Football League Paper on Derby, Mel and Rowett

[EssendonRam]

On Friday, March 24, 2017 at 03:30, EnigmaRam said:

I think what they are trying to say is just because a statement is justified doesn't make it balanced. 

Balanced would be pros and cons, for and against, not just a swipe at our owner and chairman that bank rolls this club

All I would say to that then is they have an unusual definition of 'balance' in journalism.

By way of example, how would one write a balanced article about Robert Maxwell? Or Adolf Hitler?

If the point was that it was overly florid - bordering on hyperbolic - in its language, then fair enough...but balance, by definition in journalism, is about accuracy. As for @Tombo, do you think this squad hasn't underachieved?

[EssendonRam]

On Friday, March 24, 2017 at 05:30, ShoreRam said:

You are confused in terms of what balanced means. It may all be justified but balanced it is not, it talks only of the negatives about Morris. As ever, if you only share 1 side of an argument in an article or presentation, you will lack the conviction of your audience. To add, If you make factual errors, that audience will leave the room.

Sorry mate but it did talk about the money Morris has pumped into the club and his understandable disappointment in the return he received.

In terms of the appointments of managers and our on field performance graph since Mel took over - the subject of the article after all - I can't immediately think of too many positives which have been overlooked. (Yes, I absolutely agree there are many positives outside of that subject.)

Can you help me with the facts you felt were omitted?

With respect, I think it's you who is confused; it's an opinion piece written with a comedic intent and a smartalec, caustic tone. It's trying to generate interest in other words.

[Mihangel]

1 hour ago, EssendonRam said:

Sorry mate but it did talk about the money Morris has pumped into the club and his understandable disappointment in the return he received.

In terms of the appointments of managers and our on field performance graph since Mel took over - the subject of the article after all - I can't immediately think of too many positives which have been overlooked. (Yes, I absolutely agree there are many positives outside of that subject.)

Can you help me with the facts you felt were omitted?

With respect, I think it's you who is confused; it's an opinion piece written with a comedic intent and a smartalec, caustic tone. It's trying to generate interest in other words.

You're still confused about balance, you didn't write this did you? The fact that it's an opinion piece and supposedly amusing is irrelevant to the argument of whether it's balanced or not, it really isn't.

That's one thing that irritates me about the article, the other is the form of it, it's bloody awful - I would expect better from someone writing an internal email. In fairness though, that too is irrelevant to the argument of balance, which it still isn't.

[EssendonRam]

6 hours ago, ShoreRam said:

You're still confused about balance, you didn't write this did you? The fact that it's an opinion piece and supposedly amusing is irrelevant to the argument of whether it's balanced or not, it really isn't.

That's one thing that irritates me about the article, the other is the form of it, it's bloody awful - I would expect better from someone writing an internal email. In fairness though, that too is irrelevant to the argument of balance, which it still isn't.

We can agree that it's very much undergraduate in composition. That is something...no doubt you'll next inform me that whether it is undergraduate in tone or not is irrelevant to the question of whether it is balanced or not...as if I had claimed that it was...

So you may educate me: I have asked you to tell me (a) which of his claimed points are wrong; and / or (b) which favourable facts you felt were omitted.

Apparently neither question is pertinent to the question of balance although, as far as I am able to tell, you've not actually offered any alternative 'recipe' for 'balance', merely assertions that I am 'confused'. May we agree that, in this case, my 'confusion' effectively means that I disagree with you?