Atom Feed (xml)
Yesterday staff in our newsroom were genuinely saddened to hear of the death of young Joshua Ginns.
The Telegraph has documented Joshua’s fight for life since we first heard he had cancer in 2003 and we had reported, in December, on the decision of his parents to stop his treatment so he could have a better quality of life.
At that time we were so keen to make it clear to the family that we did not want to sensationalise their decision that we took the extremely unusual step of discussing with them how the article would be presented in the paper.
Thus, when we heard that he had died such a short time later, we were genuinely upset.
It took some time, in fact, to come up with what we considered a suitable headline: “Goodbye to our little inspiration’’
Today it was gratifying that so many of our readers were moved enough to comment on our website and give their own tributes to Joshua.
Unfortunately, however, one website user (who has regularly sought to create controversy) claimed: “The sentimental outgushings of some of the previous posts make me want to throw up!’’
The encouragement of opinion on the internet brings with it a dilemma. Do we allow people to have their say as long as it is legal or do we still apply the high moral stance which has helped make the Derby Evening Telegraph a trusted brand for more than 120 years?
The idea of censorship is an anathema to journalists but the 99.9 per cent of right-minded people out there might like to know this person’s comments were removed and he has been banned from adding further insults.
We'd like your views on the Evening Telegraph and its coverage of stories. How do you think we're doing? How could we do better? Please add your comments below.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Clearly in such cases as this banned poster this was needed as it was clearly not right however from experience and talking to others your website blocks people from commenting on a regular basis for no clear reason- I have had to complain a few times. Also on the subject of opinion I and others have found in recent years letters to opinion are being edited which often changes how a letter comes across which in my view is not right.
Dear Anonymous,
We only block comments for legal or taste reasons.
We try to respond to a reader in person but often they do not submit their correct email.
Letters to the paper are different to comments on the internet.
In the paper we have a space consideration and need to edit to enable as many points of view to be published as possible.
We also correct mis-spellings, punctuation and for legal reasons.
Kind regards,
Neil White
I believe I am the person to whom the Deputy Editor is referring. I have recently been barred from posting on the DET website as Mr White claims, in an email he sent to me, I was simply trawling the paper looking for things to criticise. I have since told him this was not the case but, due to a lack of response from him, it would appear he does not believe me.
I do not seek to create controversy as Mr White claims: I simply look at stories and articles from a different angle. I have never used abusive, sexist or racist language in my comments. However, I am not a sheep to be blindly led by the press into believing what it wants me to believe or to react how it wants me to react. I am one of those dangerous readers, i.e. one who can think for himself. It is plainly obvious Mr White cannot cope with this and therefore has decided to gag me.
It may interest you to know I am also barred from the Leicester Mercury website for the simple reason it is part of the same company as the DET. I am a season ticket holder at Leicester Tigers but, due to Mr White's decision to place a 'blanket bar' on me, I cannot comment on the Tigers stories on the Mercury site. Mr White, please tell me what gives you the right to prevent me from commenting on the Mercury website? If you care to take the time, you will find I have never been derogatory towards the Mercury.
Mr White talks about the DET still applying the high moral stance. As far as I can see, it is nothing more that blatant censorship unless, of course, you agree with what the DET says.
p.s. Mr White, I find your insinuation in your final paragraph that I am not right-minded nothing more than puerile and juvenile.
Post a Comment