The man who wrote a scathing email to local news anchor Jennifer Livingston criticizing her weight and telling her she is a bad influence upon viewers for being what he calls “obese”.
Livingston became world-famous when a clip of her giving a strong, personal and heartfelt response to her bully went massively viral.
Now, the man behind the email is speaking out, saying that it was never his intention to hurt Livingston… But really? What did he think would happen when he called her fat and told her she was hurting society by being the size she is?
The man stands by his original message, but didn’t mean for that message to be hurtful.
What do you think of the bully’s apology? Is he being genuine? Is it really an apology if you still stand by your message? Is he right that he can’t be her bully if she’s a “big time media personality” and he’s just a regular guy?
About The Good Feed Blog Editors
I think he is just repeating negative body image messages that he received as a child from his hypercritical mother or father or authority figure….the fact that he doesn’t recognize it as bullying means that he must have heard those type of searing, nitpicky comments from someone he loved (ie., a parent, grandparent, or maybe teacher)….
He’s definitely got a chip missing….someone who speaks so negatively of other people must see something so awful when he looks in the mirror….it means he probably hates himself….or parts of his self….
I think you’re right, Leia.
Calling someone fat in a letter = mean.
Calling someone’s parents hypocritical authority figures with a history of searing, nitpicky comments, who probably hates the awfulness he sees in the mirror = ???
@Marcus: I know this sounds like a stretch…but look at his face…he’s looks like an anorexic (i.e., someone who suffers from severe body image distortion)….like someone who is super critical of his body faults and those of others…but that comes from somewhere else, like from his parents…he can’t really apologize sincerely because he doesn’t think he did or said anything wrong (most likely, this sort of behavior was tolerated in his house….perhaps normal…he says it like he was doing her a favor (ie., telling her that she was “fat” and ” a poor example to others” or whatever…)
Leia, do you never feel sorry that someone is hurt or bothered by something you said or did, even when you don’t think you said or did anything wrong? Let’s say you have some opinion or make some decision that disappoints your parents… can you only be sincerely sorry for having disappointed them or hurt them if you concede that your opinion/decision is wrong and you will do what they want? I don’t think that’s how apologies and feeling sorry works, but when some jerk goes viral, it’s fun to pretend he’s way worse than the rest of us.
If this guy were to stumble onto this thread and express hurt feelings at the comments you’ve made, do you think you’d have a better apology for him than he had for the reporter who ambushed him? I think most likely, you’d either not apologize at all, or have a similar “un-pology” that it’s unfortunate he’s hurt, but he totally deserved whatever was said about him. I don’t say this because I think poorly of you, but because I think this is what people do.
To be clear, I’m not debating whether the letter in question was appropriate. I agree completely it was wrong. The point I’m debating is that because so many people think he was wrong to send it, that means that his apology was insincere. Getting an apology that is less than the one you want doesn’t make it fake – it just makes it unsatisfying. So the guy still doesn’t think he said anything wrong. That sucks. That doesn’t mean he’s incapable of feeling sorry that he hurt her.
No, saying “I’m sorry my words hurt your feelings” but not expressing regret for what you said, is not an apology. It’s just petulant.
It’s the kind of modern non-apology that has unfortunately become standard. “I’m sorry that what I said hurt your feelings, but “. And with that, you can get away with just about everything.
There’s no sign he listened to the people who rebuked him, and certainly no sign any of it has changed his mind or made him regret what he said.
what a chump.that’s no apology, that’s him getting face time, all the while still bullying. I woulda said the ol’ stand-by….” well, she may be fat but you’re ugly….and she can diet if she wants….you’re stuck with baboon- ass ugly for ever.” he’s a real jewel….inside and out.
When I saw this story and watch Livingston’s on-air response to the mean letter, all my sympathy was with her. Since she did not out the man by name, it seemed a reasonable and measured response. She still has my sympathy, up to that point.
Now that the letter-writer’s identity has been exposed and he is being subjected to ambush journalism and Internet “justice”, I’m feeling what I didn’t think was possible at first – sympathy for him. Not for his opinion of Livingston or how he expressed it, but this has gotten absurd. As distasteful as his views might be, he is the “little guy” in this scenario. His opinions have no power over her but what she gives them, while she literally can broadcast her response to a sympathetic audience.
His apology, though understandably not very satisfying when you want a complete reversal, sounded genuine to me. Accepting apologies is optional, but just because you get one that doesn’t make you feel any better, that doesn’t mean the apologizer was “faking it”. “Apology” does not mean “I abandon my previous opinion and now share yours”. It means you’re sorry for something, even if that “something” is an awareness that an opinion you still hold (or action you would repeat) has caused pain. We *all* feel that kind of sorry at times, so I think it’s hypocritical to shame someone else for it.
Take an easy example of a big opinion issue: abortion. No matter what your opinion is on it, I guarantee you it upsets and offends and even hurts someone else, perhaps even someone you care about. You can be genuinely sorry it upsets them and acknowledge your opinion as the reason, but it’s still *their* feeling and you don’t fix it by saying now that I see you’re upset, I’ve changed my mind and have the same opinion as you.
What the letter-writer wrote to Livingston was cruel, but I don’t see how it was bullying, since he had no power over her, nor any ability to maintain contact with her against her will (as in a school or workplace setting). If she didn’t expose his identity, then I don’t think she’s guilty of bullying in retaliation. But whoever did expose him to the wrath of the Internet and reporters tracking him down to ask how he feels about being a bully — that’s bullying. Now that his name is out there, as the villian in a viral video, what do you suppose has been the effect on his life? I’m guessing there has been (or will be) a noticeable disruption, not just with ambush interviews, but unwanted emails, voicemails, perhaps even threats, and if he has a job, I bet people are contacting his employer urging them to fire him. That’s what the Internet does when it’s pissed off at an opinion they don’t like, and I think that’s a much more profound example of bullying than writing some crank mail to a public figure.
So, Marcus for you bullying can only occur if one person has actual power over another? Livingston couldn’t be bullied because she has a tv career? We don’t know how many nasty emails she gets on a monthly basis, or calls.
Do I think he should have been outed? No. I don’t have any idea who outed him. Do I think the internet should get all ragemob at him? No, but I mean…that’s what happens.
I think his email to her was rude and cruel and says way more about him than her. He’s the one that wrote it after all. There wasn’t any real reason to tell her those things.
Reporters tracking him down? Bullying? Sure. That’s how our entire culture works right now Marcus. It’s totally toxic.
Looks like we agree on that part. So about those questions you asked me…
“So, Marcus for you bullying can only occur if one person has actual power over another?”
Being a “bully” means something more than just being mean or impolite, right? To me, it has something to do with sustained and targeted cruelty towards a person who lacks the power to escape or ignore it without substantially altering their routine. I don’t see a viewer writing a one-off letter (or was it email?) to a local anchorperson as crossing that line from mean – which it undoubtedly was – to bully. If that’s bullying, the word sort of loses it’s usefulness by meaning nothing more than “mean” or “being a jerk”.
“Livingston couldn’t be bullied because she has a tv career?”
Sure she could, by co-workers or bosses who she has to interact with every day, or other people she could not avoid. Could she be bullied by some fat-intolerant jerk who writes a mean letter that she decides to share on-air? I don’t think so. Hate mail sucks, but I don’t think writing one to a public figure qualifies one as bully.
“We don’t know how many nasty emails she gets on a monthly basis, or calls.”
Very true, and I think that could take a serious emotional toll that I sympathize with. It’s tempting to say “Well, don’t read those mails,” but short of having the resources to hire someone to screen all your feedback before you see it, that’s not a reasonable thing to expect, even for a public figure. However, while each of those mean people share in the responsibility of the total emotional damage done, it is not reasonable to single out one such person, identify them publicly, and let them be subjected to the wrath of all people who have been hurt by someone like that and decide to take it out on him/her.
Livingston *did not* identify him on-air (in the clip I saw) which I thought was a very good way to handle it, but whoever did *is* responsible for unleashing a wave of what I would call “bullying” on him, because he’s in no position to ignore or escape the people who think they’re justified by disrupting his life to tell him what a jerk he is. Each of those people, from ambushing reporter to boss-caller to angry commenter on the Internet, contribute to the total damage done to this guy, while being blind to the fact that the cumulative effect is a lot like the one that got them angry in the first place.
Interesting and, imo, accurate distinction between trolling and bullying.
Thanks for helping me clarify my attitude towards this in my own mind
I dont think I saw anyone even question if what he did was actually bullying, before Marcus. According to google, bullying is defined as “Use superior strength or influence to intimidate (someone), typically to force him or her to do what one wants”. The person writing the email had neither superior strength nor influence. However, the aim of the email certainly seemed to be to get the anchor to do what he wants (take civic responsibility, according to his POV, and lose weight or not appear on television).
What’s interesting to me is that there are any number of behaviors we routinely “bully” people out of doing, especially in the public eye, despite those activities being a personal choice. We don’t want people smoking or drinking or cursing on public television. Still, some others don’t want gay couples on public television, or single mothers, or people with visible tattoos, all because they “send a bad message”.
I’m not sure which side I see obesity falling on, to be honest. Obesity, like smoking, is bad for a persons health, and studies indicate that normalizing obesity encourages other people to gain weight. At the same time, obesity is not a reflection of a persons worth as a person, and a good news anchor is going to be good at any weight.
This is what’s known as an “Un-pology.”
“IF Jennifer os offended, then I am sorry…”? This shifts the problem onto the victim. It is NEVER o.k. for a stranger to comment upon another’s appearance, especially in a negative way, or to reduce her value as a professional to simply her weight, as if that alone makes her a bad role model for young women. He should be ashamed.
“It is NEVER o.k. for a stranger to comment upon another’s appearance, especially in a negative way”
So it’s not OK for a stranger to compliment someone on their appearance either? What about if someone has something stuck in their teeth, should I not tell them?
Just saying…
By teaching people that it is O.K. to be overweight simply diminishes any desire they will have to try and lose it. This then will esult in a greater population of “larger pepole.” Whether we as a population believe that it is O.K. to be overweight or not is the REAL issue at hand here, not the T.V. anchor stuff. So this really leaves us with a few existential questions? Would you be ok with yourself for being overweight? And if you had a kid would you be OK with them being over weight? Would you yourself ever start smoking cigarettes? Would you yourself ever give ciggarettes to your kid and tell them to smoke? (cigarettes and smoke basically have the same negative effects)
@ Daniel: There are still very few obese or even overweight images in the media, and when they are, they are routinely made fun of (or in this case, sent a faux -helpful email). I don’t think there is any danger at the moment of the population believing it’s “okay” to be overweight. There is still an overwhelming amount of body shame out there.
Seriously, the sheer amount of anorexic models gracing the covers of nearly every magazine along the grocery store isles normalizes a ridiculous body type. Until you see “plus size models” (which are usually very average, in fact, and not generally overweight) plastered over every billboard, commercial, and magazine, I really doubt this is an existential question we have to ponder for very long.
I’ve never, ever heard a woman say “I wish I was a few pounds heavier”. Never. Whereas even the most “beautiful, perfect” ladies I know routinely make disparaging comments about their own and others’ weight.
http://www.ted.com/talks/nicholas_christakis_the_hidden_influence_of_social_networks.html
I think that Mr. Krause raised legitimate points. His letter was not “scathing,” but a well-reasoned comment.
I think he’s a stand-up guy for standing behind what he said, not cowering before the almighty forces of political correctness.
Obesity is a massive problem, no pun intended. It is causing billions of dollars in excess health care costs to insurers, that the rest of us then must absorb through rising insurance premiums, more expensive health care services, etc. Obesity is a character issue, one that reflects poorly on the anchorwoman, and one that can be addressed, even if there’s something glandular like a thyroid problem. She clearly has the means to hire a doctor to figure out the medical side of her issues.
People in the media have no problem calling out other public figures for smoking, which shows a poor example to children. Obesity should enjoy no more cultural protection than smoking. It is, as Daniel pointed out, a similar effect on the body. Any use of the word shame is a strategy to deflect blame, after all no one talks about “smoker shaming.”
I have to say I agree with a lot of this.
It seems most people have jumped on this “anti-bullying” angle because it gives them the feel good rush of getting on a righteous bandwagon. The anchor was hurt by what the man said, her husband was angry, so they decided to treat the letter as something other than what it was.
If the letter had been something like “Hey fatty, you’re disgusting, I dont want to see your fat face on television! How dare you think it’s ok to be fat like you are?! You make me want to puke! Please kill yourself” — then, yes, all of her reaction would be legitimate. But it wasn’t. The letter was asking her to consider her weight in the larger context of national health.
Her responses included “Yeah, I’m fat, you think I don’t know that?!”. When the intent of the email was never to *inform* her that she was overweight, but to put her size into a broader context.
But, of course, she was hurt that someone said something she didn’t want to hear, so she spun it as “hey look everybody, this guy is being mean to me just like people were mean to you when you were little! LETS GET HIM!”