http://fromtheonline.disqus.com/Reporting from the Isle of BlogsenTue, 10 Feb 2009 06:04:28 -0000http://fromtheonline.com/2009/02/09/a-row-broke-out-today-in-medialand-and-it-wasnt-formulated-for-a-headline/#comment-6135221It's a shame, though that the PCC has chosen to attack the process rather than engage in the issues. If they were as good at protecting people misrepresented in the media as they are at protecting their reputation, there wouldn't be a need for PCC reform.Matthew CainTue, 10 Feb 2009 06:04:28 -0000http://fromtheonline.com/2009/02/09/a-row-broke-out-today-in-medialand-and-it-wasnt-formulated-for-a-headline/#comment-6134826No, it's certainly not a rant - I just was trying to make the point that sometimes (perhaps often) there are genuine disagreements that need to be reported on. In this case, I thought putting the two (or more) points of views side-by-side represented the story. In fact your blog post and its comments are the best way to witness the differing points of view emerging. And my point about Davies was about how I, as a media reporter, should present the facts withouth misrepresenting them or sensationalising a story.jtownendTue, 10 Feb 2009 05:11:37 -0000http://fromtheonline.com/2009/02/09/a-row-broke-out-today-in-medialand-and-it-wasnt-formulated-for-a-headline/#comment-6134763Nick is an investigative God but he's not always right. Why shouldn't the public have both sides? Why shouldn't journalism show its workings? My blog post that you refer to is a good example of how the argument can happen and develop online with the public fully plugged in (if they read my humble little blog, that is...) <br>It is clear from my blog that is opinionated, but I hope, not a rant and reasonably fair in allowing access to different views. <br>cheers <br>Charlie <br>charlie beckettTue, 10 Feb 2009 05:03:37 -0000