Sali Hughes #21 A Sali by any other name would smell as sweet with pretty bitter topnotes

[Debarkle]

So... is this trolling? Or is criticism of something in the public domain allowed if it’s done by Sali?
I’ve no doubt some people on tattle do cross the line and there are some threads on here I don’t visit as I think some posters do go too far. But in my experience if I have seen posts that cross the line and I’ve reported them they’ve always been deleted by the mods.

 

[Disillusioned]

A bright pop of ochre eyeliner named... Boiled Piss.

 

[Whiskers]

No-one forced you to write about these things. You’re a beauty journalist If you don’t want what you write to be discussed, don’t write opinion pieces.

 

[Aude]

You'd think it'd be a journalistic requirement to check the facts and report accurately. I suppose things are different for opinion writers. Journalism is a strange field to enter if you don't have a thick skin.

I imagine that on social media platforms she can say pretty well what she likes, but if she's using a Radio 4 documentary to broadcast the same misinformation and promote the same personal agenda that's another matter. The BBC's reputation is based on being impartial and reliable and the new Director General has strongly reaffirmed his commitment to that. On his first - I think - day in the job he warned journalist against being driven by personal agendas.

If she's making a documentary as a journalist, surely the BBC will require that it meet certain standards relating to factual accuracy, evidence, impartiality, depth and range of enquiry, a balance of perspectives, context, analysis, understanding? I'd have thought she would also be required to be open about her personal involvement in any subject on which she was reporting.

Even if, alternatively, she's making it as a first-person story - again, I'd have thought there was a requirement for factual accuracy, evidence, honesty, context and perspective.

I wonder whether, to avoid scrutiny of her personal story, she'll focus on real cases of online trolling and only hint at having herself been a victim. Though I do also wonder whether, having repeated it so often, she does now believe her own version of events.

 

[Badabing101]

I listened to a GalDem podcast today with Michaela Coel and she talked at length about processing criticism on her work as a creative / writer / actor / story teller. The way she looks at it is this... People will give you feedback or “notes” as she says, it’s best to take note and spend some time reflecting - then decide what you will do with these notes. Will you respond and take the feedback on board? Or will you disagree and give a reason why? She talks about the need to interrogate your own motives for certain actions and behaviour, where is it coming from etc etc. I’m paraphrasing here, but she talked about this process of feedback and critique as a learning tool and something she’d had to deal with constantly when writing Chewing Gum and I May Destroy You... she realised that in some instances the “notes” were telling her that she wasn’t being clear enough to her audience, but that sometimes she would have a line / situation in the script that was put in deliberately for a niche audience and that was ok. I feel the way she talked about this process and how she approaches it is the exact opposite to the fragility of ego that so many influencers and SH display. I wonder how Sali takes professional critique and feedback from Editors and clients ? When she was writing for the Pool did she just send it in? Surely there would have been elements of re-writes etc? Or does she take that type of criticism well because they hold a position of influence and power? Do you know what I mean?

 

[cholulamare]

I'd imagine my claim that "Becky" is one of the two big lies. I stand by it, the account read like pure fiction, particularly the bit where "Becky" turned to her as she was leaving and said "I still don't know what it was all about".

Apologies, I've misquoted Becky:

"It was a way of me trying to solve my own problems," reflected Becky. "It's actually nothing to do with you."

Before leaving, she shrugged and added: "It doesn't make sense to me either".

No idea whether or not Becky is real, but the account did read like a very badly-written, amateurish film scene. That line in particular, as well as the description of Becky as "affluent-looking" (ugh), and describing the weather on the morning they met a grand total of *three* times in a few paragraphs. Hammering home that screenwriting trope a bit too hard there (especially for a film specialist)

 

[BettyBeau]

So they want to broadcast their fabulous lives full of gifts and sell to us little people (not leprechauns) all very publicly but wish for any critique to be done in private

I think a gotcha moment in this documentary will be a solicitor (that they've paid to give a view to fit the narrative) say that this site *might be* harassment as Sali knows about it. However another solicitor could equally say that's a load of rubbish as these people live their life courting publicity and it's inevitable people will have opinions.

Change the dragging website to accountability website and it takes on a very different meaning. Out of all of the public figures on social media, only a hanful have as many threads as Sali because it's not people "attacking" someone for no reason. These few accounts are the ones that are pretty shady online.

Heaven help this people if they lived in the real world and had to have an annual review.

The laws that need to be introduced are to protect people from the insidious nature of these influencers. Deep down they probably know they're in the wrong, but have gone down the path for so long they've no choice but to double down and blame the critics.

I’m so going into this years annual review and screaming Troll If my boss says anything bad.
I will then go online and do a crying rant to fit my own narrative
Get in the real world.

 

[Yel]

Also: "my online bullying hell and how I conquered the beefy trolls" is a story that paints her in a better light than "disillusioned readers speak up about influencers and their disingenuous tactics"

There's not a chance this radio 4 documentary will be balanced and fair if they're using Sali Hughes when her lies are so easily shown by reading here.

They'll have decided exactly the agenda to push on day one. It'll be poor Sali being trolled with people questioning her shady behaviour, then on to Caroline flack. Then probably on to a teenager that tragically took their own life due to bullying, even though that's in no way relatable to people expressing opinions on a disingenuous business, it's a well trodden path use a tragic death to push an agenda. Then probably something about the online harms act which is mainly to protect minors and remove extremist content, not something looking to curtail freedom of speech on businesses or make it so public figures can only be praised.

Sali is dry of things to do, so hitching herself to trolling is one of her few options to try and be slightly relevant.

 

[MissD]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t see a comment section on Sali’s articles. So you can’t comment on any of her articles, but she also thinks you shouldn’t be able to go anywhere else to discuss?

 

[Runestone]

So tempted to drop a couple facts over at https://www.bbc.co.uk/contact/complaints

 

[Too Much]

Sadly I don't think we ever had the chance of the BBC doing a balanced, unbiased and fair documentary.

That organisation is full of self serving blue tickers who would circle round to look out for one of their own. I bet they decided on the agenda and narrative to pursue right from the start without doing any basic investigation.

Imagine the fallout if the documentary wasn't stroking Sali's ego and telling her how right she is; Lauren Laverne and Richard Osmand would be fumin'.

It just feels so UNFAIR for things to be so MISREPRESENTED!

It also feels dystopian - the establishment controls the propaganda and the proles (us) have no chance of the truth being heard.

 

[Dunstonwrecksin]

I’m disgusted that she chose to interview someone like Jess Philips rather than Diane Abbot because the latter has been subjected to the vilest abuse both from inside and outside the Labour Party, including from Jess Philips herself. I’m pretty sure that I saw a stat in one of the stories of the historian Kate Williams a short while ago that showed Abbot has been subjected to more abuse than all female MPs combined.

But exercising such a degree of intellectual rigour in her research also involves the capacity to empathise with people who don’t look like her - not subjecting Abbot to and laughing at misogynoir jokes at Abbot’s expense.

This is peak #SolidarityIsForWhiteWomen

couldn't have said it better myself. Once again proving that this thread talks about salient issues like structural racism, intersectional feminism amongst a slew of other intelligent observations. Maybe this is what scared Sali into making that instagram video that completely mischaracterised this thread. This thread isn't people trolling or saying nasty things about her (I've lost count of the times she has been complimented on here) rather, it discusses her oversights, blind spots and her not disclosing treatments whilst claiming to be an outspoken, and uninhibited advocate for being open about them.

 

[rosemarina]

If a mascara lands in a branch of Boots and an influencer hasn't been paid to recommend it, does it even exist?

 

[Enid Swamp]

I forget y’know? Gods it’s not ok to say but I used to turn heads, and sometimes I walk about as if I still do, not in a cocky way, I used to adjust myself because I knew I would be looked at and I didn’t want to be particularly, so I’d make myself smaller (I don’t know how to write this without sounding like a prick, I was not princessed by my family because I was pretty, I come from a good looking family, it wasn’t/ isn’t exceptional, I have an aunt who was the standard and I look nothing like her and am nowhere near her beauty]). And sometimes I catch myself still doing that, like it’s engrained, muscle memory or something. And there’s no reason to anymore, I’m 45 and no one’s looking.

This sounds bad, like a pity party. I don’t mean it to. I think it’s interesting.

 

[Skiddidlydaddle]

I AM BECKY.

 

[Yel]

I feel like this is a real own goal by Sali.

In the short term she may get some fawning support, but, long term, it will only serve to spike people’s interest in Tattle and bring more people here a la her Freaky Friday video.

Ultimately, she’s only going to drive more traffic here and I don’t understand why she would want to do that?

I think her goal is to try to discredit the whole site so that people take what she says at face value and never look beyond what she says.

She really doesn't have many moves left but this power play using her media connections to get something uncheck broadcast has the potential to really blow up in her face. Reflects terribly on the institution of the BBC and backs up the point of view that they lack impartial and objective journalism.

She's a beauty writer with lacking ethics and Instagram influencer. I doubt either are going to do well in a recession.

The short documentary showed how presenting and investigation isn't her forte. Maybe it was supposed to be a showcase to get more work?

 

[Pixelpie]

I love reading these Sali Hughes threads, they just crack me up. So cheering...

I never post in here, I just occasionally browse after finding out about this forum after the MOD scandal and it’s made me so much more cynical. There’s a quote I heard recently that originated from Lucinda Chambers (I think) after being fired about how the entirety of the beauty/fashion makers/journos/bloggers etc world works in tandem to continue selling you the same things you absolutely do not need over and over in different guises, nothing makes this clearer than Sali’s Guardian column. Each one is more niche than the last, trying desperately to avoid the replication that comes when all you have to talk about is yet more ‘best budget acids’ ‘best luxury acids’ etc. There literally seems to be nothing left to say, the themes just get more desperate. A new slant on a product that already exists and columnists wringing themselves dry trying to find something remotely interesting to say about it again. And failing.

Also that ‘In the bathroom with’ with Lisa Armstrong was diabolical. Had the atmosphere of being filmed from a padded cell. She clearly reads this thread because of the new ‘Iya!’ At the start of every video to reinforce that she is definitely Welsh. Cringey.

These beauty journo/influencers should be locked in a room to fight over who first endorsed the Clarisonic.

Felt good to get that all out.

 

[Whiskers]

Surely you two are whip-smart enough to know that it is, in fact, a PJ? Singular.

 

[Skiddidlydaddle]

Okay, I've read todays column. How can there be so many products that she has loved for years and years and uses daily?? If I used all the products she claims to use everyday I would never leave the house as I would just be rubbing, rubbing, rubbing creams and lotions into my skin. Like the poor victim in Silence of the Lambs.

 

[Disillusioned]

She’s at it again...

Who - apart from influencers - does this actually apply to? With NHS/care home etc staff ramping up for the next peak, I find this twattle hugely insensitive.