So, as most of you know I was featured by the Daily Mail yesterday - here is the article if you haven't seen it. I just wanted to clear up a few factual inaccuracies that some people seem to have had a problem with, and address some comments which have been made:
- The angle of the article is shopping on a student budget - the article itself does say that 'some' of my outfits cost less than £50, however the headline hints that all my outfits cost <£50, which has caused confusion and much scoffing in the comments section about how 1) some of the outfits pictured clearly aren't <£50 and 2) buying an outfit for <£50 isn't a huge achievement. Whilst I am on a student budget it is simply not true that all of my outfits cost less than £50, and whilst £50 may be relatively good value on the high street I am fully aware that it is more than possible to buy much cheaper on eBay and in charity shops.
- Many bloggers I have seen discussing the article have been somewhat annoyed at the fact that the article makes it sound as if I'm some sort of phenomenon, that blogging isn't a massive and popular community of which I certainly wasn't the first member. Of course you and I know this isn't true, but your average Daily Mail reader probably has no idea. I wish it had been contexted a little better, but I had no control over this.
- A lot of bloggers have also had a problem with the fact that I, some apparent nobody, was chosen. Frankly I have no idea how the journalist came across me or why he decided to do a piece on me but I thought it was a great opportunity so I took it.
- Many of the photos used are 3 and 4 years old (I haven't had brown hair since I was 16/17!), and aren't representative of how I dress now as a 20 year old. I purposely didn't send any high res versions of these old photos and questionable outfits, but the low quality versions were used anyway.
- I am not aspiring to be a solicitor just to fund shopping as some seem to have interpreted the article to say, I'm not an idiot. I want to be a solicitor, and the fact that that will be able to fund my shopping is a bonus.
- 'Who would want to be in the Daily Mail?!' - another comment I have seen a lot. The journalist who interviewed me is freelance, I assume he pitches the articles he writes to a variety of publications. It just so happened that the DM was one that picked it up; I assumed that if anyone was to pick it up it would be a tabloid like the DM, but I have not directly worked with the Mail. I am by no means a DM reader and I find most of their content which concerns issues of a more serious nature fairly abhorrent, however it is a national newspaper whose website has more traffic than many other news sites, and so the exposure is fantastic. So yes, it might not be my favourite publication, but frankly I am still happy to be featured in the Daily Mail.
There are also a lot of misquotes in the article, I am not going to point them out individually but anything in quotation marks which makes you cringe I probably didn't say. I'm not going to take the time to address the ignorant comments about my weight and appearance, I never once used the word "selfie", and I clearly am not nor do I think I am an 'internet star' or 'sensation'.
All in all, the positives which have come from this opportunity have far outweighed the negatives, and frankly I'd do it again in a heartbeat. Infinite thank yous to all the lovely people who have supported me and stuck up for me, I appreciate you all so much. Thanks for reading :-)