The ABC correspondent I’ve been speaking to has suggested that if I show my face, be it in a photo or video interview, the story will have a higher chance of being picked up.
I would lose so much in my professional and personal life it’s not funny.
I don’t want to appear in Google searches. I don’t want to be the “face” of addiction recovery.
Am I being selfish? Or are they being blind even asking for photos or video?
I want to help, I want people that are stigmatized to be seen in a different light.
I just don’t know if I can sacrifice so much for it.
Don’t do it if you’re not comfortable - even if it means they might not proceed with the rest of the article, doesn’t mean you’re shutting the door on helping stigmatised people forever. It’s just not the right time yet for you, and that’s okay! Who knows, in 5 years time you might have such a secure position in life that you will be ready to go public. Or maybe you might never, and only be able to go with a blurred face and pen name. Hell, I would say most people wouldn’t want to appear with face and name in a news article in the first place - let alone people in your position. It’s a scary world out there in terms of data collection.
Oh yeah, and be warned. You don’t know what kind of spin the journalist might put on it. Or if they’re going to even stick to the consented to subject. It’s in their interest to get your trust so you open up.
Someone I know was going to go to the media about a longstanding issue they weren’t getting redress for. The journo ended up interviewing a family member of the original person, taking pictures and asking about things that were none of their business, and spinning up a shamey narrative ‘exposing’ and demonising the relatives in something that was basically a puff piece playing into divisive public sentiment. Basically they saw a random opportunity for rage bait and went for it. This person got their reputation publicly destroyed.
Nothing happened with the original issue that help was needed for. That was left ignored.
It’s YOUR choice. You do not have a duty to show your face, to rescue other people at the expense of your life.
The show will be forgotten in a year or two, it’s effect will be minimal ( tho it will be real and positive)
but the negative effect on you will be forever
Leave the public faces to those who do it for a living and who can have a big effect. Like politicians and famous health care policy makers and workers.
I say. Don’t show your face. Your privacy , your name, is one of those most valuable assets you have. Don’t have it destroyed.
The ABC correspondent I’ve been speaking to has suggested that if I show my face, be it in a photo or video interview, the story will have a higher chance of being picked up.
I would lose so much in my professional and personal life it’s not funny.
I don’t want to appear in Google searches. I don’t want to be the “face” of addiction recovery.
Am I being selfish? Or are they being blind even asking for photos or video?
I want to help, I want people that are stigmatized to be seen in a different light.
I just don’t know if I can sacrifice so much for it.
Fuck.
deleted by creator
Nope absolutely don’t show your face. Not worth it. It’s forever.
Protect yourself first. The journos want a sensation foremost, a scoop. They’re not too concerned about what affect that has on your life.
Ask them if you can use a pen name? And include the reasons in the article, exactly what you just said here. The ongoing stigma is real.
Future employers will google you. If you do decide to show your face, I would recommend using an alias.
Don’t do it if you’re not comfortable - even if it means they might not proceed with the rest of the article, doesn’t mean you’re shutting the door on helping stigmatised people forever. It’s just not the right time yet for you, and that’s okay! Who knows, in 5 years time you might have such a secure position in life that you will be ready to go public. Or maybe you might never, and only be able to go with a blurred face and pen name. Hell, I would say most people wouldn’t want to appear with face and name in a news article in the first place - let alone people in your position. It’s a scary world out there in terms of data collection.
Oh yeah, and be warned. You don’t know what kind of spin the journalist might put on it. Or if they’re going to even stick to the consented to subject. It’s in their interest to get your trust so you open up.
Someone I know was going to go to the media about a longstanding issue they weren’t getting redress for. The journo ended up interviewing a family member of the original person, taking pictures and asking about things that were none of their business, and spinning up a shamey narrative ‘exposing’ and demonising the relatives in something that was basically a puff piece playing into divisive public sentiment. Basically they saw a random opportunity for rage bait and went for it. This person got their reputation publicly destroyed.
Nothing happened with the original issue that help was needed for. That was left ignored.
It’s YOUR choice. You do not have a duty to show your face, to rescue other people at the expense of your life.
The show will be forgotten in a year or two, it’s effect will be minimal ( tho it will be real and positive)
but the negative effect on you will be forever
Leave the public faces to those who do it for a living and who can have a big effect. Like politicians and famous health care policy makers and workers.
I say. Don’t show your face. Your privacy , your name, is one of those most valuable assets you have. Don’t have it destroyed.
deleted by creator
Don’t. I know someone who has been called the poster boy for one of the smack subs. Don’t.