|
Advertise with us
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
| |
Current Topic Rating:  | Join the Forum to Rate this Topic at: Classic Motorcycling Australia Forums
|
|
|
keith roberts
Level 1 Member
Victoria
14 Posts |
 Posted - 30 May 2008 : 12:38:06 PM
|
i would like to add some facts to the amcn publication of the press council adjudication of my complaint regarding the Wootton article in january 9th edition of amcn, and my subsequent resignation as Chairman of the HRRC.
1 Of the 3 recipients of the original e-mails only 1 sent copies to Wootton
2 None of them sent copies to either MA or Phillip Island
3 The e-mail containing comments about Phillip Island specifically stated " this is not a criticism of Phillip Island". Wootton reported this as a criticism and a "slamming".
4 the Wootton "statement" in which I apparently "slammed" the Superbike championship conveniently printed only half of my comment, ignoring the second part of the question which said " or does he not think that that the first four inside a second at the end of a race is quite interesting?"
5 there are other extracts that have been selectively edited or deliberately mis-quoted by Wootton to suit his own purpose - whatever they might be.
6 the Press Council was made aware of all of the above and was further advised that other statements made by amcn in correspondence with the Council were lies
7 the press coucil chose not to reply to any of my questions regarding any requirement for amcn to provide facts to back-up their assertions, and provided no copy of their Complaints Committee minutes nor any reasons for their failure to ask for proof from amcn. they were also unwilling to explain, when asked" what part of "this is not a criticism" they could not understand.
8 if, as i suspect, the press coucil, as a self regulating body, appears to be more concerned with self rather than regulating the behaviour of its members,it is in the public interest that their manner of dealing with this matter is known.
9 the walmsley bike was illegal according to our eligibility criteris when it first raced out here in 2006. it was eligible under the uk rules which have a 1968 cut-off date. I had written to walmsley a few months before the 2008 meeting to advise him of changes to our rules for 2008, and had told him of our cut-off date for classic bikes. it is the job of any eligibility scrutineer, or any ma official for that matter, to point out to the key officials at a meeting if they think any machine is in-eligible. at the island classic meeting the only bikes that are allowed to run under their own national rules are the uk & nz entries in the teams challenge races. why would wootton think it worthy of comment that i, or anyone else, would complain if the walmsley machine was not eligible under our rules? Gardner certainly does not need, nor would he ever want, to have to ride a non-period machine, nor would walmsley knowingly provide such a machine.
10 i do not know if i can go further with my complaint, is the press council the final arbiter of crap journalism? if anyone has any advice i would be pleased to receive it.
finally, may i quote the editor of amcn in an e-mail to me referring to the use of my private e-mails --" Such material is always open to be used by journalists. Never assume it won't, and make it clear that it is off the record if you want it to be". What could be more "off the record" than private correspondence? you have been warned!
|
|
|
OldKwak
Level 2 Member
Victoria
156 Posts |
Posted - 30 May 2008 : 2:44:33 PM
|
Keith,
try Mediawatch on the ABC
peter B |
 |
|
|
john feakes
Advanced Member
Victoria
791 Posts |
Posted - 31 May 2008 : 09:02:07 AM
|
Keith, journalistic rule number 1. Never let the truth get in the way of a good story. Perhaps it is time to treat it with the contempt it deserves.
My main concern is with why you felt you had to resign and why, it would seem, M.A. is not supporting you.
Cheers, John |
125 RIDERS' ALLIANCE
A wise person simplifies the complicated, a fool complicates the simple. |
|
|
|
David
Site Administrator
Australia
999 Posts |
Posted - 31 May 2008 : 10:24:27 AM
|
John,
With the dealings I have had with David White from MA and the promises over time from him, it doesn't suprise me that there is no support from MA.quote:
Originally posted by john feakes
My main concern is with why you felt you had to resign and why, it would seem, M.A. is not supporting you.
As for the original topic, what I would be doing is asking how your comments got to the "Sensationalist" Mr Wootton in the first place! You say that:quote:
Originally posted by keith roberts
Of the 3 recipients of the original e-mails only 1 sent copies to Wootton
Who was it that sent your comments on and why did they have it in for you? I agree, if you sent an e-mail in private, then it is not for the press to publish with-out your permission, and the person who sent the e-mail has no right to send it on to the press at all. The idiot that publishes the comments with only partial comments should of seeked your permission first and if they where to benefit in their pockets, then they should be held accountable and be required to pay you compensation for not publishing the full facts.
There is also another thing that comes to light out of this, was the full e-mail sent to AMCN, or was it edited before being forwarded on, hench why the full comments are not published? If this is the case, did AMCN contact you for your comments and to verify that the comments where true and correct? If not, they have again left them selves open to a legal "bung" fight which would not be favourable to the reputation of not only the magazine, but also Mr Wootton or their pockets.
I invite Mr Wootton to come on here in to the public arena and put his comments on the matter to make it clear (some how I doubt he will). My 2 cents worth.. |
Regards,
David
Webmaster & Owner of Classic Motorcycling Australia
Quote: I thought I wanted a career, turns out I just wanted to be paid. |
|
|
|
keith roberts
Level 1 Member
Victoria
14 Posts |
Posted - 02 Jun 2008 : 2:47:04 PM
|
thanks for the comments received so far. i can try to clarify what happened with the original e-mails. the first e-mail contained some comments on wootton's article about clubs promoting the title meeting and his suggestion that circuit owners and professional promoters would do a better job. note that he tried to get out of this later by saying he was not criticising pcransw, he was having a go at ma!
the parts of the e-mail that were thought to be relevant to the wootton's title meeting diatribe were forwarded to him with the comment that they were from an un-named commissioner. how this then developed into a full copy naming me is not quite clear. the second e-mail contained comments that related to the Island classic, that was somehow also forwarded in full to wootton.
when the article was printed in amcn i think most people who knew me would have recognised that the comments were mine as i had been eligibility scrutineer at the previous 3 island classic meetings and had discussed the walmsley g50 situation with a number of competitors, both at the 2006 meeting and since it had been announced that he was again supplying a bike for the 2008 meeting. certainly, the other 3 commissioners would know it was not them. i felt that i had no option but to tender my resignation to ma as i intended to protest the article and take it public, and i could not adequately do this under the "confidentiality " clause that commissioners are required to sign.
however, the way in which this happened is not so important. what is more important is that an industry standards supervisory coucil deliberately publically issued a ruling despite being told that i had evidence to prove that amcn had lied to them and that the article was published in a way that breached the council's own codes of practice. the council refused to accept that "this is not a criticism" meant exactly that, and chose to accept wootton's translation that the phrase represented a criticism. it seems that wootton felt it un-neccessary to read the words, preferring instead to "read my mind" and state the opposite to what was actually in the e-mail. by the way, i looked in vain in the current amcn for a headline stating that maladin had "slammed" asc by stating it was (professionally) promoted and run at the level of a club race. perhaps our intrepid investigative reporter only attacks those who are way down the "food chain"?
keith roberts |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
| Classic Motorcycling Australia Forums |
© 2000 - 2024 |
|
|
|
|
Topic Locked
