Mail Gets Facts Wrong Shock

Your dodgy news reporting spotlight for this week is actually bordering on the criminal. As you know, the proposed Ent statue in Moseley was approved by the Council's Planning Committee on Thursday. While I'm on record as being disappointed by the results that's not what concerns me.

The meeting was, by all accounts, a rather noisy and fractious affair, characterizing the controversy this project has generated over the last three years. Here's how the Birmingham Mail reported it.

A protester battling to halt plans for a 20ft Treebeard the Ent on Moseley village green sparked outrage by claiming it had been pushed to the fore by Jewish businesses.

Leane Martin, a graduate of the Chelsea College of Art and a resident of Woodbridge Road, Moseley, said: "The majority of businesses are against this.

"It is being supported by ten per cent of businesses who are Jewish."

Ms Martin's remark was met with gasps and cries of "racism" at the planning committee meeting.

David Isgrove, of the Moseley Statue Group, said: "The comments were unfortunate and did little to help her case.

"The issue has provoked strong feelings, but I hope we can put all that behind us."

However, this is not what was reported on the Moseley Free mailing list by Pam Rutter, the other speaker making the case against the statue.

First, "Apparently........jewish" is chinese whispers. That wasn't said. What the speaker TRIED to say was along the lines of: "...a small minority of people in Moseley, and in Bham generally, are keen Tolkienites. Should they be allowed a statue commemorating Tolkien, or should the public art be more representative of the whole community in some way?" and to expound on this idea.

Most unfortunately, because of the tension of standing in front of so many people and because of the pressure of time, it came out sounding much shorter and much more contentious - something like "in an area that's 10% Jewish, you wouldn't build a Jewish statue". Very, very unfortunate, but never intended to be anything other than an illustration of a general principle.

So why did it come out so differently from what was intended? Well, any speakers who want to oppose an application get exactly 3 minutes between them. The were two speakers against the Ent, so they had one and a half minutes each. It is very very difficult to say everything you want to say within one and a half minutes.

(I know, because I was the other speaker! I made a complete hash of my one and a half minutes. Gobbledegook. I am not proud of my effort at all. I just wish I could have my time again.)

It's worth noting that Pam is not the sort of person to make this shit up.

Couple of things here.

The first is that the Mail printed a quote without checking its accuracy. It may well be that many people misheard Leanne Martin but that doesn't prove she made racist remarks. Neil Elkes, the Mail reporter, evidently didn't bother to check with her before printing what probably counts as slander in his paper. (It's also noteworthy that he spelt her name wrong.)

The second is that maybe the Planning Comittee isn't the best place to make these sort of decisions. You'd think it would be a controlled environment where those making points would be able to make them clearly. This evidently isn't the case, particularly if you're not experienced in dealing with that environment. Regardless of the outcome the whole decision making process looks fundamentally flawed

But whatever the specifics in this case we can be sure of one thing. The Birmingham Mail is not to be trusted when it comes to reporting facts. But then that's not exactly news.