Readers/viewers will have to make up their own mind as to what, or who, is “entirely accurate” with their reporting. To do this we share some e-mail correspondence between Channel Television and Team Voice.
There is an argument to be had that the official – party - line (helped by the “accredited” media) is that Brian Napier QC, “concluded” in his report that there was no plot to oust the former Chief of Police Graham Power, therefore the public will swallow that stuff if it is repeated enough times, which it has been!
But the “facts” are quite different, but when have the “accredited” media allowed “facts” to get in the way of the party line?
We have redacted, or changed the authors’ names in the e-mails. On the part of the Team Voice representative, this is because of the death threats he has received, along with the threats of physical violence against him and the threats to harm his children because of his speaking out against Child Abuse.
In the case of the CTV representative, we have redacted the name, as we would like the issue to remain on a professional rather than personal level and would be reluctant to publish any personal attacks.
As you will note by the e-mails below, we at Team Voice believe that CTV have misled their readers/viewers by their less than factual/accurate reporting. On the other hand CTV believe that their report is “entirely accurate”………………………………what do you think?
to broadcast@channeltv.co.uk
date Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 2:42 PM
subject Misleading.
mailed-by googlemail.com
hide details Oct 9 (6 days ago)
Dear CTV.
We are contacting you in the hope that you will right a wrong.
On Channel Report last night Jess Dunsden said that “the Napier Report has concluded there was no plot to oust him” (Graham Power QPM). When the “fact” is Mr. Brian Napier QC, in his Report said “I have found no evidence of a “conspiracy” to oust Mr. Power for some improper reason".
The key word being “evidence”. There is, we are sure you would agree, a big difference between what was said By Miss Dunsden and the facts.
Furthermore we have noticed on your website you have published this “But the report has concluded there was no plot to oust the police chief” Again this is factually incorrect as explained above.
Either intentionally or otherwise your readers and viewers have been misled. This is evident in some of their comments that you have published, for example one commenter says this “I think the main point here is that there was no conspiracy to have him removed. This has been echoed throughout the Net for nearly two years now and its ended up being proven as a 'porky pie'.
To put this into perspective, if on the PDF Napier Report one types in the search of your reported words “there was no plot to oust” then there are no “hits”, that is to say that it doesn’t exist in that document. On the other hand if one types in the words “have found no evidence of a “conspiracy” to oust” then you are taken directly to paragraph 111 on the final page.
We very much hope that you will right this wrong, possibly by way of an apology, for misleading your viewers (intentionally or otherwise) on Channel Report and indeed as is evident on your website.
There are those of us that believe the reason Mr. Brian Napier QC. Was unable to find any “evidence” of a conspiracy to oust Mr. Power QPM for some improper reason, was because it looks like a part of his original Terms of Reference have disappeared, that being
(d) Review all information relating to the original suspension procedure, including relevant sections of the published Affidavit from the suspended Chief Officer of Police.
Moreover we believe there is a story to be had there, which we will be pursuing ourselves.
In conclusion there is evidence that your viewers/readers have been misled by yourselves mis-reporting the “facts” and we hope that you will apologise for this both on your website and on Channel Report.
Kind Regards.
Team Voice.
from Name Redacted.
to voiceforchildren@googlemail.com
date Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 12:25 PM
subject Re: Fwd: Misleading.
Dear VFC (name changed)
Thank you for your email. Our journalists paraphrase reports and information as part of their job. It is obviously important that this is done in a way that is clear and accurate. I have viewed the report to which you refer both in Channel Report and online and I am satisfied that the information in both stories was entirely accurate.
Should you wish to take your complaint further, you may contact the regulator, Ofcom, at
Ofcom
Riverside House
2a Southwark Bridge Road
London
SE1 9HA
Tel: 0300 123 3333 or 020 7981 3040
Or they may be contacted online through www.ofcom.org.uk
Yours sincerely, (name redacted)
from voiceforchildren
to CTV
date Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 1:43 PM
subject Re: Fwd: Misleading.
mailed-by googlemail.com
hide details Oct 11 (4 days ago)
Dear CTV (name changed).
Thank you for your response. We thought we had demonstrated adequately that at least one of your readers had been misled by your report on channelonline.
We maintain that "the Napier Report has concluded there was no plot to oust him"
is wholly inaccurate, as Napier "concluded" no such thing. With fear of sounding repetitious the words he (Napier) used were I have found no evidence of a "conspiracy" . therefore he hasn't "concluded" there was no conspiracy, he has "not seen evidence".
It is unfortunate that you are unwilling to have your viewers/readers (for the sake of a couple of words) that much better informed, and appear content with them to be somewhat misled.
Thank you for pointing us towards OFCOM but we have been down that route previously and have come to learn that it is a waste of time.
You might want to ask yourself, are the amount of Jersey Blogs/Bloggers any kind of reflection on the quality of local "accredited" media?
We have come to learn that rather than writing to OFCOM, our complaints/observations are better aired on our Blogs. With that in mind, we shall be sharing this correspondence with our readers/viewers.
Team Voice.