S
To: SMH feedback, Miranda Devine
BCC: Mediawatch
Subject: Failure to respond to inquiry, repost: Miranda Devine's
commentary article, 15 June 2006, SMH
Dear Readerlink, Dear Miranda,
I draw your attention to my correspondance to M. Devine of last
Thursday (included below as plain text). I eagerly awaited Miranda's
article this week, sure in the knowledge that a respectable public
intellectual would retract her factually incorrect statements at the
earliest opportunity offered to her, and provide correct facts in
their place. I was sorely disappointed.
As I have received no correspondance from the SMH, or from Miranda, I
am forced to ask the editors of the Herald:
Are they in the business of paying public intellectuals who make
mistakes of fact, fail to address their mistakes of fact, fail to
correspond regarding mistakes of fact, and fail to retract their
mistakes of fact? I have no issue with the Herald's selection of a
wide variety of opinions: I greatly appreciate the breadth of scope of
social and political opinion represented. I am disappointed regarding
the assertion of facts untrue, especially by the premier paper of
record in New South Wales. The Herald has a journalistic and social
obligation to ensure that the matters of fact it prints are true.
I would like to be reassured of the procedures the SMH takes to
fulfill this obligation. What steps to the Editors take to ensure that
the utterances of the commentators paid to fill the Commentary section
are factually correct? What steps to the Editors take when statements
are proved to be factually incorrect? What training to the Editors
provide to commentators to make them aware of their obligations
regarding facts (as seperate to opinion) when making public
utterances? My current experience is a far cry from a year ago when I
challenged an opinion piece writer to substantiate a fact: that
writers editor assured me of the writers sources and kept regular
correspondance with me regarding the issue.
Miranda: it is disappointing to see your failure to correct this
matter, or to provide adequate correspondance to me regarding it. I
am afraid to suspect that rather than a matter of a lack of time (as
original suggested below) that this may be a matter of a lack of
competence. I hope the Editors can provide you with adequate training
and couselling to help you through this difficult time. Perhaps the
Editors could provide training in expressing matters of opinion, for
example, "In my opinion, The road is not there to share. It is for
cars. Footpaths are for pedestrians. And bike paths are for bikes, if
there is any room left." clearly expresses that this is your personal
opinion, and you advocate it becoming social reality. Compare this
with "The road is not there to share. It is for cars. Footpaths are
for pedestrians. And bike paths are for bikes, if there is any room
left." which is obviously a statement of fact.
I eagerly anticipate postal correspondance from you both regarding this
matter,
yours sincerely,
Samuel Russell
[address suppressed]
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Sam Russell [email address suppressed]
Date: 15-Jun-2006 12:52
Subject: Miranda Devine's commentary article, 15 June 2006, SMH
To: [email protected], [email protected]
Dear Miranda,
Please work harder. Your theme was excellent. Unfortunately, your
exposition was confused and relied on special pleading. We expect
more of our conservative pundits: excellent rhetoric; clarity of
expression; and, the development of strong argument across the course
of an article.
Additionally you are factually incorrect about the purpose of the
roads. This must have arisen as you had insufficient time to read the
Australian Road Rules, or the various items of NSW Traffic Legislation
(all available from the RTA website). To help you print a correction
on this point of fact I refer you to Australian Road Rules 11, 14, 15
and 17 regarding who may use the road and how.
I eagerly anticipate the publication of your correction on this matter
of fact.
yours,
[contact details suppressed]
BCC: Mediawatch
Subject: Failure to respond to inquiry, repost: Miranda Devine's
commentary article, 15 June 2006, SMH
Dear Readerlink, Dear Miranda,
I draw your attention to my correspondance to M. Devine of last
Thursday (included below as plain text). I eagerly awaited Miranda's
article this week, sure in the knowledge that a respectable public
intellectual would retract her factually incorrect statements at the
earliest opportunity offered to her, and provide correct facts in
their place. I was sorely disappointed.
As I have received no correspondance from the SMH, or from Miranda, I
am forced to ask the editors of the Herald:
Are they in the business of paying public intellectuals who make
mistakes of fact, fail to address their mistakes of fact, fail to
correspond regarding mistakes of fact, and fail to retract their
mistakes of fact? I have no issue with the Herald's selection of a
wide variety of opinions: I greatly appreciate the breadth of scope of
social and political opinion represented. I am disappointed regarding
the assertion of facts untrue, especially by the premier paper of
record in New South Wales. The Herald has a journalistic and social
obligation to ensure that the matters of fact it prints are true.
I would like to be reassured of the procedures the SMH takes to
fulfill this obligation. What steps to the Editors take to ensure that
the utterances of the commentators paid to fill the Commentary section
are factually correct? What steps to the Editors take when statements
are proved to be factually incorrect? What training to the Editors
provide to commentators to make them aware of their obligations
regarding facts (as seperate to opinion) when making public
utterances? My current experience is a far cry from a year ago when I
challenged an opinion piece writer to substantiate a fact: that
writers editor assured me of the writers sources and kept regular
correspondance with me regarding the issue.
Miranda: it is disappointing to see your failure to correct this
matter, or to provide adequate correspondance to me regarding it. I
am afraid to suspect that rather than a matter of a lack of time (as
original suggested below) that this may be a matter of a lack of
competence. I hope the Editors can provide you with adequate training
and couselling to help you through this difficult time. Perhaps the
Editors could provide training in expressing matters of opinion, for
example, "In my opinion, The road is not there to share. It is for
cars. Footpaths are for pedestrians. And bike paths are for bikes, if
there is any room left." clearly expresses that this is your personal
opinion, and you advocate it becoming social reality. Compare this
with "The road is not there to share. It is for cars. Footpaths are
for pedestrians. And bike paths are for bikes, if there is any room
left." which is obviously a statement of fact.
I eagerly anticipate postal correspondance from you both regarding this
matter,
yours sincerely,
Samuel Russell
[address suppressed]
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Sam Russell [email address suppressed]
Date: 15-Jun-2006 12:52
Subject: Miranda Devine's commentary article, 15 June 2006, SMH
To: [email protected], [email protected]
Dear Miranda,
Please work harder. Your theme was excellent. Unfortunately, your
exposition was confused and relied on special pleading. We expect
more of our conservative pundits: excellent rhetoric; clarity of
expression; and, the development of strong argument across the course
of an article.
Additionally you are factually incorrect about the purpose of the
roads. This must have arisen as you had insufficient time to read the
Australian Road Rules, or the various items of NSW Traffic Legislation
(all available from the RTA website). To help you print a correction
on this point of fact I refer you to Australian Road Rules 11, 14, 15
and 17 regarding who may use the road and how.
I eagerly anticipate the publication of your correction on this matter
of fact.
yours,
[contact details suppressed]
