Privacy Over Publicity
Some might call me crazy, but last week I chose privacy over publicity when it came to the unusual balancing act that now defines my identity as an online publisher.
On Friday I was scheduled to give my first TV interview on the topic of potty training. When I first picked up the interview request, I have to admit that I was pretty excited about the potential exposure the interview could bring for Boston Mamas. The producer wanted to interview me about our potty journey. No problem. Her crew wanted to conduct the interview in my home. No problem (except for the fact that I’d have to clean the house). Oh, and they also wanted to shoot footage of Laurel on the potty.
Maybe I should have backed out right then, but I couldn’t quite do it. I left the conversation with a time scheduled, a very tentative commitment about Laurel’s involvement, and my insistence that Laurel – if she was involved at all – only be shot over the shoulder from the waist up (i.e., back to the camera, no skin showing). They consented. But as the day wore on, I grew more troubled. What if they made a mistake? What if they just didn’t take me seriously and showed more revealing footage of Laurel against my wishes? And come to think of it, they didn’t seem particularly interested in the Boston Mamas angle; what was up with that?
As much as an integral part of this site involves sharing personal parenting stories (and it is extremely gratifying that readers enjoy and appreciate the candor on these pages), I am protective of plenty else. I contacted the producer to tell her that, as a parent and in my capacity as the publisher of Boston Mamas, I would be happy to conduct the interview but that my daughter would not be involved in the shoot. She called back and cancelled the interview.
Perhaps I should have been more upset that the producer clearly was less interested in me and more interested in roping a potty model. But her decision affirmed that I made the right decision. I’m proud of what I have built here at Boston Mamas, and I’d hate to look back years from now and realize that I lapsed in integrity – as both a parent and a publisher – for a chance to be on TV.
Comments
Bravo Christine! I think you're right, you've got to go with your gut (ever more powerful as a Momma, huh???) on these kinds of things, which you clearly did. As they'd say in Scotland, "Good on you, hen!" (that's a compliment, really!) Knowing what a great job you're doing on this website (plus your great karma), more publicity is bound to keep coming your way.
Much love,
e
Posted by: erica | April 3, 2007 9:28 AM | Reply to this comment
Kudos, girl! The privacy thing does come up alot when you work in the public eye. Even though what I do is technically private, I do it in a smallish town, so things get around easily. I've had to veto public info about the kids, even with family! My cousin started a family tree website, and without asking put all of us on there (right down to names and dates of birth). I had to essentially lop of a branch of the family tree, because I feel like I can't risk clients finding out who my children are. It's our job to protect the little nuggets, even when it means giving up another opportunity! I'm with you all the way!
Posted by: tracyp | April 3, 2007 9:44 AM | Reply to this comment
Good call! I'm pretty disturbed about how cavalier people seem to be about letting their kids be on reality shows, for example - even if the kid thinks s/he wants to do it at the time, how many of us can only shudder with relief that the many embarrassing things we did as kids or teens have not been broadcast to the world and recorded forever? It's a decision you can't un-make.
Posted by: cynth | April 3, 2007 11:15 AM | Reply to this comment
Good for you. I post very few pictures of my kids publicly. Having someone else broadcast video of one of them on the potty would be disturbing.
Posted by: Andrew | April 3, 2007 3:48 PM | Reply to this comment
Of course, you see all of us giving you a standing ovation.
And yes, I would guess that would seal their intent pretty darn quick.
Posted by: OMSH | April 3, 2007 4:12 PM | Reply to this comment