To the Editor
As a socially responsible media site I find it reprehensible that you simply reported on your site that there was “LOADS OF GLASS” by the climbing equipment at Coast Road Recreation Ground.
By happenstance my chairman saw the article and having checked with myself as Clerk that no reports had been received he and his wife visited the site and took 40 minutes to find miniscule quantities of glass lodged in the wetpour surface.
I am not sure whether the person reporting the glass removed it but your representation of broken glass was irresponsible and smacked of sensationalism.
Surely your duty would have been to contact the Clerk to report this so that something could be done.
The recreation grounds are inspected EVERY WEEK to ensure that all is in order. It would be impossible to police the state of the grounds 24/7 and Council is reliant on members of the public to assist in reporting any dangerous/unsafe problems.
Details of contact are available at the Recreation Grounds so there is little problem in reporting any potential problems.
Malcolm Lawson
Clerk to Pevensey Parish Council
editor response:
You have suggested that our story about broken glass in a Pevensey Bay playground was sensationalist and lacking in social responsibility.
The story was posted to our social media feed and we published the post as a story because it seemed reasonable to have made such a decision.
There was no reason to doubt what was posted by the mother, with, we assume her thoughts focused on a young child. What she had seen, we accepted in good faith. The story was posted with the young mother given as the source of the story. This was also done in good faith.
The story was published not for sensationalist purposes but because we know that many people browse the pages of Bay Life extensively every day. The story was posted because it seemed relevant and useful and in the manner of reasonable public information to be seen.
Our thoughts in publishing the story were not sensationalist, they were with regard to the information being of use to local people, Mums and Dads, utilising public facilities.
There was no reason to doubt what was said, neither is there a reason to doubt that what we posted was done in good faith.
Amongst the many readers of Bay Life are young Mums and Dads with children. They are a significant and growing part of our constituent audience. It would be interesting to know what this young audience thought about our decision to choose to post this story.
You talk about sensationalism and social responsibility. Bay Life has not been built on sensationalism. Our reputation has been built on a pro-active campaigning stance with regard to life in and around Pevensey Bay. I do not accept the charge that we are without social responsibility. Where we make a mistake in publication, we acknowledge the mistake.
In the case of this story, we do not believe that a mistake was made.
There is neither a need nor a requirement for us to publish a story that we believe to be in the local interest first by reference to you as a parish council.
We have added to the story a byline that indicates the view of Pevensey Parish Council that this story is sensationalist. The byline points to your communication here with us and our response.
In this case we have published your communication with us and given you our answer.
