James/Radford announce partnership

[chasingneverland]

This seems to happen to Meagan quite a bit. She’ll say that people didn’t understand what she was saying or “misinterpreted” her. I think Meagan should maybe take a few courses in writing and PR to help her on the business side of things. You can’t really be taking hypothetically to the media unless you explicitly say it. Things can so easily get twisted in text too if you’re not direct about your intentions and word choices. Maybe she just needs a personal assistant.

Ugh yes. The fact that she CAN'T understand how her comments about Anna could be interpreted and keeps playing the victim...

 

[el henry]

More than enough. She's foregoing the opportunity to talk directly with him, opting instead for the "woman scorned" persona in via her social media accounts. That doesn't qualify as a good faith effort to resolve things on her end.

I'm sorry, that does not ring true to me.

She is not adopting a persona. She is being honest and forthright. Why is the onus on the woman "try to resolve"? Eric played both ends against the middle until he couldn't do it any more. He did not act, as far as I can tell, as a stand-up guy.

I'm sorry Meagan had the nerve to actually be honest and rain on the Vanessa and Eric parade. well, no, actually I'm not.

If someone is playing the victim here, it's not Meagan.

 

[TontoK]

I'm sorry, that does not ring true to me.

She is not adopting a persona. She is being honest and forthright. Why is the onus on the woman "try to resolve"? Eric played both ends against the middle until he couldn't do it any more. He did not act, as far as I can tell, as a stand-up guy.

I'm sorry Meagan had the nerve to actually be honest and rain on the Vanessa and Eric parade. well, no, actually I'm not.

If someone is playing the victim here, it's not Meagan.

I never said the onus was solely on her. If he's tried to call her twice to resolve this (and that's a big "if"), but she will not talk to him, what further responsibility does he have?

Should he try five times? 10? 100? What's your number?

Edit: PS. I'm not on their train either. They'll be a credible pair or they won't, but they'll have to show me first. Honestly, I expect them to be a Top 10 Team, but not a Top 5 Team. That's my prediction.

 

[ice coverage]

... I'm sorry Meagan had the nerve to actually be honest and rain on the Vanessa and Eric parade. well, no, actually I'm not. ...

Thank you for acknowledging that Meagan deliberately wanted to rain on Vanessa and Eric's parade.

For me, raining on someone else's parade is absolutely unprofessional behavior.

If Meagan's only desire was to speak her truth, her polarizing comments about betrayal and blindsiding did not have to be shared exactly when the new partnership officially was going public.

... If someone is playing the victim here, it's not Meagan.

I completely disagree. (And I am a woman.)

---

This seems to happen to Meagan quite a bit. She’ll say that people didn’t understand what she was saying or “misinterpreted” her. I think Meagan should maybe take a few courses in writing and PR to help her on the business side of things. You can’t really be taking hypothetically to the media unless you explicitly say it. Things can so easily get twisted in text too if you’re not direct about your intentions and word choices. Maybe she just needs a personal assistant.

And even now, Meagan's comments are making me scratch my head.

Her second reply tweet to Bev Smith at 1:14 pm ET today (emphasis added):

"These things happen, esp when chatting by phone. I understand. Just wanted to be clear as it led to some misinterpretations. I’d love another child one day but it simply wasn’t in the works at this time."​

Her first reply tweet to Bev at 10:15 am ET today (emphasis added):

"Thanks For the article Bev. But just to be clear, I didn’t say I would have told Eric I wanted more kids if he asked. If he asked I would have told him the truth. That we hadn’t thought about that yet. This was never my intentions and my own husband and I had never discussed it."​

At the time of the first call with Eric in early April, Meagan and Bruno "hadn't thought about more kids yet"
... and then according to her tweet today, Meagan would "love another child one day."

So am I supposed to believe that only this very month (after the first call with Eric), Meagan's sincere position suddenly has become, "I'd love another child one day"???

 

[el henry]

I never said the onus was solely on her. If he's tried to call her twice to resolve this (and that's a big "if"), but she will not talk to him, what further responsibility does he have?

Should he try five times? 10? 100? What's your number?

Thank you for acknowledging that Meagan deliberately wanted to rain on Vanessa and Eric's parade.

For me, raining on someone else's parade is absolutely unprofessional behavior.



I completely disagree. (And I am a woman.)

---

And even now, Meagan's comments are making me scratch my head.

Her second reply tweet to Bev Smith at 1:14 pm ET today (emphasis added):

"These things happen, esp when chatting by phone. I understand. Just wanted to be clear as it led to some misinterpretations. I’d love another child one day but it simply wasn’t in the works at this time."​

Her first reply tweet to Bev (emphasis added), at 10:15 am ET today (emphasis added):

"Thanks For the article Bev. But just to be clear, I didn’t say I would have told Eric I wanted more kids if he asked. If he asked I would have told him the truth. That we hadn’t thought about that yet. This was never my intentions and my own husband and I had never discussed it."​

At the time of the first call with Eric in early April, Meagan and Bruno "hadn't thought about more kids yet"
... and as of today, Meagan would "love another child one day."

So am I supposed to believe that only this very month (after the first call with Eric), Meagan's position suddenly has become, "I'd love another child one day"???

I almost never use that emoji, but are you deliberately misunderstanding me?

Meagan acted honestly and appropriately. Of course that is my opinion, but any opinion to the contrary is just that, an opinion. No one poster holds the standard for correct behavior.

But given the failure to understand my posts, I think this conversation will not lead to anything worthwhile, and I will bow out.

 

[karne]

Eric announced the partnership with Vanessa AFTER SOI Japan decided on not calling foreign skaters. And who can be sure that ANY shows will take place in Canada this year?

Announced, but he had been training with James since January and had not told Meagan in all of that time.

Frankly, I think Radford has been a cowardly little weasel in all of this. At least have the spine to tell someone you don't want to work together anymore before you start training with someone else.

Let me clarify - I believe he didn't plan to skate with Vanessa competitivly when they first skated with each other for fun.
Honestly - Vanessa's release was very fast. Could he have expected that?
And there isn't anything wrong with doing shows with Vanessa if Meagan isn't available. Should he have told her in January that he planned to do shows with another partner to have more opportunities to earn money? Yes. But we don't know what he told her back then.

Except that he planned to do shows with James when they first got together in January, which is much much worse IMO. And Meagan was available.

 

[el henry]

I never said the onus was solely on her. If he's tried to call her twice to resolve this (and that's a big "if"), but she will not talk to him, what further responsibility does he have?

Should he try five times? 10? 100? What's your number?

Edit: PS. I'm not on their train either. They'll be a credible pair or they won't, but they'll have to show me first. Honestly, I expect them to be a Top 10 Team, but not a Top 5 Team. That's my prediction.

I do not believe there is a specific number. I took our friend @4everchan's post as tongue in cheek and perhaps that was mistake. I'm just here to make the case that there is no one standard of excruciatingly correct behavior, in the words of Miss Manners, and certainly not one that Meagan failed to meet.

I completely agree with you about the actual performance of Vanessa and Eric. I am not convinced that their pairing will yield the results that they think it will, but I am completely agnostic to them as a pair. If they do well, they do well, and if they don't, they don't. That will be seen on the ice.

And now having said my piece a gazillion times, I think a gazillion and one would be too much even for me, and absent further news, I shall absent this thread.

 

[TontoK]

I almost never use that emoji, but are you deliberately misunderstanding me?

Meagan acted honestly and appropriately. Of course that is my opinion, but any opinion to the contrary is just that, an opinion. No one poster holds the standard for correct behavior.

But given the failure to understand my posts, I think this conversation will not lead to anything worthwhile, and I will bow out.

It's all good, my dearest GS friend.

My respect and affinity for you is unwavering, even when we disagree.

And most of the time when we disagree... we really don't disagree that much... we just argue the very finest of points. I put the blame on you for being a woman. (Just kidding to lighten the mood! And ducking!)

 

[ice coverage]

I almost never use that emoji, but are you deliberately misunderstanding me?

Meagan acted honestly and appropriately. Of course that is my opinion, but any opinion to the contrary is just that, an opinion. No one poster holds the standard for correct behavior.

But given the failure to understand my posts, I think this conversation will not lead to anything worthwhile, and I will bow out.

What I understand -- based on your own words -- is that your opinion is that raining on someone else's parade (which is part of your description of Meagan's action) is appropriate behavior.

And my opinion is that I completely disagree with your opinion.

And my opinion (also in disagreement with your opinion) is that Meagan is the one who is playing victim.

---

... I'm just here to make the case that there is no one standard of excruciatingly correct behavior ...

By the same token, "there is no one standard of excruciatingly correct behavior" that applies to Eric.

The "correct" opinion about Eric depends on who you ask.

 

[Ziotic]

Thank you for acknowledging that Meagan deliberately wanted to rain on Vanessa and Eric's parade.

For me, raining on someone else's parade is absolutely unprofessional behavior.

If Meagan's only desire was to speak her truth, her polarizing comments about betrayal and blindsiding did not have to be shared exactly when the new partnership officially was going public.



I completely disagree. (And I am a woman.)

---

And even now, Meagan's comments are making me scratch my head.

Her second reply tweet to Bev Smith at 1:14 pm ET today (emphasis added):

"These things happen, esp when chatting by phone. I understand. Just wanted to be clear as it led to some misinterpretations. I’d love another child one day but it simply wasn’t in the works at this time."​

Her first reply tweet to Bev at 10:15 am ET today (emphasis added):

"Thanks For the article Bev. But just to be clear, I didn’t say I would have told Eric I wanted more kids if he asked. If he asked I would have told him the truth. That we hadn’t thought about that yet. This was never my intentions and my own husband and I had never discussed it."​

At the time of the first call with Eric in early April, Meagan and Bruno "hadn't thought about more kids yet"
... and then according to her tweet today, Meagan would "love another child one day."

So am I supposed to believe that only this very month (after the first call with Eric), Meagan's sincere position suddenly has become, "I'd love another child one day"???

Let’s be clear.

Saying you’d ‘love another child’ and actively planning/trying to have another child are wildly different things.
From a young age I knew I wanted at least two kids. Doesn’t mean I was actively trying to have them at 14. Rather I waited until I was in a stable relationship with the means to provide for an offspring before planning to have one.
That’s why context is so important. Which is what I think Bev was conceding when Meagan called her on the quote.

 

[ice coverage]

... Saying you’d ‘love another child’ and actively planning/trying to have another child are wildly different things. ...

Agreed. And if Meagan's first reply tweet today had said, "we are not actively planning/trying to have another child," then it would have been clear that she was speaking of the second of your two separate aspects.

But Meagan's first reply tweet today did not use that type of wording.

Let’s be clear. ...

Your post is clear.

Meagan's tweeting was not clear.

(I am not sure that Bev was conceding anything. I like TontoK's characterization of Bev not quite being on board.
Without knowing how the conversation flowed/unfolded between Bev and Meagan, I do not think we can know for sure why what came across to Bev was not the same as what Meagan intended to say.)

 

[Tavi...]

Interestingly, Bev Smith is not quite on board with Meagan's "misquote" interpretation, although she gives her an out. Her reply:

"Since you've put this out there, I'll say that you mentioned that in a quote, but I'm seeing now that you meant it hypothetically."

You’re right but I actually tend to think the error was Bev’s. It was a really long article and I found a lot of what she wrote confusing and contradictory to what I’d read elsewhere. The oddest thing to me is that she didn’t really cite her sources - ie, I didn’t see any place where she cited a call or email to one of them as a source for a particular quote (if I’m wrong on this, someone please let me know ). As a result I was left wondering if she was creating a narrative based on existing tweets etc or if she was adding new info.

 

[DSQ]

You’re right but I actually tend to think the error was Bev’s. It was a really long article and I found a lot of what she wrote confusing and contradictory to what I’d read elsewhere. The oddest thing to me is that she didn’t really cite her sources - ie, I didn’t see any place where she cited a call or email to one of them as a source for a particular quote (if I’m wrong on this, someone please let me know ). As a result I was left wondering if she was creating a narrative based on existing tweets etc or if she was adding new info.

That pretty standard for professional journalists if it is not a long form interview. It can be quite tedious to say via email, by phone or at the press conference several times so you’re supposed to assume that they are real quotes that they got themselves.

Usually they only say where the quotes are from if they are lifting them from a competitor.

 

[BearryBear]

You’re right but I actually tend to think the error was Bev’s. It was a really long article and I found a lot of what she wrote confusing and contradictory to what I’d read elsewhere. The oddest thing to me is that she didn’t really cite her sources - ie, I didn’t see any place where she cited a call or email to one of them as a source for a particular quote (if I’m wrong on this, someone please let me know ). As a result I was left wondering if she was creating a narrative based on existing tweets etc or if she was adding new info.

I think it was pretty clear from Bev's writing and the way she quoted people that she had a direct interview with both of them. I don't think the problem is the article, but it's that certain people are saying things in an interview that contradicts what they're saying on social media. I don't think you can blame the journalist for writing what she was told in her private interview. Like I've pointed out already, Meagan has a history of saying things then accusing others of not understanding what she said. There's only so many times you can try to use that defense before you need to look at what you're saying/writing and ask yourself, why does this keep happening?

 

[alexocfp]

This is a sport. You have to do what’s best for yourself, like it or not.

”Good guys” and “bad guys” are just a judgement call.

The decision to do this will be measured by how successful it is. Time will tell.

 

[Tavi...]

I think it was pretty clear from Bev's writing and the way she quoted people that she had a direct interview with both of them. I don't think the problem is the article, but it's that certain people are saying things in an interview that contradicts what they're saying on social media. I don't think you can blame the journalist for writing what she was told in her private interview. Like I've pointed out already, Meagan has a history of saying things then accusing others of not understanding what she said. There's only so many times you can try to use that defense before you need to look at what you're saying/writing and ask yourself, why does this keep happening?

I guess it was clear to you. It absolutely wasn’t clear to me.

You mentioned a “private interview.” Was a private interview between Bev and Meagan disclosed in the article? If it was, I missed it, so please let me know.

Quite honestly, my expectation of any journalist publishing an article is that at a minimum, she would either preface it with something like this: “information and statements contained in this article are based on my conversation(s) /email(s) with (Meagan/Eric/Vanessa) on (date) unless otherwise noted” or include the information in the article itself. I didn’t see anything like that.

 

[BearryBear]

I guess it was clear to you. It absolutely wasn’t clear to me.

You mentioned a “private interview.” Was a private interview between Bev and Meagan disclosed in the article? If it was, I missed it, so please let me know.

Quite honestly, my expectation of any journalist publishing an article is that at a minimum, she would either preface it with something like this: “information and statements contained in this article are based on my conversation(s) /email(s) with (Meagan/Eric/Vanessa) on (date) unless otherwise noted” or include the information in the article itself. I didn’t see anything like that.

Have you ever read a news article? No one does that. If there are direct quotes, it’s because the journalist talked directly to the participants. Usually they only reference sources if it comes from third parties or elsewhere.

 

[Tavi...]

That pretty standard for professional journalists if it is not a long form interview. It can be quite tedious to say via email, by phone or at the press conference several times so you’re supposed to assume that they are real quotes that they got themselves.

Usually they only say where the quotes are from if they are lifting them from a competitor.

As mentioned in my post above, most articles I read include the information somewhere, at least once. Unless sources are cited, the reader doesn’t know if the information is reliable. And if you mischaracterize someone’s statements because you didn’t double check them before publishing, you can get yourself in a lot of trouble.

 

[Tavi...]

Have you ever read a news article? No one does that. If there are direct quotes, it’s because the journalist talked directly to the participants. Usually they only reference sources if it comes from third parties or elsewhere.

I’m not sure why you feel the need to be rude, but I’m a lawyer so yeah, I read a shitload of articles.

 

[ice coverage]

... Quite honestly, my expectation of any journalist publishing an article is that at a minimum, she would either preface it with something like this: “information and statements contained in this article are based on my conversation(s) /email(s) with (Meagan/Eric/Vanessa) on (date) unless otherwise noted” or include the information in the article itself. I didn’t see anything like that.

Really? You must be reading a lot of different journalism than I am. (And I am not referring only to skating journalism.)

In my experience, it is not standard practice for a journalist to explicitly state that a quote comes from the journalist's own one-on-one communication -- unless the journalist is emphasizing that a particular quote is the journalist's original reporting, as opposed to a quote given to many different journalists all at once (for instance, at a press conference or in a pool transcript or pool video).