
Baptist Times Article
I have had a reply now to the letter I sent to Mark Woods, (Editor Baptist Times). At the bottom of his email it says that, [his e-mail (including any attached files) may contain confidential and/or privileged information...... Any unauthorised copying, disclosure or distribution of the material in this e-mail is strictly forbidden.]‘ I do not believe I am really bound by this because of what the Baptist Times has said of Deborah and Matthew.I will not copy it here, but I will, let you have the gist of it.
Mark says that having now seen the documentary it does seem there are some inaccuracies and ascriptions in Mr Stuckey’s article. Mark puts this down to over-sketchy notes, so presumably that makes it OK.
He then asks whether these ’slips’ affect Mr Stuckey’s judgement?
Let me just remind you that there were eleven direct quotes in Mr Stuckey’s article. Out of those eleven, only eleven, were misquoted, eight were changed to make the quote more extremist, three were mis-attributed and one had it’s meaning totally changed. So only a little slip!
Mark says that he believes that Mr Stuckey’s article is a reasonable response to the documentary, and that there is nothing to apologise for. Mark suggest that having totally misunderstood, (it must be misunderstood as Mark does not appear to believe that any exaggeration or deliberate spin has been put on the article), having totally misunderstood the meaning or attitude of many of the main characters in the documentary has not affected his judgement of the documentary.
Mark then goes on to blame the programme makers and us for our unhappiness with Mr Stuckey’s article, and explaining that we may not be able to see how it could be seen by others. But that, that is the risk that we have taken.
He then goes on to talk of Read the rest of this entry »