned the photographer to tell her not to come to my house. i just got a phone call again from the person at the nas, and when i wouldn't relent about not having the article published she stopped being nice and more or less hung up on me. i'm not good at picking up on tones of voices etc - but even i could tell the difference! i feel so angry about how i've been treated - the nas are supposed to support me not use me! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tally Report post Posted February 4, 2010 Good for you for sticking to your guns. I'm sorry this has happened to you. You'd think the NAS would know better. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matzoball Report post Posted February 4, 2010 Good for you for sticking to your guns. I'm sorry this has happened to you. You'd think the NAS would know better. thanks tally - i'm going to be very guarded about who i speak to in future! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
