- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Did the rest of you receive this email request for an interview? We probably need a consensus on how to respond to the request. Do we want to retain anonymity for admins? Do we have a cohesive mission statement? Who should represent the admins/mods in an interview or should we give her access to talk to a few of us? Quote:Greetings –
I’m Jennifer Dobner – a reporter for The Associated Press in Salt Lake City. I cover the Mormon church and stumbled onto your site today. I am interested in talking to you about the site and exploring the possibility of a writing a story about it.
Please drop me a note and let me know if you’re interested in beginning a conversation.
Thanks. I look forward to hearing from you.
Jennifer
Jennifer L. Dobner
Associated Press Writer
30 E. 100 South, Suite 200
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
801-322-3405 – office
801-718-2123 – cell
Anonymity is not an issue for me, since I post using my real name. I like the idea of having her talk to multiple people, and I agree that those who post under pseudonymns and want to remain anonymous should do so – with a simple explanation that anonymity helps many people express themselves freely.
I’m not sure a “correlated” position would be appropriate, given the mission and focus of the site. The only real issue in my mind is whether or not we want the publicity – and, frankly, I will defer to all of you on that. I can see beneifts and pitfalls either way.
Personally I think Ray could be a good voice for this site, if he’s willing. Also John D. for his initial vision in creating this site. My first thoughts anyway. Personally I’d have to bow out of any publicity right now, but you all know how I like the image of reaching out to the struggling while trying not to offend the orthodox/institutional at the same time. I look up to Bushman’s voice on the topic.
I am not too concerned with anonymity. I’m mostly trying to minimize my google identity, or at least keep it in check. I like the idea of getting some publicity. It might help us reach out to more people. I don’t really see us getting backlash from the Church, or am I wrong? I mean we are trying to help people stay in the Church. We are pro-Church, even if not conventional in all ways.
It might be cool to have a conference call with her. That might be one method. I don’t know if that is confusing for her as a journalist. We can also talk to her individually if she wants.
The AP seems pretty safe. At least in my mind, they are more of “just the facts please” kind of organization, not involved in sensationalism. Am I wrong?
My experience in working with the AP is that they are very “just the facts” and professional, not sensationalistic at all. I’m also OK with using my name, although my bloggername is to reduce google-ability as well (funny that – the main Angela Clayton is an advocate for transgendered rights in Australia, IIRC – worthwhile cause, I’m sure, but not me). We all have pretty common names and are probably not likely targets, but due to my high profile job I try to keep it on the downlow. Still, I don’t mind speaking to her about the site because I’m a big believer in what we are doing. She said she got another big story she’s working on and will get back in touch when that’s over.
Just an FYI – I’ve got time scheduled with Jennifer Dobson tomorrow morning at 9:30 to answer a few questions. Ray, did she set time up with you also? I think some key highlights about the site for me anyway would be that there are other sites out there that deal with tough issues that church members might face that result in a crisis of faith. There are sites that deal forthrightly with the tough issues, but that have a tone of expecting that you will eventually leave the church (NOM). There are sites that are apologetic (FARMS & FAIR), but some of the apologetics are far-fetched or seem dismissive of the criticisms to someone in the grips of a crisis of faith. There are also sites that won’t brook any argument that isn’t coming from a faithful perspective, and for those who are full of doubt, these sites make them feel inauthentic. We wanted to create a site for those who feel inclined to stay LDS but who need to redefine for themselves what that means. Our moderators are open-minded, reconciled, active LDS who have navigated personal spiritual crises sufficiently to be able to help others find the way. The site gives people an opportunity to address issues more openly than the faithful sites yet more positively than the sites where the majority of people are going to leave the church.
Any discomfort with any of that? How would you address the interview (I know some are not able to be interviewed for various reasons)? I’d like to make sure that whatever viewpoint I put across is accurate for us all to some extent.
I think you described our position in the spectrum about the same as I would. We are open and available to discuss problems, including the possibility that some people may decide the Church is/was wrong at times. All this is done with the explicit purpose of staying in the Church. Not only staying in for the sake of appearance (like NOM), but finding a way to still use the LDS Church as a religion in our spiritual lives. We want to stay and LIKE it 
I plan to emphasize many times that we are PRO-CHURCH! We want people to stay in the Church and be successful. We want the Church to be successful. I think that is a big difference between us and other controversial sites.
I also plan to emphasize that we are not on a mission to change the Church. We are not there to tell the Church what to do. We are working hard to help people figure out how to change *their* perspective and adapt to the Church in a peaceful and spiritual way. I suppose in a broad sense we are changing the Church by encouraging people to stay who would otherwise fall away — liberal and non-literal members. But you know what I mean. We aren’t like a splinter group or reform movement. I am waiting a few more years so the kids are out of the house and I have more free time for that kind of stage 6 adventure
😈 [edit] One other thing I just thought of — we don’t have the one single right answer. I plan to let her know about the concept that we are collecting strategies and experience from different people. There isn’t one right way to reconcile and work things out. We’re leaving strategy guides open to the public as they develop from our conversations.
Anonymity? I forgot to address that. I think so far it is Angela, Ray and I scheduled. I am set to talk to her tomorrow afternoon. How about if we ask her to use our real names, but not linked to our pseudonyms? I think you guys were ok with your real names. I am too. If she doesn’t explicitly say Valoel = Brian, Hawkgrrl = Angela that would disconnect us a little bit. Someone would have to be personally interested to come to the site and connect the dots.
Jennifer called me today. We had a great conversation. Super high level (we’ve been friends for years). She mentioned that she’s calling you all tomorrow.
I’m excited. Good luck, all!
Brian – I agree about using real names but not linking to pseudos. I would rather someone have to dig a little if they are interested in that. I’d also prefer if she only uses our first names, but our names are probably common enough that it’s not a BIG deal. I loved what you added to my comments. Helps flesh it out and keeps us a little more consistent.
Glad to know Jennifer is a long-term friend of John’s. John, did you talk about the project?
We talked a tiny bit about the project, but from 2 perspectives: 1) Why I/we started it
2) Why there’s a need for something like this
I’ve told her from the start that I don’t run the project — that ya’ll are the real deal….so it’s likely that I won’t even make the story. I told her a little about each of you 3…and talked ya’ll up. So it should be a great talk tomorrow.
We mostly talked about personal stuff.
Good luck, ya’ll!!!!! Let me know if I can help in any other way!!!
Hey! If ya’ll think the story is likely to be written….you should consider readying a new post on the main web site. Something that says exactly what you would want a newcomer to read. Maybe an overview? Mission statement. Some links for direction.
Maybe this post is already written, but needs to be elevated to top status again?
Just a thought. Not trying to pile on work or anything, but it’s often good to be ready for the influx of attention. It’s always a spike that lasts a few days…so waiting a few days later can result in a missed opportunity.
Ya’ll rule.
I think that’s a great idea, John, although I don’t feel like I’ve got the time right now. I just finished up with her. She said she’ll put the story out on the AP. One thing we talked about in the interview that was interesting (maybe) was the variety of people who seem to gravitate to the site:
– people who encounter troubling history
– people who feel ostrasized by the culture (women, gray-thinkers, democrats – anyone who is more of a 1 than a 99)
– generation gap issues (gerontocracy disconnect for younger generation)
– people who first experience people of other faith (that others have spiritual experiences, that other faiths also do God’s work, that statistically Mormons are miniscule)
I can’t remember if I had any other categories. Anyway, I thought that list might be helpful for us as admins to consider who we are reaching. When I get a personal reach out from someone on the site, it’s usually a working woman or an atheist. What I love about our group of admins is that each of us is totally different in appeal. We probably each have a different type of person we’ll be able to reach.
Anyway, hope everyone’s interviews went well and that the AP piece is good.
Just finished talking to Jennifer. My mental notes:
She wanted to find out about me, my background, how much time I spend on the site, and why I was motivated to work on it. She wanted to know what I got out of it. She also wanted to hear my version of how the site came to be, how we decided to work together on it, etc.
I could tell she had already gotten a good picture of what it’s all about from the other interviews, and was meshing me into her picture.
We talked about the experience people have with a crisis of faith, what causes it, how people react, and why Mormonism might have these types of problems.
I talked a bit about the behind-the-scenes administration (she admitted to not be much of a techie). By that, I mean how we moderate and monitor content, approve participants, and reject content that doesn’t fit the mission goals.
We talked about the tension between the surface image of a monolithic culture and belief in the LDS Church vs the reality that everyone sitting on the pew in Church has different views (both in Mormonism and without).
That’s all I can think of for now.
She wanted to know about traffic levels. I didn’t know, but told her a LOT more people read the site than the dozen or so that carry on the conversations. She is going to contact John for stats.
I changed the dates on a couple of the posts on the homepage/blog area. I made it so the stories would sort different — putting the introductory material about the site at the top. That should help if we get a lot of traffic from news stories.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.