Reply to THIS thread
Start a NEW Talkback Thread
Talkback Home

Petersfield Post - Editor (11th Oct 2013 - 14:26:31) It is probably a little known fact that the Petersfield Post quite often reports on Liphook matters when the Liphook Herald ignores them. These are images of two recent examples from the Petersfield Post. Fury over tree felling at Bohunt Manor Anger over cutting of Chiltley Lane trees Both courtesy of the Petersfield Post. Might be worthwhile buying it more often ! Alan

Re: Petersfield Post - liz (11th Oct 2013 - 14:43:56) Good idea! I've had to give up with the Herald's reporting on Liphook - a pity as I've been buying the paper for many years.

Re: Petersfield Post - Paul Robinson (11th Oct 2013 - 17:32:42) For those who have not already given up on the Liphook Herald you might care to check out the lead article in this week’s edition dealing with the Northcott Trust pre planning presentation held at the Deer\'s Hut. Apart from the fact that it would appear to be a re-hash of the last article Gabrielle Pike couched in glowing terms, it also makes mention of the overwhelming support given to the proposal by visitors to the exhibition. Speaking from memory (I am at the office and do not have the paper with me) It says that of the 200+ who attended the exhibition 21 were in favour (10.5%) 17 were against (8.5%) and 15 were undecided (7.5) Using their figures 53 bothered to give a response (26.5%) So, 39% of the people who bothered to give their response were in favour, or, put it another way, 10.5% of those who attended. Hardly a ringing endorsement. And once again the Herald is the mouthpiece of the developer. I can find no dissenting opinions indicating that this is in any way a balanced report. Paul Robinson

Re: Petersfield Post - Dave (11th Oct 2013 - 18:58:41) Dear Paul Robinson I am sure you are correct. However, have you noticed the number of PR plugs there are for developers in the paper.and very specifically , how the public meeting about Bohunt Manor estate in July was not actually reported about really Or more accurately, 99.99 percent of the opinions of the general public were ignored in the article. I recall that the main people quoted were 3 individuals , very much in the minority , wanted the South Downs national park built on. All the other 100 a so locals that spoke were ignored and not reported about.!! Furthermore out of the 3 individuals , 1 was the reporter,s drinking mate, the other was the developers rep and finally the Head of the school which would benefit extremely well if building commenced. And even then there was there was a PR article at the start of the front page on behalf of the developer.

Re: Petersfield Post - ellie (12th Oct 2013 - 12:13:03) It is disturbing yes and one wonders if the reporters may have a vested interest in reporting inaccurately? I noticed that only the Northcott Trust point of view was promoted. When you mention the reporters drinking buddy it would not be the Deers Hut would it where you noticed that? It is easy reporting to ask your friends opinion and report it as news! If there is no name attached to the article one wonders why not?

Re: Petersfield Post - Dave (14th Oct 2013 - 16:52:50) Reading the thread above, it appears that the overwhelming concerns and views of the local people are suppressed in favour of interests of a few? Is this a reasonable understanding and summary of the situation?

Re: Petersfield Post - Paul Robinson (17th Oct 2013 - 07:47:35) Further to my last posting, I thought some might like to see the letter that I submitted to the Editor of the Liphook Herald for inclusion on their Letters page. The Editor, Liphook Herald, 114-115 West Street, Farnham, Surrey. GU9 7HL 11th October 2013 Sir, Re: TRUST JOY AT PUBLIC RESPONSE I feel I must take issue with the leading article in this week’s Liphook Herald. In it your reporter extols the ‘tangible benefits to the community’ quoting at length from the briefing document from of Northcott Trust issued during the pre planning exhibition held at ‘The Deer’s Hut. Despite the fact that her own figures, fed to her by the developer’s agents Peter Brett Associates, and published in the article, indicate that although more than 200 people attended the exhibition, only 21 opinions were positive in favour (10.5%). Hardly a ringing endorsement. Nowhere in the article is space given to a dissenting argument and the piece ends with all the contact details of Peter Brett Associates proving that once again your reporter has become the mouthpiece for the developer. Far from being a balanced report this article would have been better placed in the advertising section of your newspaper. Yours faithfully etc Needless to say this letter was not published and to date I have not had a response from the Editor. Paul Robinson

Re: Petersfield Post - Nick Hancock (17th Oct 2013 - 20:47:10) Paul, you may see the post that I have just this minute submitted about the Herald's reporting of the Northcott Trust scheme. We shall see how many of our letters they print! I fear that the Herald seem to follow the age old local press policy of "We have a paper to fill - if you supply it we'll print it". I know there have been issues of old with the suspected partiality of the Herald. Perhaps the answer for those with views on Liphook's future is to keep supplying them with copy - if they don't print it then we shall know for sure that their journalism is suspect!

Re: Petersfield Post - liz (18th Oct 2013 - 08:39:59) The best thing is not to buy the paper [The Liphook Herald] and encourage others to do likewise.

Reply to THIS thread
Talkback Home