I have since found out more, and rewritten my response to the article.

The Wall Street Journal article was wrong. There was no deception. The article, using the term, “feigning amateur status” attempted to disparage Marie Digby, however, there is no indication she feigned anything. By all appearances, Marie Digby has always been herself.

The article stated:
—–
“Ms. Digby’s MySpace and YouTube pages don’t mention Hollywood Records. Until last week, a box marked “Type of Label” on her MySpace Music page said, “None.”
—–
However, she had joined MySpace in 2004, roughly 2 years before she was signed, and she merely didn’t bother to update a setting, and she’d probably forgotten that setting even existed. I joined a MySpace music page, and it could even be missed when first signing up. And, since months after she recorded her CD, there was no indication it was ever going to be released, I wouldn’t expect that changing her MySpace status to signed would cross her mind, even if she knew about it. The article went on to state, “After inquiries from The Wall Street Journal, the entry was changed to “Major,” though the label still is not named.” Why name a record label when there is no indication they are going to release your CD? (Note, the CD, titled “Unfold”, finally came out on April 8, 2008. Buy it, it’s great).

The Wall Street Journal article also contained:
—–
‘Most of Ms. Digby’s new fans seem pleased to believe that they discovered an underground sensation. A YouTube user posting a message in response to a cover of Linkin Park’s “What I’ve Done” wrote, “you truely have talent! get urself out there…if u really wanted im positive u could land some sick record deals!! id buy a CD 4 sure!”‘
—–
In fact, the vast majority of the posts were about her music, and not about “discovering” her. For most of us viewers, a huge number of people had already seen her videos when we found her, which were posted long before the WSJ article, so we could hardly claim to have ‘discovered her.’

The term “feigning amateur status”, used in the WSJ article seems completely ridiculous to anyone who has watched all of her videos.

Consider the following quote in the article, with the subtitle, “The Lucky Nobody”.
—–
“As Ms. Digby’s star rose, other media outlets played along. When Los Angeles adult-contemporary station KYSR-FM, which calls itself “Star 98.7,” interviewed Ms. Digby in July, she and the disc jockey discussed her surprising success. “We kind of found her on YouTube,” the DJ, known as Valentine, said. Playing the lucky nobody, Ms. Digby said: “I’m usually the listener calling in, you know, just hoping that I’m going to be the one to get that last ticket to the Star Lounge with [pop star] John Mayer!” The station’s programming executives now acknowledge they had booked Ms. Digby’s appearance through Hollywood Records, and were soon collaborating with the label to sell “Umbrella” as a single on iTunes.”
—–
Note the use of the term, “played along” as if the stations were doing something sinister. Note, Marie Digby had not had a CD released at this time, and the radio station’s DJs announced, over the air, that they found Marie Digby on youtube. And, what Marie Digby said is so totally credible that to cast it in disparaging terms seems incredibly cynical, even for someone in New York City! Note, Marie Digby claims the idea of posting videos on youtube was her own idea, and the radio station, and Carson Daly, both claim they found Marie Digby on youtube. Sinister? Hardly. Read the last quote again, and think.

While I dislike the term, ‘nobody,’ because everyone is ’somebody,’ nonetheless, Marie Digby was known to few people other than family or friends before the youtube video, so, if Marie Digby was playing a part, it was herself. Again, to disparage someone based on supposition, which also require manufacturing a nonexistent conspiracy, is beyond disingenuous. I would say, given the factual error, and the complete lack of research, the Wall Street Journal reporters who covered this were “feigning professional status,” however, that might be a bit harsh. After all, there is a special term, “Investigative Journalism!” Clearly not all journalist meet that standard.

Marie Digby has posted that a Wall Street reporter talked to Marie Digby for about an hour, but they never asked the questions that would have cleared this up. Instead, they took her response, which merely meant that her signed status wasn’t relevant to her goals (and frankly, would have seemed ridiculous in the videos), as meaning she was hiding it.

There were radio station interviews, before the WSJ article, where she mentioned being signed. If she were hiding it, she would have hid it there too.

In most of her videos, she didn’t speak unless singing. Her personal business is her business, and nobody elses. The WSJ article took an irrelevant omission, and turned it into a conspiracy.

I gather Marie Digby’s family is rather well off. She never mentioned that in her videos either. I wouldn’t say she was, “feigning middle class status,” but I’m sure some people would! Sad!

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=4165438&blogID=307265009

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgbUCrl8nZU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wld-VNsgqqg

http://youtube.com/watch?v=e8H5_N1eM9Y

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Uq3DU-_7tkQ

I like her, shes the only fan profile i have sa friendster ko.

Hope she gets to visit manila 1 day.

Go Go Go Marie Digby!!!!

The Wall Street Journal article contained factual errors. They quoted one nearly illiterate poster, and then claimed his post was typical, when in fact, the vast majority of posts before, around his post, and afterwards, were very positive. Nobody cared that Marie Digby didn’t announce a record deal, because it’s not relevant if you’re posting a video of a song!

The article claimed she had ‘none’ checked on her MySpace page for signed status. That means little, since (1) she could take the default setting when signing up (I signed up on an artist page, and it would be easy to do that, and (2), her CD came out approximately 2 years after she recorded it. After 6 months, she could put up a legal battle, give up the songs she sold, and go to someone else (after a legal battle, but with no CD, she could probably get out), and (3), after being told about her status, she apparently immediately corrected it. There is simply no way to plausibly consider there was definitely any intent to deceive. And, the idea that she had to preface her youtube videos with, “I already have a contract with hollywood records, and this is the song umbrella” is ludicrous. I, and other sensible people, want to watch the performance. I don’t care about the CD until it comes out!

The Wall Street Journal articles, by their assumptions, and their false statement about the reaction of fans, were “feigning professional status.” It’s irresponsible to complain for someone marketing their music, however they do it, as long as they don’t lie. There is no credible evidence to show that Marie Digby was intentionally trying to mislead people. She might have been hiding her signed status, that could be true, but then that’s her business (and it is business), and has no bearing on how beautiful her music is.