Re: Omg ott! DNA for dogs
 

it is , but I used in the context of "bizzed me pants" if im allowed to say that:help:

Re: Omg ott! DNA for dogs
 

Here's two more recent front page non-stories, which were published, after receiving the information from someone at H.B.C.

£2m bid to bring back 'heritage look' to Accrington town centre street | Accrington Observer - menmedia.co.uk

£2.5m plan to restore Accrington Arcade | Accrington Observer - menmedia.co.uk

When you wade through all the guff, basically a bid has been put in for Lottery funding, which means that unless the bid is successful, the schemes are just pie in the sky.

If you're going to use the press to try and create positive public relation stories, from which you hope to gain politically, you must also be prepared that they'll sometimes use you for their own ends. Which is to sell papers.

It's risky.

Especially for an amateur.

You sometimes end up with egg on your face.

Or in this case, dog crap.

Re: Omg ott! DNA for dogs
 

You should be a reporter, planting the seed in peoples head so they go off thinking all sorts of nonsense.

I think Ken handled the story very well. He told them what he knows and the reporter wrote the story from that.

Re: Omg ott! DNA for dogs
 

These bids always need community consultation and involvement and this usually has to be demonstrated in the bid. The downside of over publicising these bids is that the public start to think you are useless when they don't succeed.

What many people don't realise is that a successful bid is by no means a certainty. As an example, one of the groups I am involved with has just been offered some extra money on the back of a recent project. Only 40 out of 1000 were offered this so 960 were unlucky.

Re: Omg ott! DNA for dogs
 

Using the press for political purposes always has a plus and minus to it, can't say it makes much difference now, well not with the obs, but in the old days when Murvyn was the editor, the journalism at the obs was quite good and there were reporters that were prepared to go out into the community to gather news stories and not just sit at the end of a telephone waiting for it to come to them, that why we're getting a lot of none stories, because nobody cares about the truth anymore, never has the saying Don't let the truth get in the way of a good story, been more relevant than today

Re: Omg ott! DNA for dogs
 

I think thats a very unfair comment. How many reporters were there in the old days as you put it? I suspect more than now.

Re: Omg ott! DNA for dogs
 

Oh I quite agree.

I think it's daft for it to be announced to the press, at this stage, when nothing's happened, other than a bid for funding has been made.

The press then run with this 'good news' (non-) story.

I don't blame the press.

They work with information that's been fed to them.

It's as pie in the sky as someone announcing they're buying a yacht, because they've just purchased a lottery ticket.

If you use the press to garner political advantage for yourself, don't be too suprised if they sometimes use you.

Even an 'off-the-cuff', unguarded remark, can prove profitable.

As with the front page story about Ken, and his DNA doggy plop-plops.

Re: Omg ott! DNA for dogs
 

That's what he's saying.

No disrespect to today's reporters.

They do the best they can, with limited time, and resources.

The days of a busy Observer newsroom, with investagtive reporting, has long gone.

Re: Omg ott! DNA for dogs
 

The press, on the whole, does still print the truth.

They can face legal action, when they don't.

Even if we think something's really not very newsworthy.

As in this case.

What they ran with, is basically what Ken Moss posted on here.

Just with a bit of spin.

Though apparently still the truth.

Re: Omg ott! DNA for dogs
 

Well if they want real bull, they should try kestrelx posts.:D

Re: Omg ott! DNA for dogs
 

Its not about numbers Neil, the old school Observer ALL the reporters went out into the public they didn't just site on their hands waiting for news to come to them, the nearest you get to a reporter these days is if they send out a photographer. I can remember the deputy Editor coming round to see me a number of occasions back in the nineties, to follow up a story, that wouldn't happen today

Re: Omg ott! DNA for dogs
 

It is about numbers, they don't have the time to do that now.

Re: Omg ott! DNA for dogs
 

Well lets put it this way if you were a self driven journalist, would you be happy just to sit at the end of a telephone waiting for somebody to ring you with a story, you can't research any story sat on your backside that's why the Obs is now a waste of space

Of course you can, you look it up on wiki.

Re: Omg ott! DNA for dogs
 

Ya can't research Trout Rustling in Tinker Brook on Wiki Less;)