Update 6th May 2008: I received a very decent email today from the MD of Leapfrog Computers (at least, I trust that it was from him). I’ve never held any ill feelings towards him, and I’m sure his company is generally good.

I do still work for Shiny Media!

Unbelievable!

Let me start with a hypothetical question: if you read an erroneous piece of information about you in The Guardian, would you (a) contact the author directly, (b) contact the editor, or (c) send an email to everyone who writes for the publication?

If you answered (c), shame on you.

Yet, that’s exactly what Leapfrog Computers did about a recent article (now removed) at Tech Digest.

Instead of contacting the writer directly (the name of the author of each article is stated quite clearly at the bottom of each page), the Sales Manager at Leapfrog Computers decided to email everyone.

I’ve had my share of companies who have been annoyed by things I’ve written. Sometimes their annoyance is justified, in which case I remove the offending material, and sometimes it’s just because I’ve made them sound bad, but without actually defaming them.

At least the complaints were (in the main) directed at the right person.

I don’t have a problem if the person or company who feels aggrieved contacts both me and my editor, but I think I have the right to feel cross if everyone else who works at a publication gets to find out about it.

Actually, I think I have the right to be peed off if I get a threatening email in my inbox (albeit a legally threatening one with strong tone, don’t misread me here, I don’t want my own lawsuit looming) that has nothing to do with me.

And Leapfrog Computers are annoyed because the author in question allegedly didn’t do their research properly, or badly worded something.

Hypocrisy!

No-one at Tech Digest — as far as I’m aware — ever writes anything deliberately malicious or untrue. If there’s an issue with an article, we do our best to sort it out as soon as possible.

Sending a heavy-handed email to everyone concerned threatening legal action within 24 hours is baffling.

One thing is certain — I won’t be publicising products from Leapfrog Computers again. Look, ma, no link.

Please, companies, yet again I urge you to think like human beings rather than corporate monsters.

Here’s the complete email transcript to date. I don’t usually publish these kinds of things, but this makes me very cross:

Original email sent to NINE people:

Please can you delete or correct the above article as the story is incorrect. I have posted a comment on the article but the story needs sorting out ASAP otherwise legal action will be taken against the website.

Lee Bevan is the Managing Director of Leapfrog Computers. He was the one who reported the finding of the disk after a unamed consumer brought in a laptop for repair. The writer of the article has obviously not taken their time to gather the correct data which is freely available on many websites like BBC News, ITV, Sky News, Channel M, The Sun, The Daily Mirror, The New York Times! Also, Lee has been interviewed on several news programs which were broadcast yesterday.

I would appreciate confirmation that this error has been corrected ASAP. If no action is taken within the next 24 hours and a full apology is not written then I am afraid we will contact our lawyers who will be instructed to take procedings against the site.

Yours

—
J
Sales Manager
Leapfrog Computers

My response:

Hello J,

Please note that the article in question was written by —, as it states quite clearly at the footer of the article. Would you write to every columnist at a newspaper if there was an error with one journalist’s article?

I personally don’t appreciate the threatening tone of your misdirected email. I have no access to other people’s articles, however I do know that the server is undergoing maintenance this weekend, so your 24 hour (well, 22.5 hour now, I presume) warning will be impossible to rectify.

I would suggest that any errors with the story can be amended on Monday morning. I apologise if this is unsatisfactory, but blanket spamming every writer on the publication is simply no more acceptable than the grievance you hold against the allegedly inaccurate article (I wouldn’t want to comment on that, naturally, given that I should not have been brought into this in the first place)

You’ll be pleased to know that I’ll be removing the few personal articles that I wrote about Leapfrog Computers (on other sites), as I don’t publicise companies who threaten me, particularly erroneously.

Yours

Andy Merrett

Ever more threatening response to my direct but non-threatening email, also sent to “the boss” (his, not mine):

I personally think this reply is absolutely disgusting considering that this article on your site is complete deformation (sic) of charachter (sic). You are responsible for what goes on on (sic) your website regardless of what you say. If I contacted a solicitor over this then we would have a strong case. If this had happened on any other site, regardless of what it was then my reaction would be exactly the same.

Before you reply to comments with such an agressive and unreasonable manner I suggest you check the accuracy of the dispute and put it right rather than acting in this way. I personally couldn’t care less about what articles you retract on any site. It is more important that this totally incorrect article is retracted and my bosses (sic) good name is not tarnished by some idiot who doesn’t know what he is talking about.

I still stand by what I said earlier. Get the article retracted or changed within 24 hours (or 22.5 now) and an apology written about the mistake, otherwise we will seek legal action!

OK, Tech Digest is not MY site. It belongs to Shiny Media. I’m an independent, freelance writer. I have no jurisdiction over the works of others, or over how Shiny Media run their site. Furthermore, I was DIRECT, not AGGRESSIVE, given the nature of the original misdirected threat.

But J is obviously happy to call some of the people who write on my site “idiots”, though I never used that word about anyone at Leapfrog.

My response (now I’m cross):

Sorry, do you mean defamation of character? Please note that I have not defamed anyone’s character.

The web site QUITE CLEARLY says WHO WROTE EACH ARTICLE. The article has already gone (not that you’ve bothered to check)

I still stand by what I said earlier. I DO NOT appreciate being falsely accused. I am NOT —, neither do I have ultimate control for the web site.

As you obviously won’t apologise, I do not wish to hear from you again.

Good day.

Ignoring my request not to hear from him again, he wrote this:

One of youryour (sic) more reasonable colleagues has actually removed the article. So the matter has ended. I couldn’t care less who you are! DO not email me with that crap when your site has false accusations on it. Whatever you say, its (sic) your site and you are responsible for the content. You have shown yourself to be a complete fool who doesn’t care about inaccuracy about articles. I am sure you would have something to say if your name (be it good or bad) was mentioned on a site with a false accusation.

Anyway matter is closed. I do not expect your pointless crap littering my inbox either, but I thank your colleague for sorting this matter out. He obviously realised the importance of the matter!

–
Wow, and this is how the sales director for a “large” company behaves?

OK, you might argue that I aggravated the situation, but the fact is that I DO care about both accuracy and my own name.

If the article had been mine, and someone had emailed me politely and non-threateningly about it, I’d have retracted and apologised forthwith. Like I said above, none of us at TD are malicious, but this level of response is laughable.

Though I was obviously cross about this situation, I didn’t descend into personal name calling. I merely stated the FACTS and my FEELINGS.

The amusing thing is that J obviously did care who I was enough to send the email in the first place, but now that I’ve challenged his overreaction, I’m just a worthless piece of crap that’s bothered him. I suppose at least I’m not the “idiot” who wrote it (I’m just a “complete fool”)

I won’t be responding to anyone at LC any more, unless they persist in hassling me.