Quote:
Originally Posted by sasco
Oh Chappelli! Your spin in trying to bowl out Media Watch is but it is nowhere near as dangerous as the Sheik of Tweak’s so perhaps you should stop trying to bowl up excuse after excuse then going into bat to defend the un-defendable ball!
The source of the letter is known to both Media Watch AND the Gold Coast Bulletin (and, perhaps, by Mr Murray?).
QUOTE=sasco;3163959] Mr Holmes stated clearly and succinctly: “the PR company representing one of those teams sent a furious email to the editor of the Bulletin, Peter Gleeson. It complained about...
“an extremely unhealthy bias by the Gold Coast Bulletin towards the clients of its motor racing columnist, Brett Murray, and his company, BAM Media...”
It would seem any person with half intelligence can read and comprehend this blatantly obvious fact, but if you cannot, simply put they do not need to disclose what has already been disclosed!
|
Oh, name calling...
Just out of curiosity, where does it say that the PR Company supplied a copy of the information to Mediawatch? I must of missed the bit where Mr Holmes gorgeously and amazingly that the PR Company CC'd them in the correspondence.... which is sort of the gist of my "spin".
Just for a second put aside you belief that BAM are the devil. If the PR Company is the source of the information, then it would appear that Mediawatch have run a story from information supplied by a company who have done so primarily on the basis that they will benefit directly from Mediawatch running the story.... which in classic, text book corporate media manipulation.
If the source is the PR company, the very fact that (against ABC SOP), they've allowed their source to remain anonymous. Which I can only guess is because then it becomes obvious that the story is less about (as I've said before) SOP in the PR and Publishing world and more about a PR Company who got beat up at the Gold Coast (which isn't a sexy story that Mediawatch could run is it).