Spot the difference
Wednesday, November 19, 2008 Final word (for now) on the Jon Gaunt story. A Talksport presenter calls a local councillor a health "nazi" and an "ignorant pig" for banning adults who smoke from fostering children. He apologises immediately, but is sacked.
In another debate about fostering children, a BBC local radio presenter compares smokers to alcoholics and adds that smokers are unfit parents. He apologises, 48 hours later, and keeps his job. (Note: I do NOT want the guy sacked. We all make mistakes. I am merely pointing out the discrepancy.)
Forest sends a mailshot to 18,000 local councillors. One councillor returns our letter with a scribbled message, "I hope you die of cancer". When I report this to the local paper they dismiss it as a story saying, "He's known to be a bit of a character".
Jon Gaunt is a bit of a character - that's why Talksport employed him (or so we thought). The difference is, he was indirectly defending, not attacking, adults who smoke. And now he's lost his job as a result of it.
Simon Clark
See Press Gazette report HERE.
Reader Comments (7)
Time to move on...OK?
Simon. Send the letter to The Sun, maybe Jon. I think they would love it.
I emailed again today in support of Jon Gaunt and again when I found this page. I actually thought I'd seen there were 48 complaints against him but now I can't find reference to numbers - can anyone help..?
Dear Sirs,
I wrote to you earlier today as a listener to tell you that I did not agree to the sacking of Jon Gaunt.
I would like to bring to your attention a page I stumbled across on Facebok today which has more than 400 members - somewhat more support for his reinstatement that the 48 complaints Talksport received which led to his sacking.
http://www.facebook.com/reqs.php#/group.php?gid=45656433311
very best wishes,
Pat Nurse
Simon
Please don't accept the remark 'I hope you die of cancer' and brush it under the carpet.
The antis 'play' on our good nature. This good nature has got to stop, otherwise we'll get nowhere.
We are right and they know that they are wrong. The proof/science/evidence (what-ever you want to call it) is there.
I know that you avoid conflict for the credibilty of the organisation, but that remark should be treated with disgust and not laughed off or ignored.
To accept that remark (in this day and age) and do nothing about it (Iknow that we'd all have laughed it off in the good-old days pre-NewLabour, but that is not how these people operate) is accepting defeat.
Nothing personal Simon, you are doing a grand job - but do not accept anything like that. If you had said something similar relevant to their cause (ie Big Pharma kills - here's the proof!) they'd have gone to town with you
More than 400 children at risk in county
20 November 2008 | 11:31
A TOTAL of 410 children in Suffolk are considered to be vulnerable to harm, latest figures show today.
The figure, which represents the number of children subject to child protection plans, shows a fall of 70 since March this year (480) although it is up on the number of children considered at risk in March 2007 (390).
Meanwhile around 740 children in the county are currently in care - the highest figure in three years.
The statistics come as it emerged vulnerable children in Suffolk are at greater risk of abuse because of overburdened social workers and high vacancy rates.
How many vulnerable children are there throughout the country and Mr Stark wants to reduce the number of caring foster parents.
Its like everything else nowadays, figures thrown around the place without any coherence or breakdown as to get a proper perspective on the situation.
How many of these children are from the indiginous population and how many children are from immigrant backgrounds or how many are traficked into the country.
What statistics show if parents of immigrant or traficked children smoke or how many parents of indiginous children smoke.
If all or most of these parents smoke and the agenda is to put them into non smoking homes, then does it mean that when the child can safely be returned to their natural parents when their situation improves and they are smokers, does it then mean that their natural parents will be stopped from bringing up their own children.
In view of the recent and tragic Baby P case does this now mean that smoking takes precedence over murder for taking (or not in Baby P case) an at risk child into care.
There really is a danger in lazy journalism. Let’s imagine a press release comes in, the headline of which says: ‘Yoghurt may stop ingrowing toenails’. The ‘intro’ paragraph says that people who don’t eat yoghurt are 300% more likely than yoghurt eaters to get ingrowing toenails. In the 25th paragraph there is the statement that in a sample of 100,000 people one individual who ate yoghurt developed an ingrowing toe nail, whereas three people out of the 100,00 who did not eat yoghurt, suffered the affliction. This gets turned into a news item, the headline of which says: ‘Eat yoghurt or damage your feet.’ The presenter/reporter gets a pat on the back from his editor and also from the suppliers of the press release - who happen to be the yoghurt manufacturers’ alliance of Atlantis (fictional, I sress) Products. This detail is somehow lost, while health clinics develop ‘yoghurt denial’ treatments, councils create yoghurt education co-ordinators and headlines everywhere say: ‘Stride on, win the marathon, with Atlantis yoghurt’ – and non yoghurt eaters are ostracised. Meanwhile the reporter who started it all (and congratulates himself on eating lots of yoghurt) has not left the office, useful for the accountants - and NOWHERE, from the office boy to the editor has anyone questioned the crucial word in the original headline ‘MAY’. He will probably get a plum job in the Department of Health.
I am a retired journalist now. When I was much younger the word ‘may’ was banned in headlines. And attribution was always insisted on. But journalists in those days were proud outsiders, not ‘opinion formers’.