Aspen Mountain Press

SPJ Colorado

Never mind, I answered my own question. The Society of Professional Journalists' Colorado chapter subscribes to the SPJ's Code of Ethics.

Highlights:

— Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible.

— Make certain that headlines, news teases and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.

— Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity.

I'm not normally one to defend good taste, but this is a bit much even for my loose standards.

mscelina said:

And now, thanks to our friend Brandon Johanssen, a second erroneous article has come out at the Huffington Post, claiming we had books with the following titles: Country Boys: Wild Gay Erotica, and Bare Bones.

Umm...no. AMP never had books with those titles.

Click to expand...

I notice that there's a Corrections link on the article. I suggest people with factual corrections use it.

Medievalist said:

I notice that there's a Corrections link on the article. I suggest people with factual corrections use it.

Click to expand...

And one, at least, already has.

Sorry, but this is the only appropriate smilie I could find for this situation:

Wow. This makes me all kinds of angry. Some people have absolutely no regard for ethics and standards. I sincerely hope that BRANDON JOHANSSEN not only gets fired for this, but that he isn't able to work in journalism again. What a horrible thing to do to the writers who've already suffered enough through this debacle.

My favorite saying for this type of situation : Karma's a bitch...and then she has puppies.

Hopefully the Huffington Post will immediately run a retraction, and perhaps even write a correct story about what's been going on at AMP.

Many thoughts and positive mojo flowing your way, Celina. Hopefully things can only get better for you all.

The journalist may not have written the headline.

In national newspapers (at least), that job is in the hands of the Sub-Editors.



TO THE SUB-EDITORS' DESK!

He did, however, somehow choose two book examples from other publishers entirely. That's some quality research, there.

Ex-husband.

Actually, not ex-husband. They're separated, but not divorcing.

Just of curiosity - anyone think it's worth mentioning to the ACTUAL publishers of the books mentioned in the article? Seems to me they would have an interest in not having their books incorrectly listed as being published by AMP, who's being portrayed in such a negative light.

ETA: I'm talking about the Huffington Post article, which lists a couple of books that weren't even published by AMP.

amergina said:

Person with which she still has a legal partnership?

Click to expand...

They live separately and their businesses are separate.

That's a possibility. If they did a 'whois' search on the web domain, they would have been led to 1PR and assumed the two businesses were connected. I say 'were' because the sites owned by Mr. Hicks have been moved to a completely different domain server than the AMP site, while the AMP site was moved by the senior staff when we took over this summer (for that precise reason, I might add). So right now, his name does not come up in conjunction with AMP and hasn't for a while. A reporter would have to do some serious digging to put those two numbers together at this time. The only connection between those sites at the moment is an extinct email account.

Even of he thought the businesses were linked it takes a maroon to not see a book published by Cleis, retailed where-ever, is not AMP. I can see why most authors opted out of talking to these journos is this is what they come up with.

The reporter contacted me multiple times. I told him quite clearly that I didn't want to participate b/c AMP's owner had a young son still in school there and that I didn't think it right for her actions to backlash on him.

Good thing I was concerned about that, huh.

F**king jerk.

absitinvidia said:

Just of curiosity - anyone think it's worth mentioning to the ACTUAL publishers of the books mentioned in the article? Seems to me they would have an interest in not having their books incorrectly listed as being published by AMP, who's being portrayed in such a negative light.

.

Click to expand...

That's a really good Idea, I am going to look into contacting them Thank you.

It's amazing how the discussion has turned from the shameful way in which Aspen Mountain has treated its authors to the shameful way in which the story is being reported.

No, not really, Jim. The Aurora Sentinel & Huffpost stories are adding insult to injury. The plight of these defrauded authors is now being trivialized and diminished because of their being labeled (and libeled) as "porn writers". It's not just their royalties and rights at stake, I'm sure they feel their reputations have been attacked. It's another blow in a long line of blows to their livelihoods and writing careers.

James D. Macdonald said:

It's amazing how the discussion has turned from the shameful way in which Aspen Mountain has treated its authors to the shameful way in which the story is being reported.

Click to expand...

Amazing how? Two wrongs don't make a dead thread.

James D. Macdonald said:

It's amazing how the discussion has turned from the shameful way in which Aspen Mountain has treated its authors to the shameful way in which the story is being reported.

Click to expand...

Ari Meermans said:

No, not really, Jim. The Aurora Sentinel & Huffpost stories are adding insult to injury. The plight of these defrauded authors is now being trivialized and diminished because of their being labeled (and libeled) as "porn writers". It's not just their royalties and rights at stake, I'm sure they feel their reputations have been attacked. It's another blow in a long line of blows to their livelihoods and writing careers.

Click to expand...

That's a lot of it. Jim is right in that the real issue we should be dealing with here is the fact that AMP has not paid royalties to authors or staff and apparently has no intention of doing so.

But in the here and now, the potential damage from that "porn authors" label can be even more horrifying, and can wreak even more havoc on these authors' lives than what AMP has. That one little word can end someone's career outside of publishing, or destroy someone's reputation in their community. In a very real way, Jim, this latest incident is detrimental in ways that the AMP situation could never have touched.

I'd rather lose all the money AMP owes me than to have my daughters and granddaughters tainted by a word that's been falsely applied to me and my work.

For me the discussion has turned because the publisher issue is over. The publisher has stopped trading and I have my rights back. I am happy to do what I can to help others get their rights back. But the only breaking news is a journalist who can't even focus on a naughty book long enough to see who really published it. I don't really need people telling me how to deal with my own problems, thank you. If i had taken all that advice I'd already be down a whole in lawyer's fees and probably not got my reversion letter.

The Huffington Post article has been rewritten to remove the book titles. However, the "correction" itself is wrong, saying the two books mentioned were published by Cleis and Wild Rose (should be Red Rose). Sigh.

Also, if your blood pressure isn't high enough already, the editor of the Aurora paper has weighed in, claiming that AMP itself was offering samples of titles that "were unequivocally designed to appeal to readers looking for graphic and prolific sexual content" and thus he stands by the headline.

Might it be worth pointing out to him that by the time he got to the website, many of the non-erotica books/samples had already been removed due to DMCA issues? Or am I mistaken in that regard?

He goes on to blame the authors who didn't consent to interview (he claims they were "fearful of reprisal from the publisher") for the lack of balance in the story.

I'm even more disgusted now than I was with the original story, to tell you the truth.