0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
So -- Let's all send the letter above to ITV on Friday signed with our own name.
So -- Let's all send the letter above to ITV on Friday signed with our own name. I think that having as many people as possible sending one letter is more effective than sending multiple emails from the same address. One email from one person CANNOT be seen as Spam and in theory if the title of the email says: Complaint: The Kelvin McKensie portrayal of Michael Jackson in This Morning, then they should log it as a formal complaint and investigate.Souza/Mo ---> Would it be possible to send a short email to the Army of Love, so that to give people the opportunity to participate? It may also be one of those topics temporarily placed in the announcement folder?With L.O.V.E
So how are we going to do it? Set a date and all mail on that date? Like this Friday for instance so we have a day to notify the rest?
Quote from: "TheRunningGirl"Quote from: "rowdyangel"Here is the email address so that those of you not in the UK can complain directly to the TV channel (ITV) who broadcast this. No need to a UK address doing it this way:You are not allowed to view links. Register or LoginI have just sent my complaint off. Just so that you know, the show is called 'This Morning' and was broadcast today, 9th Nov 2010 on ITV.Here is a copy of my email to ITV below for those who wish to re-use part of it:QuoteDear Madam or Sir,I am writing to formally complain about Kevin McKenzie totally unprofessional portrayal of Michael Jackson on ITV during the This morning programme aired on the 9th November 2010 at 10:30. Kevin McKenzie's comments on Michael Jackson were inaccurate, biased, cruel, and breached numerous segments of the OFCOM Broadcast Code. Section 2.2 of the code demands that, "Factual programmes or items or portrayals of factual matters must not materially mislead the audience.” MacKenzie's comments were clearly misleading. He ignored the facts and evidence presented at Jackson's trial and dismissed the verdict. He also ignored the children's firsthand accounts of their lives with Jackson in order to portray them instead as having been 'corrupted' and said that they were potential victims of 'abuse'.Section 2.3 of the code demands that, "Broadcasters must ensure that material which may cause offence is justified by the context." MacKenzie's comments were patently not justified by the context. In a discussion about an interview between Oprah Winfrey and Michael Jackson's children, MacKenzie irrelevantly raised the subject of Jackson's trial and proceeded to dismiss the verdict, insinuating that Jackson was a child molester.Section 7.1 of the code demands that, "Broadcasters must avoid unjust or unfair treatment of individuals or organisations in programmes." This section of the code is constantly flouted when dealing with Michael Jackson. Does calling somebody a child abuser when they've been acquitted in a court of law constitute treating somebody unjustly or unfairly? Section 7.9 of the code demands that, "Before broadcasting a factual programme, including programmes examining past events, broadcasters should take reasonable care to satisfy themselves that material facts have not been presented, disregarded or omitted in a way that is unfair to an individual or organisation." Material facts were clearly omitted and disregarded during Kelvin MacKenzie's unprovoked diatribe against Jackson. He ignored the facts, evidence and verdict in Jackson's trial and accused the star of being a child molester. The host did not point out Jackson's acquittal, either. MacKenzie also ignored the children's comments about their upbringing and proceeded to portray Jackson as the exact opposite of what they claimed.Section 7.11 of the code demands that, "If a programme alleges wrongdoing or incompetence or makes other significant allegations, those concerned should normally be given an appropriate and timely opportunity to respond." Clearly, Jackson could not respond to Kelvin Mackenzie's inaccurate allegations, but no representative of Jackson's family or estate was invited to appear on the show or to offer a rebuttal in the aftermath.This is totally unacceptable and I am seeking formal actions from ITV on this matter. Propagating lies is not what I understand the media to be about and ITV needs to take some steps in formally apologizing about this totally inaccurate portrayal of Michael Jackson.I would appreciate to be kept inform of the status of this complaint.Yours SincerelyxxxxxxxxxxxWith L.O.V.EThis one seems perfect.
Quote from: "rowdyangel"Here is the email address so that those of you not in the UK can complain directly to the TV channel (ITV) who broadcast this. No need to a UK address doing it this way:You are not allowed to view links. Register or LoginI have just sent my complaint off. Just so that you know, the show is called 'This Morning' and was broadcast today, 9th Nov 2010 on ITV.Here is a copy of my email to ITV below for those who wish to re-use part of it:QuoteDear Madam or Sir,I am writing to formally complain about Kevin McKenzie totally unprofessional portrayal of Michael Jackson on ITV during the This morning programme aired on the 9th November 2010 at 10:30. Kevin McKenzie's comments on Michael Jackson were inaccurate, biased, cruel, and breached numerous segments of the OFCOM Broadcast Code. Section 2.2 of the code demands that, "Factual programmes or items or portrayals of factual matters must not materially mislead the audience.” MacKenzie's comments were clearly misleading. He ignored the facts and evidence presented at Jackson's trial and dismissed the verdict. He also ignored the children's firsthand accounts of their lives with Jackson in order to portray them instead as having been 'corrupted' and said that they were potential victims of 'abuse'.Section 2.3 of the code demands that, "Broadcasters must ensure that material which may cause offence is justified by the context." MacKenzie's comments were patently not justified by the context. In a discussion about an interview between Oprah Winfrey and Michael Jackson's children, MacKenzie irrelevantly raised the subject of Jackson's trial and proceeded to dismiss the verdict, insinuating that Jackson was a child molester.Section 7.1 of the code demands that, "Broadcasters must avoid unjust or unfair treatment of individuals or organisations in programmes." This section of the code is constantly flouted when dealing with Michael Jackson. Does calling somebody a child abuser when they've been acquitted in a court of law constitute treating somebody unjustly or unfairly? Section 7.9 of the code demands that, "Before broadcasting a factual programme, including programmes examining past events, broadcasters should take reasonable care to satisfy themselves that material facts have not been presented, disregarded or omitted in a way that is unfair to an individual or organisation." Material facts were clearly omitted and disregarded during Kelvin MacKenzie's unprovoked diatribe against Jackson. He ignored the facts, evidence and verdict in Jackson's trial and accused the star of being a child molester. The host did not point out Jackson's acquittal, either. MacKenzie also ignored the children's comments about their upbringing and proceeded to portray Jackson as the exact opposite of what they claimed.Section 7.11 of the code demands that, "If a programme alleges wrongdoing or incompetence or makes other significant allegations, those concerned should normally be given an appropriate and timely opportunity to respond." Clearly, Jackson could not respond to Kelvin Mackenzie's inaccurate allegations, but no representative of Jackson's family or estate was invited to appear on the show or to offer a rebuttal in the aftermath.This is totally unacceptable and I am seeking formal actions from ITV on this matter. Propagating lies is not what I understand the media to be about and ITV needs to take some steps in formally apologizing about this totally inaccurate portrayal of Michael Jackson.I would appreciate to be kept inform of the status of this complaint.Yours SincerelyxxxxxxxxxxxWith L.O.V.E
Here is the email address so that those of you not in the UK can complain directly to the TV channel (ITV) who broadcast this. No need to a UK address doing it this way:You are not allowed to view links. Register or LoginI have just sent my complaint off. Just so that you know, the show is called 'This Morning' and was broadcast today, 9th Nov 2010 on ITV.
Dear Madam or Sir,I am writing to formally complain about Kevin McKenzie totally unprofessional portrayal of Michael Jackson on ITV during the This morning programme aired on the 9th November 2010 at 10:30. Kevin McKenzie's comments on Michael Jackson were inaccurate, biased, cruel, and breached numerous segments of the OFCOM Broadcast Code. Section 2.2 of the code demands that, "Factual programmes or items or portrayals of factual matters must not materially mislead the audience.” MacKenzie's comments were clearly misleading. He ignored the facts and evidence presented at Jackson's trial and dismissed the verdict. He also ignored the children's firsthand accounts of their lives with Jackson in order to portray them instead as having been 'corrupted' and said that they were potential victims of 'abuse'.Section 2.3 of the code demands that, "Broadcasters must ensure that material which may cause offence is justified by the context." MacKenzie's comments were patently not justified by the context. In a discussion about an interview between Oprah Winfrey and Michael Jackson's children, MacKenzie irrelevantly raised the subject of Jackson's trial and proceeded to dismiss the verdict, insinuating that Jackson was a child molester.Section 7.1 of the code demands that, "Broadcasters must avoid unjust or unfair treatment of individuals or organisations in programmes." This section of the code is constantly flouted when dealing with Michael Jackson. Does calling somebody a child abuser when they've been acquitted in a court of law constitute treating somebody unjustly or unfairly? Section 7.9 of the code demands that, "Before broadcasting a factual programme, including programmes examining past events, broadcasters should take reasonable care to satisfy themselves that material facts have not been presented, disregarded or omitted in a way that is unfair to an individual or organisation." Material facts were clearly omitted and disregarded during Kelvin MacKenzie's unprovoked diatribe against Jackson. He ignored the facts, evidence and verdict in Jackson's trial and accused the star of being a child molester. The host did not point out Jackson's acquittal, either. MacKenzie also ignored the children's comments about their upbringing and proceeded to portray Jackson as the exact opposite of what they claimed.Section 7.11 of the code demands that, "If a programme alleges wrongdoing or incompetence or makes other significant allegations, those concerned should normally be given an appropriate and timely opportunity to respond." Clearly, Jackson could not respond to Kelvin Mackenzie's inaccurate allegations, but no representative of Jackson's family or estate was invited to appear on the show or to offer a rebuttal in the aftermath.This is totally unacceptable and I am seeking formal actions from ITV on this matter. Propagating lies is not what I understand the media to be about and ITV needs to take some steps in formally apologizing about this totally inaccurate portrayal of Michael Jackson.I would appreciate to be kept inform of the status of this complaint.Yours Sincerelyxxxxxxxxxxx
Quote from: "TheRunningGirl"So -- Let's all send the letter above to ITV on Friday signed with our own name. I think that having as many people as possible sending one letter is more effective than sending multiple emails from the same address. One email from one person CANNOT be seen as Spam and in theory if the title of the email says: Complaint: The Kelvin McKensie portrayal of Michael Jackson in This Morning, then they should log it as a formal complaint and investigate.Souza/Mo ---> Would it be possible to send a short email to the Army of Love, so that to give people the opportunity to participate? It may also be one of those topics temporarily placed in the announcement folder?With L.O.V.ESure, I will make an announcement tonight when I get home!