Consequences
Mon, 25 Oct 2004, 01:58 pmGreg Ross15 posts in thread
Consequences
Mon, 25 Oct 2004, 01:58 pmIts time to stop! Now. The amateur theatre community is doing itself possibly irreparable harm. I have been trying to secure sponsorship of the annual Finley Awards and have just taken a phone call from the people IÂ’ve been working with, to the effect of why would they want to get involved with that sort of back biting and viciousness, as who on earth would want to take the risk of being mixed up with that sort of publicity.
Re: Contrivances
Sat, 30 Oct 2004, 07:54 amcrgwllms wrote:
> Or another word - inaccurate.
Yes, the write up really gave me the impression that a few people here were stirring up trouble against a poor defenceless charity and yet there was really nothing to complain about because lots of people were posting about what a good show K&I was. The blurb apparently entirely missed the point that the people complimenting the performance, were complimenting the work of the understudies and were speaking out against the sacking. But I suspect no-one is really surprised to find a newspaper has got this wrong.
> But the Inside Cover once again managed to contrive a
> conclusion by quoting from Greg Ross's controversial post but
> getting the context completely wrong, and not acknowledging
> that his does not seem to be a popularly supported view.
The west is has a monopoly it doesn't have to popular and you have to bear in mind the size of Greg's advertising account. My last few classifieds were hardly a blip on the radar at the west, and many theatre companies have all but given up on advertising in the west, why would our opinions matter?
> Still, it comes across as nicely sensational, and vaguely
> amusing...we all realise the real, accurate news happens a
> few pages in.
> (...um, somewhere..?)
That'll be the crossword trivia pages where I understand some real research takes place prior to publication.
;-)
Cheers
Grant
[%sig%]
> Or another word - inaccurate.
Yes, the write up really gave me the impression that a few people here were stirring up trouble against a poor defenceless charity and yet there was really nothing to complain about because lots of people were posting about what a good show K&I was. The blurb apparently entirely missed the point that the people complimenting the performance, were complimenting the work of the understudies and were speaking out against the sacking. But I suspect no-one is really surprised to find a newspaper has got this wrong.
> But the Inside Cover once again managed to contrive a
> conclusion by quoting from Greg Ross's controversial post but
> getting the context completely wrong, and not acknowledging
> that his does not seem to be a popularly supported view.
The west is has a monopoly it doesn't have to popular and you have to bear in mind the size of Greg's advertising account. My last few classifieds were hardly a blip on the radar at the west, and many theatre companies have all but given up on advertising in the west, why would our opinions matter?
> Still, it comes across as nicely sensational, and vaguely
> amusing...we all realise the real, accurate news happens a
> few pages in.
> (...um, somewhere..?)
That'll be the crossword trivia pages where I understand some real research takes place prior to publication.
;-)
Cheers
Grant
[%sig%]
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···