Times online debate on Licensing Act

Subject: Times online debate on Licensing Act
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 18 Jan 06 - 05:42 AM

I have today written the following entirely self-explanatory letter to the online editor of the Times.








The On-line Editor
The Times
1 Pennington St.,
London E98 1TT

Forge House
High Street
Lower Stoke
Rochester
Kent
ME3 9RD

Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email [e-mail]

18th January 2006


        
Dear Sir
On-line debate
The effect of the Licensing Act on live music

I refer to my discussion with your staff at the telephone. You are hosting an online debate on the above topic at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,564-1981930,00.html. You have told me that my contribution to that debate has been rejected, and you have also told me that other contributions to that debate have been rejected, and will not be posted. That of course is your prerogative in a moderated forum, but the reason your staff gave me undermines the honesty of the debate.

I was told that you required a variety of views and would not publish too many contributions on the same side, because you could not permit the online discussion to become a petition. I was also told that you were concerned, and therefore rejecting contributions to the debate because you feared you were being lobbied by a pressure group.

The upshot is that you give a wholly dishonest view of the substance of the debate. If a pressure group can mobilise its supporters that is the very stuff of democracy. If there are no contributors to support the government position, and if you receive an overwhelming input against the government, you ought, democratically, to reflect that in your reportage, and to do otherwise is redolent, indeed gives off an unsavoury stench, of bias.

My own contribution, further, approached the issues from a different perspective from any other contribution yet published by you on this topic, and by your own rules as explained to me ought therefore to have been included so as to provide a plurality of perspectives.

This is not a level playing field, and your position does the best traditions of the Times no credit at all. I strongly suggest that you should accept all contributions to your online debate, moderating only for legal reasons. Otherwise what you host is not a debate but a fraud which fails properly to present the facts or indeed the public opinion.

Yours sincerely



Richard MacDonald Bridge.

Subject: RE: Times online debate on Licensing Act
From: Folkiedave
Date: 18 Jan 06 - 06:06 AM

An absolute disgrace by the Times. Well done Richard for not letting them off the hook. Fortunately I got my comment in early!

Do you think letting their competitors know that this is the way he Times conducts their "on-line debates" would be productive? Prvate Eyre perhaps?

I'd certainly think the Diary columnists of the Guardian and Independent should be told.



Dave

Subject: RE: Times online debate on Licensing Act
From: Paul Burke
Date: 18 Jan 06 - 06:19 AM

You honestly expect "the best traditions of the Times" from a Murdoch rag? You've caught them at the wrong moment, the Tories haven't promised to give him the BBC yet, so they still support New L****r.

Subject: RE: Times online debate on Licensing Act
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 18 Jan 06 - 06:42 AM

Well damn me between my composing my letter above and posting it, my comment has appeared online. I shall therefore now not post the letter!

But all other UK catters ought to join the debate on the link I gave, and if they do not find their piece up within about 36 hours, get stroppy. Anyone may adapt my letter for this purpose.