|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
The MEDIA Dictates the News
We had our first Legal Fund Raising Event Bow-A-Thon her in London and
what a great day and a huge sucess it was. People opened their hearts and wallets and we can't wait for a next one to be put on here in London. Emily had the hardest time trying to get media to coverage and went to them all. Rogers finally agreed and and was there for the whole event taping and doing interviews. We were told it would be on Monday at 5 and 5:30. It didn't air, so we bombarded them with emails acting why. They gave a whole bunch of excuses, but finally said it was because they didn't want to be bombarded with emails of victims of dog attacks. Since the responsible owners and their dogs have been victims of the BSL even before the law took place, we were upset and told them so, saying they only showed the negative and who were they to tell the public what was news and what wasn't. They finally broke down and said it would be aired tonight a 5 and again at 5:30. I wouldn't doubt if it isn't in it's entirety, but we will get our spot. What a bunch of bull to go through to get our voices heard. Then in The Londoner, I had written and they totally turned it around to sound like I didn't want Pit bulls of any kind in London. Here's my original I sent them and then what they wrote. My original letter to The Londoner In response to `Column was confusing' written by Ethel Fielding of London, I can see she reads, but does not research what she reads. She wants all her answers in black and white before her. Does it matter what type of dog "lunged through a screen door" at her son on Halloween? The owner knew there would be children coming to their door that evening and no matter what type of dog it was, if having any aggressive tendencies, whether it be a small dog or large, should have been put somewhere to keep children safe. How her son fared is only natural to imagine, he was scared. Is that not enough? Have you been around the area of Dundas and Ghent? Probably not as you will find it filled with drug dealers, prostitutes and I certainly would not be around that area at night as well as avoid it during the day. This may not be the area Van Veen was speaking of, but it's one of the worst in London. These dogs are used for their protection or the protection of the illegal drugs, weapons and perhaps some property of people that have been robbed. These same people are above the law in their eyes. They didn't register their dogs or do any of the requirements of the bylaw or law in Ontario or these dogs would not be abandoned with any micro chipping to find their owners. These people hold no bond to their dogs. They would rather abandon them then risk the penalties involved. Shall I spell it out to you? Up to $10,000 find and/or up to 6 months in jail. I further question "Pit bulls are not available so what breed is she talking about?" Have you not heard of underground breeding? Surprise, but they are still doing it now even after the ban. If you would like to know where I received my information, my friend and I were walking our dogs and a truck with 3 young men stopped and asked if I would want to breed my dog. I was shocked and outraged and told them she was spayed and there was a Pit bull Ban in effect in Ontario. That being said, meant they must have had an unaltered male or more that they were searching for females to breed with. Does everything have to be spelt out for you? Surely you can easily check out the court case challenge if you so wanted to. Does Yvette Van Veen have to give you every detail to satisfy your needs? "Breed identification is a problem, but personally I would prefer no pit bull-type breeds in London even if it does mean some uncertainty about breeds." Yes, you have your rights to your preferences, as do owners of dogs that prefer certain breeds and those breeds do NOT have to concur to your preferences. "Do they think it would cost any less to fight owners in court than it does to keep certain breeds off the street in the first place?" Pit bulls and Pit Bull look-alikes are not required off the streets of London. Under the law, they are allowed on the streets just as you and I are, but the owners must comply with the law, which is having them muzzled and the required leash length to do so. If you can find information that states they are not allowed to walk in public, please inform us as this is news to us. "Finally we are told, "there are cases where a pit bull-type dog has been attacked by an off-leash aggressive dog. The pit bull has been put down and the other dog is still out there." Would she please tell us which cases these are and where they are being heard." Is the only paper you read, The Londoner? While a fine paper it is, you should also watch the news! Read your papers, local and otherwise. I've seen them. Why haven't you? C.D. London Now this was their version of my letter. Ban all pit bull types In response to the letter, Column Was Confusing written by Ethel Fielding of London (Feb. 22 issue), I can see she reads but does not research what she reads. She wants all her answers in black and white before her. Does it matter what type of dog lunged through a screen door at the columnist's son on Halloween? The owner knew there would be children coming to their door that evening and no matter what type of dog it was, if it had any aggressive tendencies it should have been put somewhere to keep children safe. How the boy fared is only natural to imagine, he was scared. Is that not enough? Has the letter writer been around the area of Dundas and Ghent? Probably not as she would find it filled with drug dealers and prostitutes. I certainly would not be around that area at night and I avoid it during the day. This may not be the area pet columnist Yvette Van Veen was speaking of, but it's one of the worst in London. These dogs are used for their protection or the protection of the illegal drugs, weapons and perhaps some property of people that have been robbed. These same people are above the law in their eyes. They didn't register their dogs or do any of the requirements of the law. The letter writer suggested pit bulls are not available because they are banned. Surprise, people are still doing it now even after the ban. My friend and I were walking our dogs and a truck with three young men stopped and asked if I would want to breed my dog. I was shocked and told them she was spayed and there was a pit bull ban in effect in Ontario. They must have had an unaltered male and were searching for females to breed it with. Breed identification is a problem, but personally I would prefer no pit bull type breeds in London even if it does mean some uncertainty about breeds. C.D., London I was too angry to write them last night as my body was vibrating, so today I will approach the situation much better, but they will definately hear from me and insist they put my letter as it should have been with an appology for turning it around.
__________________
BAN irresponsible owners...not specific breeds! |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
The letter writing policy of The Londoner:
http://www.thelondoner.ca/letters/policy.htm Your version of the letter is 3,523 characters in length, including spaces. Their version of the letter is 1810 characters in length, including spaces. The main story on their front page in their latest issue is 5,733 characters in length including spaces. The average primary story appears to be about 2000 to 2500 characters, including spaces. Frankly, I'm amazed they even printed the second version. Most newspapers reserve the right to edit a letter for space purposes or to reject it altogether because of space or any reason frankly. I might have suggested one of two things: 1) Keeping your letter to the editor short and concise to get all of YOUR words printed OR 2) asking them if you could have written a guest column on the topic to get more space if you feel your message required it. By writing to the length you did, you set yourself up for having a version different than your intent making it into print . . . . that doesn't make it right, but some of the blame does fall on yourself. You'll note I didn't comment on the veracity of the message you were trying to deliver . . . . . just the mechanics of how you were trying to do it and the difficulties it presented on the other side. The percentage chances of getting a letter into a newspaper go up astronomically if you're economical with your words and to the point. Rick C www.goldentales.ca |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
good points Rick C....
I too live in London and can say for a fact that the Londoner rarely follows their own letter length guidelines. This has actually been wonderful for folks that write in, as there have actually been letters that have taken up 3 columns and drifted onto following pages! The paper usually accomodates any letter writer, regardless of length of prose, and is very open minded.
This was a blatant case of chopping it up and twisting it to another viewpoint altogether.
__________________
Lint! It's a lifestyle!! |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Someone just breezed through it to shorten it up and didn't read it closely enough. That's probably as deep as it gets. Hey, if the author feels agrieved then call the editor and tell him/her the intent of the letter was altered beyond the original message and that you demand a do-over. Upon more careful review, you'd probably get it. Rick C www.goldentales.ca |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
And I do intend on having them state my opinion correctly and in the way it was intended. That was a chop and hack job to change the whole perspective of what I was saying. They have written much longer letters than that many times over. It's not their right to change what the writers opinion is. To crop is one thing, but to twist words and sentences to a whole new meaning is another. That's why they are called 'opinions'. If they couldn't have done so, they shouldn't have used my letter.
__________________
BAN irresponsible owners...not specific breeds! |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
They certainly have the right to edit, every newspaper does, but it's a damn poor job. You could throw a fit and maybe get justice but in the end, it's their paper, you might end up being even more misunderstood.
If there are any of those freebie papers in London (for all I know the Londoner is a freebie; I never see the press from Southern Ontario), they are often looking for copy to prop up their ads and you could get a 'real' article published. I'm guessing their editing isn't quite as stringent either. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
You misunderstood my post. You implied the person chopping up your overly flowery letter had a personal agenda, one that contradicted your own. I said the more probable answer is the person responsible likely didn't give a flying frak one way or the other and simply engaged an attempt to shorten it or at least render the message readable . . . . as they were probably asked to do by a superior . . . . . and to be frank, I've read your first letter a few times and found your message difficult to discern. Secondly, I very clearly said if it was important to you, that you should call the editor, say you were misrepresented and ask that you be given a second chance to set the record straight since it was their re-write which you felt got "off-message." In other words, I agreed with your sentence I quoted above. Third, just a suggestion if you want it - ignore it if you don't - if you do get a second chance, keep it short and simple, use some paragraphs and write as though the person reading it is unaware of the issue you are talking about. Just because you feel the paper will publish a lengthy essay doesn't mean you are getting your point across easier than something shorter that will keep the attention of the reader. Lastly, you may feel that your issue is a vitally important one, but not all may feel that way. A newspaper owes you nothing and there is no entitlement of coverage. That's where you lobby your point to get attention, as you appear to have done with the television station. It isn't difficult to see I was using quotes around the other writers comments that I was voicing my references to. The last statement was hers, yet they removed the quotation marks as if it was mine, along with the head line they added to it. In its original form, it's a confusing letter and that's because of the multiple quotations, lack of paragraphing, etc. Many, many moons ago, I was a city editor for a daily newspaper sooooo, from that base of experience, I'm just saying I can see how someone would blow through it and leave it looking like something else, particularly if they were busy or near deadline. Don't give someone a reason to do that . . . . communicate your message more clearly the first time. Again, I'm not commenting on your argument. I'm commenting on how you communicated your argument. Rick C www.goldentales.ca |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|