Dealing with the Media Policy
Well when the media prints something you don't like or fell is wrong: do the following
http://blog.johnprince.ca/2012/11/exclusive-news-story-pass-herald-being.html
and if you think this is a one time deal check out the following :
http://crowsnestpasshome.blogspot.ca/2012/03/control-name-of-game.html
Pretty soon should we have all the reporters present their stories to administration to check for accuracy before printing them.
Had to feel bad for those two young ladies the other night first lose their mothers home and then be berated and the way I heard it lied to.
Showing posts with label Censorship. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Censorship. Show all posts
Thursday, November 8, 2012
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
"Mayor's corner" lessons in control, silencing the critic's
Further to the Mayor's corner newsletter, which I understand now is going to be delivered in our mail box on a regular basis. I would like my readers to take a look at the comments I made back on March 22 in reference to a lambasting the Mayor gave the media at the meeting of March 20,2012.
"Just prior to going into camera the Mayor announces that he is going to do something different. He is going to allow the media the opportunity to ask a question each to clarify anything that may have happened that night. Didn’t seem like a bad idea until suddenly the Mayor seized the opportunity to chastise the media for some “blatant errors in both papers reporting over the last few weeks”, then the lecture turned to how critical it is that they report the council proceeding “accurately”. When a member of the media attempted to respond to his comments she was shut down very quickly and told this is not a “debate”.
"Just prior to going into camera the Mayor announces that he is going to do something different. He is going to allow the media the opportunity to ask a question each to clarify anything that may have happened that night. Didn’t seem like a bad idea until suddenly the Mayor seized the opportunity to chastise the media for some “blatant errors in both papers reporting over the last few weeks”, then the lecture turned to how critical it is that they report the council proceeding “accurately”. When a member of the media attempted to respond to his comments she was shut down very quickly and told this is not a “debate”.
You can read the full post at http://crowsnestpasshome.blogspot.ca/2012/03/control-name-of-game.html it's titled "Control the name of the game"
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Censorship as raised its ugly Head
I hate to say this because I do not like using censorship, but its my blog so I guess I get to make the rules.
I have now received a couple of comments that refer to people in a personnel way, I will not allow this on my site. If you want to make comments for or against something I post I have no problem with that. Or about issues related to the Crowsnest Pass.
The minute you start attacking somebodies health, age or mistakes they made 15 years ago, I have no interest.
Stop being a twit and Go comment somewhere else.
I have said this before and I will not say this is again I will just delete the comment.
I have now received a couple of comments that refer to people in a personnel way, I will not allow this on my site. If you want to make comments for or against something I post I have no problem with that. Or about issues related to the Crowsnest Pass.
The minute you start attacking somebodies health, age or mistakes they made 15 years ago, I have no interest.
Stop being a twit and Go comment somewhere else.
I have said this before and I will not say this is again I will just delete the comment.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
The Letter they would not publish, Censorship in the Crowsnest Pass
I have received a number of calls from people interested in the letter that the paper refused to publish, it was plain and simply an attempt to respond to the comments made about me by The Thunder in the Valley Committee last week. They presented the arguement that they did not want to provide me the opportunity to have "free" advertising in their paper. I attempted to explain my comments on the Thunder in the Valley weekend, and my clarification statement clearing showing that in no way was I attempting to attack that event, group or persons involved.
But I understand they own the paper and wish to create a certain mindset about myself in the eyes of the community.
I just find it hard to believe, especially after all the speechs I have heard over the years regarding "free speech," I feel its only fair if you are going to attack somebody that you are prepared to give them the opportunity to defend themselves.
But I guess if your goal is only to get one side of the story out, and make an individual look as bad as possible, so be it.
Dear Editor
In response to the Thunder in the Valley Committee, letter than appeared in the paper of June 1, 2010.
The comments related to myself, concerns information I posted on my own personnel blog. As regular readers of my blog are aware I am often asked questions about the municipality and especially about where our tax dollars are spent. I always attempt to answer every question that is directed to me, that is part of a councilors job, to address all taxpayers concerns.
Anyway, here is the rest of the story; on May 6, I posted my original comments, Titled “Thunder in the Valley”
“Great weekend that draws lots of people in to the Valley, and is a boon for most of our businesses, every year I am asked what does it cost us the taxpayers. So here are the budget numbers for 2010.Donation for Fireworks $4500, Traffic Control $6200, Policing $10000, Garbage + Toilets $11500, Activties + Entertainers $18000, Total $50200This number does not allow for any municipal wages that go into the weekend.”
This came about from a number of people that requested from me what Thunder in the Valley weekend costs the taxpayers of the Crowsnest Pass. I did not get a whole lot of reaction outside of my blog until a few people approached me last week, so I went back to my comments and realized that the comments needed clarification.
On May 27 I posted the following comments, Titled “Thunder in the Valley Clarification” Taken a bunch of heat in the last few days about my post May 6 2010 "Thunder in the Valley"So today I am going to clarify things so a few narrow minded people do not take the opportunity to make political hay out of my comments.Yes, I made a mistake on the title it should have been Rum Runner Days & Thunder in the Valley. I did not intend to focus all of the attention on just Thunder in the Valley.Second the reason for the post, often I receive requests on where "your" tax dollars are spent, when I am asked I attempt to supply that information, I was asked in person via email and phone what the taxpayers spent on this weekend, I posted that information.For example, I was asked last week how much we spent on snow clearing this year versus last, why would I not supply that information?Do I has a councilor have the right to say I am not going to tell you?
Third, I have been accused of attacking groups that put this event on, not true read the post whom do I attack in my post. Look at the words “Great weekend that draws lots of people in to the Valley" which of those words are negative?"and is a boon for most of our businesses" which of those words are negative? quite the contrary I think they speak very positively about the whole weekend.Now do I have concerns about this weekend? of course when you have 30,000 people here if one percent of them are idiots that is 300 people, (could do a lot of damage in a small town). Yes, I see that side of it, I work that weekend as a jail guard at the local RCMP establishment and I see what those people have to contend with.
As far as the comments to my post, I post almost all of the comments that I receive go back and read some of the Crowsnest Centre stuff on this Blog some of the comments I received they were not all favorable to myself. The only comments I have refused to post since I started this blog were a couple of which I believed to be libel, and a couple of comments that made fun of a local person’s medical condition.Anyway, back to the point of this "clarification" the original post was presented as an answer to questions I was asked by taxpayers. In addition, under no circumstances was it an attack on any individual or group(s), and if somebody took it that way I apologize.The idiots put aside this weekend brings a lot of good, business, and publicity to this town”
If you wish to read the original comments they are all available at http://crowsnestpasshome.blogspot.com/ further if you do not agree with something I have to say, or a position I take, you can always contact me through my blog, via email, phone or in person.
Thanks
Dean Ward
But I understand they own the paper and wish to create a certain mindset about myself in the eyes of the community.
I just find it hard to believe, especially after all the speechs I have heard over the years regarding "free speech," I feel its only fair if you are going to attack somebody that you are prepared to give them the opportunity to defend themselves.
But I guess if your goal is only to get one side of the story out, and make an individual look as bad as possible, so be it.
Dear Editor
In response to the Thunder in the Valley Committee, letter than appeared in the paper of June 1, 2010.
The comments related to myself, concerns information I posted on my own personnel blog. As regular readers of my blog are aware I am often asked questions about the municipality and especially about where our tax dollars are spent. I always attempt to answer every question that is directed to me, that is part of a councilors job, to address all taxpayers concerns.
Anyway, here is the rest of the story; on May 6, I posted my original comments, Titled “Thunder in the Valley”
“Great weekend that draws lots of people in to the Valley, and is a boon for most of our businesses, every year I am asked what does it cost us the taxpayers. So here are the budget numbers for 2010.Donation for Fireworks $4500, Traffic Control $6200, Policing $10000, Garbage + Toilets $11500, Activties + Entertainers $18000, Total $50200This number does not allow for any municipal wages that go into the weekend.”
This came about from a number of people that requested from me what Thunder in the Valley weekend costs the taxpayers of the Crowsnest Pass. I did not get a whole lot of reaction outside of my blog until a few people approached me last week, so I went back to my comments and realized that the comments needed clarification.
On May 27 I posted the following comments, Titled “Thunder in the Valley Clarification” Taken a bunch of heat in the last few days about my post May 6 2010 "Thunder in the Valley"So today I am going to clarify things so a few narrow minded people do not take the opportunity to make political hay out of my comments.Yes, I made a mistake on the title it should have been Rum Runner Days & Thunder in the Valley. I did not intend to focus all of the attention on just Thunder in the Valley.Second the reason for the post, often I receive requests on where "your" tax dollars are spent, when I am asked I attempt to supply that information, I was asked in person via email and phone what the taxpayers spent on this weekend, I posted that information.For example, I was asked last week how much we spent on snow clearing this year versus last, why would I not supply that information?Do I has a councilor have the right to say I am not going to tell you?
Third, I have been accused of attacking groups that put this event on, not true read the post whom do I attack in my post. Look at the words “Great weekend that draws lots of people in to the Valley" which of those words are negative?"and is a boon for most of our businesses" which of those words are negative? quite the contrary I think they speak very positively about the whole weekend.Now do I have concerns about this weekend? of course when you have 30,000 people here if one percent of them are idiots that is 300 people, (could do a lot of damage in a small town). Yes, I see that side of it, I work that weekend as a jail guard at the local RCMP establishment and I see what those people have to contend with.
As far as the comments to my post, I post almost all of the comments that I receive go back and read some of the Crowsnest Centre stuff on this Blog some of the comments I received they were not all favorable to myself. The only comments I have refused to post since I started this blog were a couple of which I believed to be libel, and a couple of comments that made fun of a local person’s medical condition.Anyway, back to the point of this "clarification" the original post was presented as an answer to questions I was asked by taxpayers. In addition, under no circumstances was it an attack on any individual or group(s), and if somebody took it that way I apologize.The idiots put aside this weekend brings a lot of good, business, and publicity to this town”
If you wish to read the original comments they are all available at http://crowsnestpasshome.blogspot.com/ further if you do not agree with something I have to say, or a position I take, you can always contact me through my blog, via email, phone or in person.
Thanks
Dean Ward
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Reporting the News in the Crowsnest Pass
Reading a post on my fellow Bloggers site, regarding the issue of "media censorship" in the Crowsnest Pass.
http://blog.johnprince.ca/
I was a little surprised in my five years on Council I have not noticed any kind of censorship in the local papers until now. (Hate to be sarcastic)
Now if we want to talk about bias that's a different issue, some examples.
The four to three vote on council some of the media makes this sound like it's the regular way of doing business, they fail to report that 90%+ of all motions at council record a vote other than 4-3. Even in our corporate review it reports that the 4-3 is only common on significant issues (Crowsnest Centre).
The greater problem where the issue of bias comes in, is that the previous council and every council prior to that had some kind of spilt but because the spilt favoured the Mayor and his supporters that was acceptable and obviously not news worthy . Bias? maybe.
The Corporate Review itself after numerous discussions with various members of our community, I discussed with as many people as I could what came out of it based on what they had read in the media. Depending on the time of the week I spoke to people (One paper comes out on Tuesday the other on Friday) the first comments were all focused on the 4-3 and the perception that the issues Council faces are the fault of one part of council. The group of people I spoke to later in the week seem to feel that there are many issues related to council and its the fault of all of them. Bias? Maybe
The issue of the Crowsnest Centre from what has been printed in the media a total stranger to the Community not knowing the problems, would assume that Council is shutting down a solid, financially viable, some people have even suggested profitable, operation. Of course I do not believe that nonsense but I guess we will find out the truth at the end of the year when the Municipality takes it back over. Bias? Maybe
Speaking of the Corporate Review and thinking about Mr Prince's comments what did the Review have to say about the local media.
Page 69 "The relationship to the local newspapers appears to be mixed and may be based on the degree of support shown by one relative to the other to one "side" of Council" Does that say Bias?
Anyway I tip my hat to Mr Prince for raising this "new issue", I'm sure when he was on Council there was no issues with "Censorship, Bias, One sided reporting, Spilt votes, etc etc"
http://blog.johnprince.ca/
I was a little surprised in my five years on Council I have not noticed any kind of censorship in the local papers until now. (Hate to be sarcastic)
Now if we want to talk about bias that's a different issue, some examples.
The four to three vote on council some of the media makes this sound like it's the regular way of doing business, they fail to report that 90%+ of all motions at council record a vote other than 4-3. Even in our corporate review it reports that the 4-3 is only common on significant issues (Crowsnest Centre).
The greater problem where the issue of bias comes in, is that the previous council and every council prior to that had some kind of spilt but because the spilt favoured the Mayor and his supporters that was acceptable and obviously not news worthy . Bias? maybe.
The Corporate Review itself after numerous discussions with various members of our community, I discussed with as many people as I could what came out of it based on what they had read in the media. Depending on the time of the week I spoke to people (One paper comes out on Tuesday the other on Friday) the first comments were all focused on the 4-3 and the perception that the issues Council faces are the fault of one part of council. The group of people I spoke to later in the week seem to feel that there are many issues related to council and its the fault of all of them. Bias? Maybe
The issue of the Crowsnest Centre from what has been printed in the media a total stranger to the Community not knowing the problems, would assume that Council is shutting down a solid, financially viable, some people have even suggested profitable, operation. Of course I do not believe that nonsense but I guess we will find out the truth at the end of the year when the Municipality takes it back over. Bias? Maybe
Speaking of the Corporate Review and thinking about Mr Prince's comments what did the Review have to say about the local media.
Page 69 "The relationship to the local newspapers appears to be mixed and may be based on the degree of support shown by one relative to the other to one "side" of Council" Does that say Bias?
Anyway I tip my hat to Mr Prince for raising this "new issue", I'm sure when he was on Council there was no issues with "Censorship, Bias, One sided reporting, Spilt votes, etc etc"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)