Great example of leveraging a somewhat inaccurate story

Throughout my career, I've seen comm folks react to published stories with a grumble-grumble about how they were "misunderstood by the author" and "taken out of context" and other such complaints. These reactions spark up the moment the finished piece is published (and therefore out of reach to "sculpt") and are usually accompanied by exasperated hand-wringing and a "no! No! NO!" chorus as each new paragraph is consumed. Energies are then funneled into picking out everything that was "gotten wrong" in the story and crafted into a one-on-one message delivered straight back to the writer. As if anyone's going to read the retraction or errata in the next issue.

The point is: no one ever knows of the correction but the writer and the story subject.

Quick: what's the last time you read a correction in the newspaper and changed your opinion of the original piece (assuming you remembered the original piece the next day)?

So, I'm not surprised to see the folks at 37signals do a bang-up job in "setting the record straight" on their blog coincident with the just-published story about them in WIRED magazine's March 2008 issue.

In the post, Jason Fried clearly and concisely gives his side of the observations made by author Andrew Park that Jason refers to as "myths," complete with the blurb by Park that captures the myth:

• Myth: Whoever spends the most wins
  
• Myth: 37 signals customers are unhappy
  
• Myth: We don't care about our customers
  
• Myth: Complexity is a necessary byproduct of the modern age
  
• Myth: we refuse to change
  

Of course, Jason ends the whole thing giving props to Park's effort and product overall.

And that, ladies and gentleman, is a great way to get your message out in this world o' blogs.