Chat & Social > The Bar - General Chat
More Biased Reporting.
the loon:
well got a letter from the press complaints commision today.
They are going to investigate further but would like to know what "specific" part of ther PCC code of conduct I feel the article breaches.
Theres a couple I can see - quoted from the PCC code of conduct leaflet.
(1) Accuracy
The press must take care not to publish misleading or distorted information inc pictures.
(ii)a significant innaccuracy misleading statement or distortion once recognised must be corrected promtly and with due prominance and - where appropriate - an appology published
(2)Oppertunity to reply
A fair oppertunity to reply to innaccuracies must be givenwhen resonably called for
what does every one think and I'll draught a responce
the loon:
reply to press complaints commison sent -
Many thanks for your responce to my complaint.
Further to your letter in which you have asked which part of the PCC code of conduct I feel the article from the guardian breaches there are several.
As mentioned in the PCC code of practice I feel the article breaches the following clauses -
(1) Accuracy
The press must take care not to publish misleading or distorted information inc pictures.
In the article the guardian has made referance to quote "Albert Bridge after it was found that 4x4 vehicles, essential accessories for celebrities from Gordon Ramsay to Madonna, were seriously damaging its structure. A third of all traffic on the bridge, or about 4,000 vehicles, weighed two tonnes or more."unquote and later in the article quote"The news for Chelsea residents is less comforting. The damage to the Albert Bridge caused by 4x4s has forced the local council to introduce restrictions on traffic heading over the Thames. unquote "
there is no mention of any other vechicles that may use this bridge potentialy causing damage to the bridge such as buses,goods vechicles etc.The article only refers to 4x4's"
This I fell can also be applied to clause (ii)
(ii)a significant innaccuracy misleading statement or distortion once recognised must be corrected promtly and with due prominance and - where appropriate - an appology published
(2)Oppertunity to reply
A fair oppertunity to reply to innaccuracies must be given when resonably called for
There is also a direct link contained in the guardians article to an anti-4x4 websight (the alliance against urban 4x4's)
This sight is at best biast and at worst totaly inaccurate.
At no time in the article is there any mention of a alternative point of view such as www.4x4prejudice.org or any responce to the claims being made by either anyone from the motor industry or the pro-4x4 community.
pilgrim:
Just been on the stopurban4x4s website.
Now I'm potentially stirring up a hornet's nest, but here are my thoughts:
How many of us actually took the time to look at what they are complaining about - they aren't actually moaning about 4x4s in general, just those used exclusively or mainly in urban areas, and definitely not the sort that go out laning.
Whilst their method of reporting is decidedly suspect, and their facts are supported less than Boston United, they aren't pointing the fingers at all 4x4s. We all know the type of vehicle they are against, the bling-tastic pimped out 4x4s that have never seen mud, and let's face it, there have been similar sentiments raised here about 4x4s that never go off-road (BMW X5 anyone?).
I am torn. On the one hand, I feel that we each have a right to choose our vehicles, and that no-one should dictate to us what we drive, but on the other hand, these so-called "Chelsea Tractors" are causing problems in urban areas, and it does need to be addressed somehow. Unfortunately, quite often those seeking to address the issues are doing it in an uninformed, and inflammatory way.
Just don't ask me what the answer is ...
Skibum346:
--- Quote from: "pilgrim" ---
Whilst their method of reporting is decidedly suspect, and their facts are supported less than Boston United, they aren't pointing the fingers at all 4x4s. We all know the type of vehicle they are against, the bling-tastic pimped out 4x4s that have never seen mud, and let's face it, there have been similar sentiments raised here about 4x4s that never go off-road (BMW X5 anyone?).
I am torn. On the one hand, I feel that we each have a right to choose our vehicles, and that no-one should dictate to us what we drive, but on the other hand, these so-called "Chelsea Tractors" are causing problems in urban areas, and it does need to be addressed somehow. Unfortunately, quite often those seeking to address the issues are doing it in an uninformed, and inflammatory way.
Just don't ask me what the answer is ...
--- End quote ---
I agree with your sentiment about having the right to choose our vehicles but for mne the issue is not even that "chelsea tractors" are causing problems. Where is the evidence? Many saloon cares are as long as or longer than 4x4's (whatever falls into that category), some are wider (www.4x4prejudice.org). There are too many vehicles mixing on our roads that are heavier than typical 4x4's (whatever falls into that category) so the evidence does not exist for that either.
I'm all for calling for ban's on things proven to cause harm (cigarettes for one... sorry folks) but none of the organisations pushing this twadlle have yet shown clear evidence or a clear way of categorising that stands up to real scientific srutiny.
Skibum
Terminus:
--- Quote from: "pilgrim" ---Just been on the stopurban4x4s website.
Now I'm potentially stirring up a hornet's nest, but here are my thoughts:
How many of us actually took the time to look at what they are complaining about - they aren't actually moaning about 4x4s in general, just those used exclusively or mainly in urban areas, and definitely not the sort that go out laning.
Whilst their method of reporting is decidedly suspect, and their facts are supported less than Boston United, they aren't pointing the fingers at all 4x4s. We all know the type of vehicle they are against, the bling-tastic pimped out 4x4s that have never seen mud, and let's face it, there have been similar sentiments raised here about 4x4s that never go off-road (BMW X5 anyone?).
I am torn. On the one hand, I feel that we each have a right to choose our vehicles, and that no-one should dictate to us what we drive, but on the other hand, these so-called "Chelsea Tractors" are causing problems in urban areas, and it does need to be addressed somehow. Unfortunately, quite often those seeking to address the issues are doing it in an uninformed, and inflammatory way.
Just don't ask me what the answer is ...
--- End quote ---
I took a lot of time to read it - before emailing them with points showing how almost every page has an untruth on it - thjey are using the guise of urban to make a general atack on the 4x4 - read carefully where does it say the changes they want are only for 4x4's in urban areas - they want to get rid of 4x4's because they kill more people (lie) are bigger and more polluting than alll other cars (not true) - the only people in their amazing graciousness they give a reprieve to are farmers - but all would be affected by the ridiculous tax rises etc they propose.
It is a case of using a title of urban to affect all without thinking ... and these so called "chelsea Tractors" are they not just 4x4 cars,? some of which are smaller than saloon cars in dimension and emit less pollution..... the point is if you truly read the site you will find lie after lie and innacuracy after innacuracy :shock:
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page
Go to full version