Tuesday, June 05, 2012

Readers: Doncha just love ‘em

SO THERE we are feeling quite pleased with ourselves for being crowned Britain’s Best Weekly Newspaper for the second successive year at the Society of Editors' awards when a lovable reader of the Essex Chronicle brings us back to earth with a jolt.
The gentleman writes to berate us for confusing the Queen’s Coronation with the Diamond Jubilee festivities (guilty as charged; I’m off to The Tower) but then goes on to say:
“Frankly I find quite a few errors in your editions that makes me wonder if any of your articles are ever proof read before publication. 
"How you supposedly won Britain's Best Weekly Newspaper for the second year running beats me.”
Love you too, I replied, as I acknowledged his note and our mistake. Must try harder…


  1. Anonymous5:48 PM

    As a follower of local cricket, I was unable to watch, as intended, the Stock III v Marconi match (T.Rippon League Division Eight match on June the 2nd, 2012) so I brought the Chronicle of June the 7th to see who won the game. Reading the headline which read 'Marconi lose', I looked for details of the match below the headline, and, as you can see, the report reads ''Stock III 135 all out LOST to Marconi 137-7 by three wickets''. So how can Marconi have lost when they actually WON the match? I agree with a previous contributor, please get a decent proof reader on all of your stories, whether it be for news stories, or sport, etc. Your sports editor appears to be more interested as to who he has met or spoken to on his travels (''I was speaking to''/''I was at a function last week'' etc - please take the time to read his Commentary Box drivle) as opposed to getting the facts right on what matters to us. 'Marconi lose' - oh no they didn't! Or is there another reason for such blatant errors?

  2. Anonymous5:53 PM

    Thus, you, and/or your staff don't seem to be following your 'must try harder' theme!

  3. Anonymous6:46 PM

    Well? Have you a response please?

  4. Anonymous5:46 PM

    And, lo and behold, even before I get a response to the above, it's happened again! Essex Chronicle of June the 14th 2012. See page 70 and the main picture. The caption reads ''BATSMAN TURNED BOWLER: Galleywood batsmen (that should read Galleywood batsman and not batsmen, as he is not a prural) Manesh Luthra in action but who also proved a useful bowler on Saturday taking three Herongate wickets in his side's eight wicket win''. So, one literal error but there's more to come. Headline on page 71 reads ' Linzell and Muthra blow Galleywood away'. And in the third paragraph of the ensuing report, 'Kyle Linzell and Manesh Luthra took three wickets each. Keith Plenderleith making 52 not out, Herongate had little trouble in achieving victory inside 22 overs'. So to correct your sports department's errors for you, the photo of Manesh Luthra refers to him as a Galleywood player, and as the report on page 71 confirms, he took three wickets for Herongate! So how can he be batting for Galleywood and then later in the game, take three wickets for Herongate?! Unless the rules of cricket have changed when your paper went to print, it is very confusing to the reader and indeed to us who know that Mr Luthra plays for Herongate and indeed does not bat for Galleywood, despite your photo caption referring that he did on June the 9th!!. Another mistake for you to admit here or even for your sports department to admit to in print? I await with interest.

  5. Anonymous6:13 PM

    I've got an idea!

  6. Anonymous6:03 AM

    What a pity that you invite comments from readers but then don't have the courtesy to respond when your paper has 'got it wrong'

  7. Anonymous4:43 PM

    You obviously don't 'love 'em' as you can't be bothered to respond to them!!!!!

  8. Anonymous6:57 PM

    And then you leave the readers who you said you loved!! Are you missing the Essex Chronicle and all the loyal staff (to you) who are possibly on the verge of being out of work soon?
    Not hopeful of a reply as you haven't had the courtesy to respond any of our questions and ideas on the above!! Come on, you asked us for ideas before you left for pastures new!!

  9. Anonymous6:46 PM

    Surely u can respond from your new pastures to the above readers - or probably not