Jump to content

Journalism plumbs new depths


Dave_P

Featured Posts

http://kanda.boatingcommunity.org.uk/crt-relationship-manager-liveaboards-are-gits/

 

So now, it's ok to eavesdrop on private conversations of CRT staff and make a sensationalist story out of it? If I were Matthew Symonds I might feel inclined to sue.

 

I'm one of those 'gits' I suppose but we all say silly off-the-cuff comments when out with friends. Imagined if we were in constant fear of being quoted in the press?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure I agree, if Matthew really was heard saying this.

 

On the other hand that web-site is hardly an unbiased and independent source, (and very curiously it seems to share at least one "reporter" with NarrowBoatWorld), so I would always take anything written on it with a pinch of salt, unless there were other independent sources that supported a story.

I have to say that sitting back, and trying to be objective, at the moment it doesn't seem to be CRT that is currently winning on the PR stakes in general. Far too many own goals, whilst NBTA and others are seizing many media opportunities, (even if what they then say is regularly not exactly accurate!).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ooh, well know. I reckon that if you work in a supermarket & refer to boaters as gits then so what. If however you hold some "management" position at CRT then it's a completely different matter.

If he's been eavesdropped in a private area, then that is possibly criminal (voyeurism?)

If he was in a public place, well more fool him.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without being there we don't know whether he said it flippantly with a wry smile or with real venom, do we? But we do know that the KANDA website has a very specific agenda.

 

I often agree with their core grievances but this sort of reporting does nothing to further them.

 

This is gutter journalism at its worst.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without being there we don't know whether he said it flippantly with a wry smile or with real venom, do we? But we do know that the KANDA website has a very specific agenda.

 

I often agree with their core grievances but this sort of reporting does nothing to further them.

 

This is gutter journalism at its worst.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I watched an interview recently, I think it was on BBC new site, can't fully remember. He was being pushed and shoved verbally by a liveaboard asked the set question far is enough etc.

 

Perhaps, this interview and many others has prompted him to say to a 'friend' if it wasn't for those gifts I would be enjoying my job, or similar.

 

Out of context I recon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well if he is receiving 'gifts' that definitely sounds dodgy.

 

I imagine it is those boaters who are not moving enough to 'comply' who are providing the gifts.

 

I wonder what the nature of the gifts is.

 

 

Is the word 'git' actually offensive?

 

I would quite like it if someone called me a git...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know about gutter journalism, I would question whether it constitutes 'Journalism' at all. We have an alleged quote that is uncorroborated and unsourced other than some rather indeterminate,"...some former colleagues....", which could mean anyone really, couldn't it? It is impossible for anyone to fact-check this allegation on the information given so equally it could be a pack of lies. If they felt that they could stray into the realms of proper journalism rather than just propaganda then they should have confronted Symonds with the 'quote' and the source and given him the opportunity to comment on the veracity of it and reported that, they chose not to do this.

 

Generously assuming that the 'quote' if factual (a big assumption) and since KANDA display nothing but contempt for CRT why are they so outraged if the feeling is reciprocated?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the word 'git' actually offensive?

 

 

 

Git (/ɡɪt/) is a version control system that is widely used for software development and other version control tasks. It is a distributed revision control system with an emphasis on speed, data integrity, and support for distributed, non-linear workflows.

 

or from Wikipedia :

 

Git is a mild[1]pejorative with origins in British English for an unpleasant, silly, incompetent, stupid, annoying, senile, elderly or childish person.[2] It is usually an insult, more severe than twit or idiot but less severe than xxxxxx, arsehole or txxx.[1][3][4]

The word git first appeared in print in 1946, but is undoubtedly older.[citation needed] It is originally an alteration of the word get, dating back to the 14th century.[citation needed] A shortening of beget,[5] get insinuates that the recipient is someone's misbegotten offspring and therefore a bastard.[6] In parts of northern England, Northern Ireland and Scotland get is still used in preference to git; the get form is used in the Beatles song "I'm So Tired".[citation needed]

The word has been ruled by the Speaker of the House of Commons to be unparliamentary language.[7][8]

 

 

Edited to remove words no longer allowed ON THIS SITE

Edited by Alan de Enfield
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So now, it's ok to eavesdrop on private conversations of CRT staff and make a sensationalist story out of it? If I were Matthew Symonds I might feel inclined to sue.

 

 

On what grounds would you sue? (assuming he actually said it)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether the journalism is weak or not, nobody who works for a charity, especially someone in a relationship -focused position like his, should EVER say anything like that about his charity's beneficiaries. Not even in jest.

It's biting the hand that feeds you in two ways:

1. Liveaboards are paying customers. It's regular secure income for the charity

2. The funders of CRT only care about how different groups of beneficiaries have their lives improved by the money they give for CRT to manage on their behalf. The funders will see this piece of writing and be very aware that the money they thought was being used diligently and with a duty of care to pay for salaries and other contractual outputs, to impact the beneficiaries in a positive way, is instead being used to to pay the salary of at least one staff member who has utter contempt for those beneficiaries

 

That's a sure fire way to lose if not current then future funding from trusts and foundations.

 

And that's before we get onto potential arguments about discrimination (why specifically liveaboards, for example)

Edited by BlueStringPudding
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether the journalism is weak or not, nobody who works for a charity, especially someone in a relationship -focused position like his, should EVER say anything like that about his charity's beneficiaries. Not even in jest.

It's biting the hand that feeds you in two ways:

1. Liveaboards are paying customers. It's regular secure income for the charity

2. The funders of CRT only care about how different groups of beneficiaries have their lives improved by the money they give for CRT to manage on their behalf. The funders will see this piece of writing and be very aware that the money they thought was being used diligently and with a duty of care to pay for salaries and other contractual outputs, to impact the beneficiaries in a positive way, is instead being used to to pay the salary of at least one staff member who has utter contempt for those beneficiaries

 

That's a sure fire way to lose if not current then future funding from trusts and foundations.

 

And that's before we get onto potential arguments about discrimination (why specifically liveaboards, for example)

You seem to discard,"...Whether the journalism is weak or not...." as some sort of trivial aside when it is in fact central to the matter. On the basis of this 'journalism' feel free to fact check the alleged quote, i.e. exactly when he said it and who to (named individual). When that has been established, and not before, then we can start to ask questions about the appropriateness of the remark, until then it is mere hearsay (well, not even that!).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd wager that 90% of people who work in a public/customer facing job have, at some point, had a moan about those customers to friends, in a jokey way. I know I have. It doesn't mean anything.

 

I take calls from the public in my job and could easily find myself joking with a colleague, something along the lines of "my job would be a whole lot easier if I didn't get all these daft calls from the great unwashed". It's said in jest and means nothing. Of course a spiteful journalist could twist that anyway they wanted if they were spying on me in the pub.

 

Dave - proud git and member of the great unwashed.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's another effect at play here too, assuming he actually said what he is accused of saying (for which there is NO evidence yet).

 

Out of all the thousands of liveaboards, Mr Symonds never needs to come into direct contact with those who are living under the radar and/or taking care to follow the rules.

 

He only ever has reason to engage with those who are making a PITA of themselves, so he probably does consider them to be 'gits' if truth were known. Even if he never actually said it.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd wager that 90% of people who work in a public/customer facing job have, at some point, had a moan about those customers to friends, in a jokey way. I know I have. It doesn't mean anything.

I take calls from the public in my job and could easily find myself joking with a colleague, something along the lines of "my job would be a whole lot easier if I didn't get all these daft calls from the great unwashed". It's said in jest and means nothing. Of course a spiteful journalist could twist that anyway they wanted if they were spying on me in the pub.

Dave - proud git and member of the great unwashed.

Of course they have.

 

If people could hear what Nurses say about their patients when they are relaxing I think some people might be pretty shocked.

 

It's nothing more than a safety valve, some patients are gits as are some boaters (including some liveaboards).

 

Dealing with the general public for a living can be a right PITA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know about gutter journalism, I would question whether it constitutes 'Journalism' at all. We have an alleged quote that is uncorroborated and unsourced other than some rather indeterminate,"...some former colleagues....", which could mean anyone really, couldn't it? It is impossible for anyone to fact-check this allegation on the information given so equally it could be a pack of lies. If they felt that they could stray into the realms of proper journalism rather than just propaganda then they should have confronted Symonds with the 'quote' and the source and given him the opportunity to comment on the veracity of it and reported that, they chose not to do this.

 

Generously assuming that the 'quote' if factual (a big assumption) and since KANDA display nothing but contempt for CRT why are they so outraged if the feeling is reciprocated?

On another site the person who was there and overheard the conversation has confirmed it. Not aware of the context. I have to admit that in the past I have said far worse about clients that I then had to market our services to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd wager that 90% of people who work in a public/customer facing job have, at some point, had a moan about those customers to friends, in a jokey way. I know I have. It doesn't mean anything.

 

I take calls from the public in my job and could easily find myself joking with a colleague, something along the lines of "my job would be a whole lot easier if I didn't get all these daft calls from the great unwashed". It's said in jest and means nothing. Of course a spiteful journalist could twist that anyway they wanted if they were spying on me in the pub.

 

Dave - proud git and member of the great unwashed.

Oih! Which one of you gits called this git a git!

 

Did I cover everybody?laugh.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem to discard,"...Whether the journalism is weak or not...." as some sort of trivial aside when it is in fact central to the matter. On the basis of this 'journalism' feel free to fact check the alleged quote, i.e. exactly when he said it and who to (named individual). When that has been established, and not before, then we can start to ask questions about the appropriateness of the remark, until then it is mere hearsay (well, not even that!).

If he didn't say it then it's non news

If he did, then whether he said it in the pub to his mates or in the office or up a tree, makes no difference. You don't say stuff like that if you work in the charity sector without expecting consequences

I couldn't care less if the "journalist" is a skilled writer or not or who else they write for. Makes no difference if it's true that he said those things. If it's not true then I look forward to his denial published in whatever equally unimportant online publication. If you're going to invent an accusation though, you'd come up with something more incriminating than "gits"

Edited by BlueStringPudding
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If he didn't say it then it's non news

If he did, then whether he said it in the pub to his mates or in the office or up a tree, makes no difference. You don't say stuff like that if you work in the charity sector without expecting consequences

I couldn't care less if the "journalist" is a skilled writer or not or who else they write for. Makes no difference if it's true that he said those things. If it's not true then I look forward to his denial published in whatever equally unimportant online publication. If you're going to invent an accusation though, you'd come up with something more incriminating than "gits"

Not entirely sure what point you are trying to make here, you seem content with lazy journalism. It is not up to Symonds to prove his innocence of some remark he may or may not have made, the onus is on KANDA to either properly report the matter or not report it at all. An acceptable approach would be to get what evidence that they may have and e-mail Symonds with the allegation, they can then either report the allegation and his response or report the allegation and report that he declined to respond. They have done neither, all they have done is print what my old mother used to call 'tittle-tattle' as though it were 'news', it isn't. If they wish to be taken seriously in a journalistic sense they have to do the job properly what they have done is below amateurglare.gif .

  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.