Furious Seasons

October 27, 2006

Jane Pauley, Part 2

Here's a small rundown of the situation with Jane, gleaned from talking with some sources yesterday.

NMHA was an innocent conduit in helping the people who wrote the advertorial get in touch with Jane. Whomever the person was who interviewed Jane worked for a PR company of sorts that pulls togetehr this kind of copy for big companies. But when she spoke with Jane's assistant, she apparently used the magic words "with the New York Times," an indication to anyone in the biz that she was a freelance writer working on assignment for the paper. Jane's life story and picture then ended up on the front and inside of an advertising supplement to the Times Sunday Magazine. And that's why Jane is pissed. She wants an apology from the Times, a company that is loathe to admit a typo, much less a problem of this sort. So Jane sued the paper because the one-year statute of limitations was about to expire, as the advert had appeared last fall.

And that's what I know.

Posted by Philip Dawdy at October 27, 2006 09:23 AM

del.icio.us Digg it reddit

Comments

Just proves: when ya talk, people listen and take notes.
Understanding the need for privacy..that stands on its own. Hate to say it, but Jane, if ya speak, people listen and take notes.
She of all people should know this. Not saying who interviewed her and leaked the shit was right, not at all.
But you have to watch your own back when you want it covered. Sometimes, not speaking works.

Too bad for Jane and too bad for the paper.

She will now just pull up a protective cloak around her shoulders and never speak to "just any one.".

Being that she interviewed/s for a living, I am surprised she spoke at all without thinking to watch her back.

Sorry, no sympathy here. I learned a long time ago from community activism never to say one thing you did not want dissected into a nice soundbite in an on record interview.

The good that comes from this is more coverage for mental health awareness.

That's what we all want isnt it?

Posted by: Stephany at October 27, 2006 06:13 PM

Wow, Stephany you must have been reading my mind. I was totally thinking the exact same thing last night when I read that. Poor Jane....I would love to live in her world. To be open and honest about your mental illness and not only not be discriminated against but make tons of money off it.

If we were only so lucky.

Posted by: Angie at October 28, 2006 12:23 PM

Wow, this is a tough crowd. I understand where the previous posters are coming from and feel largely the same way as you. However, how do you feel about somebody like Kay Redfield Jamison who has certainly turned capitalizing off one's illness into an art form? Is it more OK because her day job is also respectable, i.e. researching and educating about the illness?

Posted by: Laura at October 30, 2006 06:48 AM

Angie,
I wish that didn't happen to you. Unfounded and complete bullshit..discrimination.

You were a brave person to speak up and when you did you then walked into an area many people never have the guts to do: which is to say you are Bipolar. You took the risk.

Because you took that risk, you lost your job, and that is what needs to change in this world.
Keep in mind, Angie, that by speaking up, you actually opened doors for others to follow suit.

If others take your cue, and leave the fear and risk behind, one day (I hope) there won't be discrimination and job loss as a result of being open about mental illness.

Angie, this makes you a trailblazer for freedom and rights, and basically in my book: a true hero.Thank you.

~Stephany

Posted by: Stephany at October 30, 2006 08:42 AM