Article in December/January Issue of Cycle

A place to discuss the issues relating to the proposed change in the national CTC’s structure.
User avatar
Simon L6
Posts: 1382
Joined: 4 Jan 2007, 12:43pm

Re: Article in December/January Issue of Cycle

Postby Simon L6 » 29 Nov 2010, 7:07pm

Regulator wrote:If there was supposed to be balance in the article in 'Cycle', can comeone explain why people are referred to the CTC web-site for further information - but not to the Save the CTC web-site (or any other web-site)?

Is that a balanced approach to take?

is that a rhetorical question? :D

Regulator
Posts: 523
Joined: 27 Jan 2007, 10:13am

Re: Article in December/January Issue of Cycle

Postby Regulator » 29 Nov 2010, 7:11pm

Simon L6 wrote:
Regulator wrote:If there was supposed to be balance in the article in 'Cycle', can comeone explain why people are referred to the CTC web-site for further information - but not to the Save the CTC web-site (or any other web-site)?

Is that a balanced approach to take?

is that a rhetorical question? :D



How dare you sir! Are you suggesting I would engage in rhetoric?








:D

User avatar
gaz
Posts: 13107
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent, car park of England

Re: Article in December/January Issue of Cycle

Postby gaz » 29 Nov 2010, 9:15pm

Deserving of a reply, I knew you wouldn't stoop to rhetoric.

Regulator wrote:If there was supposed to be balance in the article in 'Cycle', can comeone explain why people are referred to the CTC web-site for further information - but not to the Save the CTC web-site (or any other web-site)?

Is that a balanced approach to take?


IMO the level of balance shifts if you quote the reference from that article in full rather than in part.

The article says "The debate has been covered in detail - see http://www.ctc.org.uk/charity for information and links". The "/charity" page has a "Links and Discussion" button which offers a wide range of links including Save the CTC and the forum.

IMO, given the passionate nature of the debate, it would have been better to have named the Save the CTC site in the article.

It is grossly undignified to have debased the matter with a prize draw.
Hand wash only. Do not iron.

Clarion
Posts: 39
Joined: 24 Mar 2007, 7:25pm
Location: Up hill and down dale

Re: Article in December/January Issue of Cycle

Postby Clarion » 1 Dec 2010, 9:28pm

I agree that the prize draw does make me uneasy about the whole process.

And, although the coverage this time was less biased than prior to the AGM, the very partisan editing of Jeff's comments, and the sometimes bizarre correspondence which Dan has kindly published for us, show a sadly skewed approach.
Fellowship Is Life! Unity Is Strength!

clem the moderniser
Posts: 3
Joined: 29 Nov 2010, 8:47pm

Re: Article in December/January Issue of Cycle

Postby clem the moderniser » 1 Dec 2010, 9:54pm

Clarion wrote:I agree that the prize draw does make me uneasy about the whole process.

And, although the coverage this time was less biased than prior to the AGM, the very partisan editing of Jeff's comments, and the sometimes bizarre correspondence which Dan has kindly published for us, show a sadly skewed approach.


Dan's approach is neither bizarre nor skewed

Clarion
Posts: 39
Joined: 24 Mar 2007, 7:25pm
Location: Up hill and down dale

Re: Article in December/January Issue of Cycle

Postby Clarion » 2 Dec 2010, 2:50pm

This is what struck me particularly as bizarre:

Dan Joyce wrote:Journalists in this country don't use pre-set questions. We're not
living in totalitarian state. I am accommodating you by giving you
the
opportunity to support your petition.


It is quite normal for an interviewee to be given a list of questions to be asked, especially on such an important issue. Paxman and Humphrys aside, it's just good manners to let someone prepare full and informative answers.

The skewing comes in the way the bullet points were edited. Jeff conceded that edits could be made, but makes it clear which ones he feels are most important. That is not how the edited version came out, and some important points were thus not communicated to members.
Fellowship Is Life! Unity Is Strength!