Jon Ronson misrepresented the murder of women by Trans camp member

[Bouledeneige]

Not sure if this has been picked up but the Twitter link shows that the story about Michfest in the 'Things Fell Apart' series missed out an enormous part of the story. The murder of 2 women and a child by a trans camp protestor which demonstrates why the women wanted to keep their event a safe space for women. It's quite a shocking omission that undermines the whole content of the podcast and should be corrected by Ronson - who famously threw Glinner under the bus for supporting women's rights.

twitter.com/simonjedge/status/1669233491400171522?s=46&t=kY9GRzhvF1KxVluu7yR-TA

Good on Simon Edge (his new book In the Beginning is a pretty good parody of the Maya Forstater tribunal cases). It will be interesting to see if Ronson responds, but I won't be holding my breath.

Yeah. I wouldn't hold out any hope of Ronson correcting his error.

I had not realised Ronson was a TRA. I have some of his books, have listened to his podcasts and quite admired him. How incredibly disappointing.

For anyone who doesn't know about this case, coincidentally the murderer has just (two days ago) finally been sentenced, to life without parole. It has been more than six years since David Warfield ("Dana Rivers") murdered Patricia Wright, Charlotte Reed and their 19 yr old son Benny Diambu Wright. I suspect that if Warfield had not spent that time exhausting every legal avenue (and playing every trans card that he could), and accepted his sentence then, when the prevailing zeitgeist was even more slavishly sympathetic to TRA special pleading than now, that he may have received a more lenient sentence. He has also been refused leave to appeal. Couldn't happen to a nicer misogynist.

(And sorry, but I'm rubbish at anything remotely techy like phones, so can't link, but googling Dana Rivers and reading Kara Dansky's account of the murders, his subsequent trials and ironically deranged attempts to get himself off the charges by reason of insanity will bring you up to date. Kara Dansky has been great at keeping information about this trial available. Careful though, the account of the murders is absolutely horrific.)

I suspect he's more of a cynical careerist than a TRA, and the image he portrays of himself as open-minded, curious, thoughtful etc. is more confected and calculated than I thought it was when I was reading his books.

I hope his cynicism comes back to bite him on the ass, hard. He backed the wrong horse and he threw women under the bus to do it - I hope his career sinks alongside the credibility of the trans movement.

I read the thread of tweets yesterday, and one in particular struck me - Simon speculates that Ronson left this information out because he just didn't think it was part of the story. Which really shows, I think, the interest that these people have in women as a group with a defined set of interests and rights (that is, absolutely none).

I'm disappointed because I enjoyed the podcast series and the way in which Ronson probed culture war issues. But it's quite devastating to think that he either decided the murders weren't relevant or didn't uphold the editorial angle he'd already decided to take. When in fact it precisely sums up the essence of risk for women being deprived of safe spaces. The murders prove beyond doubt the validity of women's fears yet are dismissed as irrelevant or an inconvenient truth.

I wish he would respond and amend. But sadly very few people in the public sphere acknowledge when they get things wrong.

@DarkDayforMN I used to love his articles and books. He does seem very disingenuous. It's his modus operandi in interviews - like a down market Alan Whicker. But when you've spotted his sins of omission - as in the case above - you can't take him seriously again.

Glinner said Ronson got in touch , ostensibly to have a civilised discussion and try to iron out their differences. But eventually realised Ronson was on a fishing expedition. I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw Eddie Izzard.

I used to love his articles and books. He does seem very disingenuous. It's his modus operandi in interviews - like a down market Alan Whicker. But when you've spotted his sins of omission - as in the case above - you can't take him seriously again.

Yes me too, I was a fan! I've been to see him read live and everything- I've read lots of his books multiple times over because I enjoy his writing voice so much.

I suppose now I think about it without being disarmed by his writing style - its makes sense that just like he does with his interviewees, he's also assuming a particular persona with his readers, to make us like and trust him more. And I never understood how someone as nervous and diffident as he portrays himself could also be confident enough to do all the things he did - I guess I accepted that there was some poetic license operating in his self-portrayal, but now I've gone off him, the discrepancy is giving me the ick.

I agree, I don't think this is a genuine error or oversight.

It's so infuriating because he literally wrote about public shaming and the harm it does, and how mob mentality can get out of hand.
And yet when it comes to trans activism and the public 'cancelling' of women, he is just wilfully blind.

*literally wrote a book about

Interesting. I enjoyed his radio series, but noticed that when discussing the anti-abortion movement in America he edited reality pretty severely to fit his narrative that it all started at a certain date. He had a throwaway comment along the lines of 'Catholics already opposed abortion' without acknowledging that Catholic anti-abortion protests and publicity had been around for decades before the group he was talking about and putting at the centre of the movement kicked off - and that Catholics are the largest single religious denomination in the USA by a long way.

The story he told was interesting (and might have been more so if he'd put it in the context of US evangelical anticatholicism) but presented without context. This latest (horrible) omission indicates that wasn't a one-off. Which makes me wonder is anything he writes trustworthy.

All the nerdy lads doing New Journalism About New Things finally got a genuinely societally subversive and dangerous issue to take on and they were all too bloody cowardly in the end. Same old story.

An interesting take, Backstreets - I suspect that you are right.

Like many others, I'm disappointed in Ronson - I thought he was better than that.

He’s a bad journalist
his agenda always wins out above the material
also: he reads Mumsnet as does his wife SO DO NOT CRITICISE HIS WHINY VOICE or they will tell on you.

For anyone who doesn't know about the Rivers case, here is Kara Dansky's page of updates over the years:

https://www.karadansky.com/state-v-dana-rivers-updates

Looks like she hasn't yet added the sentencing news, but I started a thread yesterday linking to her tweets about it and a local news item:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4828239-dana-rivers-sentenced-to-life-without-parole

This is also the case WDI USA women protested outside the Oakland courthouse last December, for which they were attacked with a bicycle, an umbrella, eggs and pies by black-masked misogynists who stole their banners and burned them. https://twitter.com/ReduxxMag/status/1599852773809750017?s=20&t=00dZ3FNXiMKS560z-h8HOg