I too, politely assert my desire for both articles and discussion to be
posted on Media Watch .
Bw
Rose Frain
On Tuesday, March 8, 2005, at 12:32 pm, Robert Ferguson wrote:
> I agree that articles etc should be posted - and discussed where
> relevant. These articles are, in fact, media messages. And this is a
> site concerned with 'watching' the media.....Those who do not wish to
> read or discuss can easily remove unwanted mail. Those of us who value
> this source of information and debate need to politely assert our
> desire for both.
>
> Regards
>
> Bob Ferguson
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Monitoring bias and misinformation in the media
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of John Meed
> Sent: 08 March 2005 12:32 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Articles etc
>
>
> Hi All
>
> I like the fact that Julie-ann (and others) post articles. I delete
> any that
> don't immediately interest me, read those that do and forward on to
> friends
> and my local peace group specific pieces (like the Giuliana Sgrena
> article
> just posted). So please, do keep posting!
>
> It's also great to have an outlet for similar things I come across.
> Mediawatch is a very welcome counterbalance to the dominant discourse.
>
> Regards
>
> John
>
> On 8/3/05 12:06 pm, "Julie-ann Davies" <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> As one of the people who probably forwards most articles I would be
>> very
>> intererested in hearing if people do consider these as "spam" or not.
>>
>> As the list now has a good home, I think it is probably a great
>> opportunity
>> to discuss what format the list should take and which direction is
>> should
>> move in. I know some people appreciate the background, but am aware
>> that
>> others may not be so keen.
>>
>> Whatever the decision I will be more than happy to go along with the
>> consensus of the majority.
>>
>> Hope all is well with you all
>>
>> Julie-ann
>>
>
|