Collins replies

[northern mark]

The mail will sell more copies as irate anglers will buy it to read this old fools story.

In the end it's all about money.

 

Mark

[fenboy]

Northern Mark,

 

You're right that publishing is about money. At least in part. It has to be, because if publications didn't make money they wouldn't be around. I think that's pretty typical of all businesses.

 

Those same publications employ journalists, the vast majority of whom aren't interested in money or profits. If they were, they would have chosen a better-paid career.

 

No, they are interested in a good story. And the Mail, in the Collins case, have found one. It must be good, otherwise it wouldn't be discussed here.

 

Don't make the fatal mistake of shooting the messenger. Your interest in this issue is being catered for by the Mail, which I'm sure is delivering something pretty close to what most of its readers want to read. If it didn't it would ahve gone out of business long ago.

 

Believe me, publishing isn't about money. I should know, I've been involved in it for over 30 years. It's fun, and it's important to democracy itself, but it doesn't make you rich. If I'd wanted the latter I would have chosen another career.

 

Incidentally, Northern Mark, what do you do for a living? Do you do it for enjoyment, or do you do it for money? Please let me know. I'd like to take an uneccessary swipe at your profession, too.

[KK]

Dunno about it being an "unneccessary" swipe Fenboy, you yourself agree that

quote:

---

You're right that publishing is about money. At least in part. It has to be, because if publications didn't make money they wouldn't be around. I think that's pretty typical of all businesses.

---

I think that Northern Mark is simply implying that the main driver for AM publishing the letter isn't an interest in freedom of speech, democracy, or the legitimate right of reply.

 

I think many of us feel that to be the case...

 

[ 27. August 2004, 12:59 AM: Message edited by: KK ]

[fenboy]

Keith,

Come on with the conspiracy theories then...

The Mail had a good story we're all interested in. That's why we're still discussing it at this time of the morning.

If you think the mags/papers are evil trappings of a capitalist society, then don't read them. Your life will be impoverished as a result, but that's your choice.

What pis**s me off is the constant attacks on the press. We deliver what most people want to read. If we didn't, we wouldn't exist.

If a newspaper fails to deliver the news, it doesn't answer its job description.

You get all sorts of cr*p from people who decry the excesses of the national tabloid press, for example, but the fact is that the majority of people read the red tops rather than the Guardian, Independent, etc.

There's nothing so irritating as a hypocrite. And those that read the news but decry the messenger are the worst offenders.

FOAGAL.

[mark barrett]

fenboy i agree with you that i hope now that this issue can be finally put to bed. i thought it had before PC stirred it up again.

[wearyone]

Like many I was both surprised and disgusted at the Mail publishing the latest outpourings of that near senile old fool. But to award him the top prize is rubbing salt into the wounds of many many anglers, and not only the predator anglers.

 

I always had a certain amount of respect for the Mail, but of late it seems to be doing its best(?) to imitate the Times , which now is only a short head in front in the Mickey Mouse Handicap Stakes. It could be a photo finish as to which wins the " Worlds Worst Ever Angling Publication" award.

[Peter Waller]

Fenboy, just to put the record straight, I am impoverished! I don't buy newspapers other than the Angling Star and Anglers Mail, and rarely Angling Times.

 

If I want news then I turn on the TV, computer(EDP24News) or radio.

 

National newspapers have, I think, responded to the easy accessibility of news by becoming 'entertaining'. No, I don't think that my life is impoverished by the fact that I don't waste my money on the 'rags'!!

 

That the profession, at national level, is critiscised is largely fair I think. The way that some national journalists attacked Lady Diana is typical of a profession that appears to have some pretty debased values. Its not known as the 'gutter press' without good cause.

 

In fairness most local and specialist media, our local EDP for example, have managed to keep their noses out of the gutter.

 

So why do so many people read the gutter press then? Well, we all like to slum it now and again!

 

[ 27. August 2004, 09:21 AM: Message edited by: Peter Waller ]

[Dick Dastardly]

Well I got a copy last night and read it.No problem with AM for printing it,was a bit suprised that they gave it a prize,irony or not!

 

I was going to ask what all this good Collins had done for angling in the past was (Im not quite as old as Peter or Fenboy but have been fishing for over 35 years and untill a few months ago had never heard of the bloke) but after reading Fens post I wont.I can see his point.Its sad when ones heros fall.

 

Back to the reply,It was a shame to read it but lets be honest did anyone really believe that he would change his views? regardless of cautions etc?I have come across a lot of people who have extreme views and think that these views are absolutely correct.I have never known them to change these views no matter what reasoning/facts etc etc they are presented with.As mentioned previously the real damage is the people whose opinions can be influenced by a suposed expert airing these type of opinions as fact.Although as I have said I dont believe Collins views could ever be changed I would hav liked to see boyh AM and AT run some info giving the facts on the stocking of the zander/predator to preyfish balances/the history of the periodic decline in the silver fish populations and the true reasons for and the subsequent recovery in fact a potted history of the events leading up to PC forming his views.Wont change an old fools opinion but might help identify him as such to potential followers. That to me would represent closure.

[wearyone]

Fenboy,

 

"If a newspaper fails to deliver the news, it doesn't answer its job description."

 

I would ask, is the letter from Mr Collins 'NEWS'?

 

I sent a letter to Anglers Mail re the Blue Badge/Concessionary rod licence issue, which was savagely edited, AND appeared as though I had given a quite on a 'NEWS' item.

The fact is, I came across the information in the agenda papers and subsequent published minutes of the N/E RFERAC meeting, held April 2004, so it was hardly 'breaking news' in August, almost 4 months later, as AM would have us believe.

 

I would have thought that pouring over such paperwork would have been bread and butter to 'Angling Journalists'. Indeed this information is available to anyone with eyes and a tongue in their head, and was not, as stated by Anglers Mail, "discussed behind closed doors"

 

I would suggest that editors of such publications acquaint themselves with the differences between letters, news items, and the rantings of senile old geriatrics.

 

[ 27. August 2004, 09:17 PM: Message edited by: wearyone ]

[KK]

fenboy, I am not criticising "the press", although equally I don't think for a second that it couldn't be better at what it does.

 

I would say though, that there's a world of difference between the provision of "what most people want to read" and news.

 

They just ain't the same in my book - else there would either be no market for the heavyweight broadsheets, or no market for tat like "Hello" and the tabloids...

 

The PC issue isn't being discussed here because it's news, but because it isn't, and should not have been dealt with as such by AM.

 

[ 27. August 2004, 11:53 AM: Message edited by: KK ]