ShadowGram #159 / merged w/ ShadowGram's Obituary for Craig...What is up here?

I sent my email to ShadowGram.

I know for a fact from Craig the source material for this quote was the NY Times article Janet references.

Thank you for clearing that up!

It was also quoted by Craig on his Dark Shadows Online website.  As we all know he was a thorough researcher and wouldn't have published anything with fact or documentation.

Maybe I'm misreading you, but I want to explain that I've visited Craig's site often and honestly have no doubts about the veracity of the information in it.  I cited his B&C book because as a rule, the board admins hold print sources above information on the internet; in many cases, information on the net is unreliable, and it can be altered suddenly or even disappear.  We have to take liability issues very seriously, and we've chosen to not designate that DSOnline or DS Journal (as examples of sites whose integrity is not in question) are legit sources yet such-and-such a site is not.


To clarify something I said earlier in this topic, while information in print is acceptable, what posters heard someone say to them or to somebody else is considered gossip.  I'm not saying they didn't hear it; I'm saying that it's hearsay.  Also, since the issue of using real names has come up-- if readers know whom you're speaking about, it doesn't matter if you avoid naming the person or perhaps identify them with just a username; if the identity of the person can be inferred, it's legally the same as providing a name, and the comments can still be libelous.

Anyway, thanks again, John.  Shutting up now.  

i agrree. finally a boycott  that may succeed now even if for a different reason.

Maybe Shadowgram has misrepresented/omitted certain facts or maybe they haven't, it's all hearsay to me, but rooting for their demise is crummy and worthless. If anyone is willing and better able to perform the service that SG has provided over the years, they should take it upon themselves to do so.

I think it's pretty crummy for Shadowgram to do the following:

1. omit any mention of a deceased person's spouse from an obituary.

2. lie about a person's cause of death.

3. refuse to publish info about anyone who offers editorial critisism.

4. refuse to acknowledge the existence of gays and lesbians in DS fandom~~even when such people are out of the closet and WANT to be acknowledged.

5. REFUSE TO CORRECT ERRORS< EVER!!!!!!!!!


this as been going on for FAR TOO LONG and PEOPLE ARE TIRED OF IT!!!

David

. If anyone is willing and better able to perform the service that SG has provided over the years, they should take it upon themselves to do so.

Yes, there are plenty of talented writers and artist on this forum. I don't read Shadowgram but it seems most think nothing will change for the better regardless of any boycotts,emails etc.  So it sound like there needs to be a plan b.

I would please like to ask that this discussion be confined to the expression of opinions and to not have opinion offered as fact. Regardless of what a member may suspect or even possibly believe to be something they know to be true, no one actually knows what is true about another individual except that individual. Please clearly state that what you are saying is either speculation or that it is your opinion that such and such. Circumstantial evidence is still that - circumstantial evidence. And I would remind that even in a court of law, circumstantial evidence does not always bring about a conviction. We've said that discussion of SG's policies is a legitimate subject in this topic because it is a public publication. But discussing the policies of SG is not also a license to discuss the staff's personal/private behavior, no matter what anyone may think they do or do not know about that behavior.

Also, this topic is not a forum to bring up and discuss any and/or all past incidents that may have occurred in fandom which are completely unrelated to the topic at hand. Such posts have already been removed and any similar postings will also be removed. Please stay on topic.

Thanks. 

That's what I was told was well when I emailed and asked why the omission.

Nancy

From what I'm told, this was actually NOT intentional at all, nothing at all deiberate or calculate was behind this and this situation will be rectified before too long.

Hello
I was told there was a petition to sign about the faulty information in the Shadowgram.  Where can I sign the petition.  I read quite a bit of this topic and don't see the petition.  Also, is anything about this organized or is most of this just alot of talking or blowing off steam.

Thank you
SisterJudith
New Member

No, there's not.  If you have a problem with the faulty information the best thing to do is send an email to ShadowGram@aol.com and offer the correct information and ask that it be published.

Nancy

I was told there was a petition to sign about the faulty information in the Shadowgram.  Where can I sign the petition.  I read quite a bit of this topic and don't see the petition.  Also, is anything about this organized or is most of this just alot of talking or blowing off steam.

Kathy Resch (who works with ShadowGram) posted on the Jonathan Frid yahoo group that no survivor information relating Craig was published because no such information was given to them at the time.  Basically, the idea of the quick announcement was to let people know that Craig had died.  Kathy also said in this post (I don't have permission to repost it here) that the survivor information, including the info about Craig's husband, would be posted in a future update/issue along with the updated donation information.

I also did a little research into the published obits about Joel Crothers and Chris Berneau and the ones I read did not mention the fact these men died of AIDS.  If those were the obits sent to ShadowGram then that's what was published.  As MB and Midnite have stated here about liability, even if ShadowGram knew these men died of AIDS if there wasn't an official acknowledgement of that fact (the family or an entity of this men supplying the info) then they risked facing liability themselves as some family members want to keep the fact family members were gay and have died of AIDS.   Keith Prentice's obit that I read did mention his being gay and his illness.  Interesting.

nancy

Sister Judith,

From the Forum Guidelines, which you agreed to during the registration process:

Trolling is the act of posting messages that are intentionally crafted to enrage or draw someone into flaming. Posts clearly designed to incite and inflame will not be tolerated and will be immediately deleted upon discovery. Posters who indulge in such activities will be subject to blocking from participation.

Your last post has been removed.  If you make any further attempt to troll these Forums, your posting privileges will be removed.  Thanks.

In the current issue of the SF Bay Area Reporter, I did a story about Pride High, a new comic title about gay super`heros.
One of them is blind.
In the story, I called her the comic world's first visually impaired hero.
The story was published this past Thursday.

This morning, Roberto, my editor, called to say that a reader had written in to point out that Marvel's Daredevil
was actually the first visually impaired super~hero.
In other words, what I wrote was wrong.

"I'm running that letter," says Roberto. "What is your response?"

Fifteen minutes later I came up with this:
"Oh, dear, sorry!
  I should have known.
  I never read Marvel comics, I was a DC boy.
  Thanks for letting me know".

     I dd not have to wait for 20 people to speak up, I did not have to sit around and discuss it for days on end. I had made an error.
I owned up to it. Period.

     Shadowgram can~~and should have~~ sent out a correction email just as quickly. That it took a revolution to get her to recognize her error is a sad commentary indeed.

     And maybe she should learn how to fact check.

David

Kathy Resch (who works with ShadowGram) posted on the Jonathan Frid yahoo group that no survivor information relating Craig was published because no such information was given to them at the time. Basically, the idea of the quick announcement was to let people know that Craig had died. Kathy also said in this post (I don't have permission to repost it here) that the survivor information, including the info about Craig's husband, would be posted in a future update/issue along with the updated donation information.

.....they risked facing liability themselves as some family members want to keep the fact family members were gay and have died of AIDS. Keith Prentice's obit that I read did mention his being gay and his illness. Interesting.

If that's their story, then it's obvious they're stickin' to it. I don't dispute the fact that this may be true, as I can understand some people feeling ashamed that a family member was gay and died of AIDS--it is not unheard of. Why they feel this way one will never know. Why anyone would is beyond me. But facts are facts. It is true that they may just be saying that to save face so people don't start an all out war (whoops) against them. Personally, I'm removing myself from the issue. I posted my peace and I'll leave it at that.

Shadowgram can~~and should have~~ sent out a correction email just as quickly. That it took a revolution to get her to recognize her error is a sad commentary indeed.

 And maybe she should learn how to fact check.

If people aren't allowed to be forgiven for mistakes then this world will fall apart. Although it can be discerned from this post, I am not abandoning my former opinions listed here. I still feel that way about the issue, and I think that whoever supplied the information, should Marcy and Kathy's statements be true, was the unfortunate victim of a mis-thought. If ShadowGram is going to print another article about Craig's death rectifying what was not printed in the previous obit, than great! Everyone's outcry's have worked wonderfully.

I say we just put this to rest. Enough fighting. I've got college, my own father's estate, and idiot lawyer, and finding a new job to worry about.

Brandon:
you're a wise young man who many of us older folks
can learn from.
I, too, have run out of things to say on this issue, but I'm glad I said/posted what I did.

For the record, I was not fighting, seeking revenge, etc.
I was merely taking a stand for what I truly believe in.
It is my sincere hope that Shadowgram catches up with the rest of us.
If they do, then everyone who posted to this thread, plus all those who sent private emails to Shadowgram, did a good job,

David

Brandon:
you're a wise young man who many of us older folks
can learn from.
I, too, have run out of things to say on this issue, but I'm glad I said/posted what I did.

Praise is always welcome! And just let me know if you run out of things to say, because I'll make some up and send them too you! j/k

I'm glad we have both learned from this, at least I sure as heck have, and I agree that if ShadownGram should change we have all done our jobs.

Now I'm off to Collinwood. Thinking about taking an adventure in Parallel Time.