Posted by jo abbess on January 25, 2011, 5:51 pm
Re: Complaint to the Daily Mail
Posted by JMC on January 26, 2011, 4:45 am, in reply to “Complaint to the Daily Mail”
You don’t actually state in specific terms what it is you object to in his piece or what you actually want them to correct. You mention in general terms that he has not consulted you on your motivations, your memory of events is somewhat different and he attributed motivations to you that were not accurate, but in asking for a correction, you don’t actually tell them what specifically they got wrong and what you want corrected. What do you expect them to say in a correction – Jo Abbess disagrees with what we said about her (but we aren’t sure which bits or what exactly we got wrong)? Just wondering if maybe including more specifics might have had a better chance of actually getting the correction. I know if I had received that letter I would be wondering what exactly your complaint was and what specifically you wanted corrected (just my impression from reading your letter). Cheers J
Posted by jo abbess on January 26, 2011, 11:15 am, in reply to “Re: Complaint to the Daily Mail”
I decided to try opening up a dialogue by asking if they would consider a correction, but…
…since I haven’t heard anything in response, I guess they don’t want to talk about it.
Maybe I should hire Max Clifford.
Except I can’t afford to (all senses of the word).
And anyway, I’m not trying to be confrontational here, just pointing out that I have been reported without being interviewed or researched, so it’s rather unfair.
Anybody with significant social status would never be treated like that.
Except they are, regularly (Caroline Lucas for example in the same piece).
Just crucify a random protester. Always works a treat. Keeps the rabble fairly quiet…
And besides all of that, I have agreed with Roger Harrabin and Richard Black that I won’t rake over the incident again and again as it detracts from the progress we are all making (optimistic tone).
That doesn’t mean I won’t be critical of their work, which I regularly am, it just means that going over and over a “sordid” incident in 2008 won’t get anyone anywhere. It won’t even sell copy.
Except it did for the Daily Mail.
If the Daily Mail were hoping for juicy snippets about a long-dead non-issue, with extremely dodgy “facts” having been spread about, they won’t get any. Particularly not in an opening gambit type e-mail.
In fact, that’s probably the “news” here, if anyone wanted to use that – “Roger Harrabin and eco-fascist agree not to tussle over trivia – for the sake of The Cause”.
Posted by JMC on January 26, 2011, 11:52 am, in reply to “I decided to try opening up a dialogue by asking if they would consider a correction, but…”
Re: I decided to try opening up a dialogue by asking if they would consider a correction, but…
Fair enough. Just thought I’d mention that on reading the letter it didn’t really come through to me exactly what you were asking for (whether that was engagement or a right of reply, or a written correction etc). Can understand you not wanting to rehash the whole thing again, despite the fact that it has all just been brought up again for you without you having any opportunity to put your side. But then, the piece that it was in didn’t strike me as having any attempt at balance – just read like one person’s opinionated rant to me.
Posted by jo abbess on January 26, 2011, 9:50 pm, in reply to “Re: I decided to try opening up a dialogue by asking if they would consider a correction, but…”
Some people appear to have taken the Daily Mail article factually….
…or at least significant enough for them to reproduce liberally all over the Internet. It doesn’t seem to matter to them if the piece was balanced or not. It also doesn’t appear to matter to them if the piece was factual or not.
The Daily Mail article contained a rationale for my behaviour that I believe is unsubstantiated. It also contains details of my behaviour that do not accord with my recollection of my behaviour at the time, and those unproven claims are now being propagated widely and could possibly cause a backlash against me. It was nasty enough in 2008. I kept details of the hate e-mails and threats and so on, just in case I needed to use them in a legal setting. I really don’t want a repeat.
Are the Daily Mail inciting hatred towards me ? Can the Daily Mail be held accountable for the propagation of a negative character judgement and poor re-interpretation of the facts ?
And do I want to use up precious time and energy in pursuing the channels which exist to rectify what I consider to be errors ?
Thanks for offering your opinion that you didn’t understand what I was asking for in my e-mail. I can’t really go back in time and edit the e-mail, but I shall try to stay aware that my clarity may need to sharpen up.
How would you have phrased it ?