Postmortem: Anime Matsuri’s John Leigh Lawyers Up to Silence Fashion Vlogger

Article Title: Anime Matsuri’s John Leigh Lawyers Up to Silence Fashion Vlogger 

Run Date: 1/29/2018

Before we begin: Normally, I like to reach out to our $5 backers for their suggestions on which stories to write up. But since this is such a huge story and it went out just this week, I wanted to collect my thoughts while everything was fresh in my mind. Apologies, Helpers! We'll have a new poll coming up shortly.

Now where was I? Oh, right!

To be frank, I've been somewhat coasting on a form of auto-pilot for a while. I'll admit it fully. 

Mind you, that doesn't mean I haven't been reporting (cripes, we put out 230 articles in January alone!), but I found myself getting caught in a trap that snares a lot of news-desk writers. I got so invested in the feeds, in the micro-details that were coming here and now, courtesy of the daily beat that I lost focus on the world.

 It's not something we do consciously do, of course. It's just an unfortunate side-effect of working in a state of constant information overload... and man, have I been doing that for a while. 

And, really, this state kind of dulls your senses to a lot of these bigger, more important stories. The human elements just kind of fade away in a sea of text and imagery, and you lose a lot of focus on the greater world. 

I probably would still be in that info-dump haze now, if I hadn't caught a Twitter post by Otaku Journalist's Lauren Orsini. 

I didn't know it at the time, but the tweet was basically the spark for what would become my first real field-work in nearly five years.

The Beginning

Like most of the big stories I walk into, I kind of under-estimated what this would become at the start. I'm... pretty bad at that, to be honest. 

But, starting off, I went to the most obvious sources:

• The cease-and-desist letter posted by Tyler
• The video of note, "Cathy Cat Catastrophe"

On a more random note - thank God for sound-blocking headphones! I started listening to Tyler's video on my lunch break, big mistake. (oops!)

Anyway, once I was back in my home office, I set off to work on the long, tedious (yet somehow rewarding) task of note-taking.

Through the video, I took stock of both the financial and *erhrm* other allegations that Tyler highlighted, and chose the high-level points to drill down on.

The Houston Press and Comics Beat articles came up pretty quickly. Digging through the three pieces, I found myself with two very viable starting points:

• Financial Allegations
• Allegations of Sexual Misconduct

With this in mind, I chose to pursue both, to see what would arise in both cases. Ultimately, my goal was to pull primary and secondary sources - figures who I was able to verify without the shadow of a doubt on the matter, and whose comments could be relied upon in publication.

On the financial side, I came up pretty dry. I found a stack of names in the Houston Press article, which ultimately led me to a series of posts on sites like Reddit and  Shoryuken, and a few musty FourSquare entries. Google Scholar turned up dry for documents, as did the general Texas registrars.

The sexual allegations proved to be more substantial, but there was a lot of noise among the signal. With this in mind, I chose to zero in on a few key names and figures, who appeared to be most prominent in previous reporting. 

Chokelate's blog post and Leigh's own words were valid, and I did have a few leads on one other blog that I wasn't 100% able to verify by the time I started piecing things together. So, sadly, it had to be bounced.

Then I found the Tumblr post that had been mentioned in Tyler's video. And, honestly, it's one thing to see that flash on a screen for ten seconds as someone summarizes. It's another to actually read the actual allegation. I can't speak more on it, but I will say that I was pretty much speechless for a good half hour after that.

Planning and Preparation

With my sources compiled, I outlined a rough skeleton of the document. A skeleton, basically, is an outline of your final article. It's the core points and major topics, compiled into an organized list, to give a general sense of how a document should flow.

According to my skeleton, there were to be five major topics:

• Background
• Finance
• "Allegations of a Certain Nature"
• Comments
• Conclusion

Of those, the only one that spooked me was the  "Allegations of a Certain Nature" heading. When working with people, you need to choose your words very carefully and make your points incredibly clearly. It's super easy to cross the line from journalism and reporting, to defamation and libel.

And trust me: you never want to be on the receiving end of a libel suit. It's expensive and draining, not to mention the utter decimation of your professional reputation. It's a kiss of death, even if you come out victorious, you frickin' lose. 

So, with this in mind, you get this odd paranoia. You begin to check yourself, walking back potentially loaded terms, in hopes of keeping things above-the-board.

But I digress.

Before I went further, I wanted to reach out to the two figures central to this story. I wanted to give each side a chance to tell their side of the story. In many cases, this is the gold standard, as it is the primary source, which can then be corroborated or checked against existing evidence on-hand.

On January 9, both Tyler and Mr. Leigh received identical messages asking for comment.

Tyler was quick to respond, and gave a one-paragraph statement.

Mr. Leigh, meanwhile, was on a business trip in Japan. He'd be back on January 16.

The way I saw it, I had a full week ahead of me, before I could begin to wrap things up. It was time to get to work.

Getting to Work

By this point, much of the hardest work was done. The facts and notes were there, data was organized, and the overall document was basically there... albeit in its atomic form.

Of course, this is a bit deceptive. The real challenge at this point was creating something that people would actually read.

An old colleague of mine used to say that it doesn't matter if you're breaking The Pentagon Papers for this generation, or reporting on the new dog catcher. If it's boring, it'll get ignored. If it's interesting, folks will snap it up and demand to know more.

For most of my articles, I like to take a mixed-commentary stance. I like to blend the conversational with the factual, and generally deliver in a manner that's similar to the way I talk.

For a story of this nature, though, it just didn't feel right.

Instead, I chose to go with a format that's commonly employed in publications like Newsweek, Time, and The New York Times. It's a bolder, more forceful delivery, which is put forth with a mostly neutral tone. The result is a piece that feels neutral and balanced, while driving your core points with the power of a sledgehammer.

I've only done this a few times in the past, as I like to reserve this format for "the big ones."

The overall writing process went pretty quickly, at this point. My first rough draft was finished by January 15.

I actually had two versions penned at this point:

• One wove Tyler's comments into the text naturally
• One featured large openings, so I could splice in commentary from both parties.

At this point, I had zero guarantees that my second source would deliver, so I had to be prepared to go live, in the cast that he wasn't.

On January 17, I reached out to Leigh for a second contact, and was told that I'd have a response by "the end of the week."

Once again, this meant that it was time to play the waiting game. 

Joking aside, it meant that I had about a week to clean up the article, honing its message to create something as relevant as it was accurate.

At this point, I gave the article a chance to rest. I gave it 48 hours before I set eyes upon it again, and read through with fresh eyes. On a second-read-through, I found that the Finance section was, well... let's call it "half-baked." The delivery was strained, the facts were bland, and it was just a chore to read.

Ultimately, it was deemed a distraction, which would turn a relevant article into a hit piece. Thus, I nixed it.

Coincidentally, it was during this fallow period that Anime Matsuri took one of Tyler's older videos down with a copyright strike.

Weaving this into the article is normally part art, part science, as you have to ensure that things flow naturally while incorporating the new information. And, thankfully, I had anticipated something of this nature and left a pretty wide opening in the intro, just in case.

On January 22, Leigh finally responded with a prepared statement. I thanked him for his comments, and got to work. 

I took my second template, the one with the wide gaps, and began working in Tyler and Leigh's comments. When it was finished, I slept on the draft again. I showed it four people for feedback:

• Lydia Rivers (Anime Herald)
• Matt Brown (Anime Dream)
• Lauren Orsini (Otaku Journalist)
• Amelia Cook (Anime Feminist)

These are folks whom I respect very highly. They're colleagues who've spent their time in the trenches, and whose comments I trust. (Seriously - check 'em out!)

At the time, Lauren suggested that I go back and talk to Tyler again, which I agreed was a good idea. Leigh had sent a lengthy prepared statement, which stands out against the shorter comment that I had received prior.

I reached out to Tyler once again, who gave a secondary response. With her words worked into the final draft, it was off to Legal for review!

Legal Review

Working with legal review is a pretty scary process. I'm not going to lie. There's no telling what a lawyer will find in your work, and what they will deem unacceptable. But it's a heck of a reassurance once you've gotten that bill of health back, with suggestions on what to walk back, what to remove, and what to tone down.

Seriously. A good attorney will keep your ass safe, especially when working with subjects that are particularly touchy, controversial, or legally treacherous.

This particular article had six action items: A few language choices, one potentially problematic statement, and one paragraph that needed to go, like, yesterday. With those set, we were clear for publishing.

Conclusion

The entire process took just over 20 days, from concept to completion. All in all, I logged about 30 hours of research and outreach, along with five to ten hours of writing, editing, and review.

The end result, though, was a piece that I am incredibly proud of. More than proud, it's an article that made me remember why I love journalism so damned much. To be able tell these stories, to give a voice to the voiceless and speak out for the downtrodden, is nothing short of an incredible privilege that can easily be forgotten in the slog of the day-to-day. 

And, truth be told, I'd like to do more.

-Mike