[cma-l] CMA Charter - version 10

[Phil Shep]

Thanks Alex for helpful input on the charter.  I will ensure your
suggestions are incorporated in the next stage of this process which will be
at the AGM.  If we don¹t reach a clear decision on the words that day I (and
others) will propose that the process continue thereafter till we have the
charter we need to take us forward.

Thanks again
Best wishes

Phil 


On 23/5/11 16:38, "Two Lochs Radio" <tlr at gairloch.co.uk> wrote:

> Seems to be getting into shape now, and pre-empts soem comments I had been
> about to send, but coudl I still make a few comments for what they're worth.
> The first two may be seen as pcky points of grammar, but we may as well get it
> right!
>  
> The new sentence at the end of the first paragraph is pretty tortuous (and
> likely to marginalize people with less than perfect English!). How about
> putting it into natural order? It's actually quite a tangle unless separated
> into 'Janet and John' sentences, but how about:
>  
> "The production practice and content of community digital media foster greater
> understanding among communities, including those most marginalized, which
> supports peace, tolerance, democracy and development."
>  
> Probably could be improved further, but I think the current draft is
> definitely too tangled. I also thing the preceding sentence ("Community media
> promotes...") is a much stronger sentence and might be best place last int he
> paragraph for a more lasting effect.
>  
> Opening clause for remaining paras:
> Is "should seek to..." not too vague (or even inapplicable to some paras,
> especialy # 7. I woudl suggest replacing "seek to" by "should". Maybe this is
> seen as too strong, but "seek to" is certainly very weak.
>  
> Para 2: 
> I think would be more inclusive if it added the words "and culture" to the
> end, or even used just the word "culture" instead of "traditions".
>  
> Para 3: 
> Pleased to see the word 'registered' ditched - I was going to suggest that,
> and I wondered if it would be better worded "are an integral part of" instead
> of "registered/recognized"? Or maybe "integrated and meaningfully reflected
> in..."
> Of course, it might have no effect anyway - it leaves the door wide open for
> officialdom to say they are fully recognizing it's value while not actually
> doing anything concrete. (Call me a cynic.)
>  
> Para 4: 
> "processes of" could be deleted to sharpen the wording.
>  
> Para 5: 
> delete "in determining their output" - it's redundant and vague - is it
> intended to mean that the independence should extend beyond editorial policy
> and content - if so in what other ways?  (Picky grammar point, "range" or
> "various" would less ambiguous than "variety".)
>  
> I was in two minds about whether the "(local and national)" is redundant.
> Technically it is, but if it just says "government" many people might not take
> it to include local authorities and assemblies. But far more importantly,
> there appears to be no term covering agencies, by which many government/state
> activities and policies are handled nowadays. Perhaps it neds to be something
> like "independent of government, statutory bodies and agencies,
> commercial...". Maybe we're on a hiding to nothing trying to list all the
> relevant bodies.
>  
> Should be a comma after "sources"
> "Subject to serious misrepresentation" is a very subjective phrase.  Maybe
> should "have a process for proper handling of complaints of
> misrepresentation."
>  
> NB where does this clause leave CR stations whose licences are held by
> religious bodies? Are they still required to be editorially independent of any
> churches (maybe they are, I'm just asking)?
>  
> Para 7:
> What's with the phrase "or individually contribute to". As worded it appears
> to leave the way open for me to run a fully commercial venture as long as I
> make some donations to a not-for-profit cause. Also running on from the head
> clause it is only saying that I shoudl "... seek to ... contribute to
> primarily not-for-profit organizations." That is far to woolly. If the charter
> means that community media practicitioners must operate for public benefit and
> not for private profit, it should say so. If it doesn't mean that, what
> exactly does it mean?
>  
> Para 8
> surplus full stop and word "to" at the end of the first line. Delete the word
> "their" in second line - they aren't "their" before they have joined! Maybe
> replace it with "appropriate".
>  
> Para 9
> At the end of the first line it should be "that" not "which" (they do not mean
> the same thing - picky grammar point again, but may as well get it right). The
> second "which" should be deleted.
>  
> Para 10
> Again "which" is wrong, should be "that". Could also delete "local, regional,
> national and international" without altering the meaning (unless it was
> intentionally excluding galactic and intergalactic!).
>  
> Or maybe say "Promote and foster better communication and partnership working
> in the sector, thereby building networks at all levels to further develop good
> practice and strengthen communities."
>  
> Just my tuppence worth.
>  
> Cheers
>  
> Alex
> 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.commedia.org.uk/pipermail/cma-l/attachments/20110523/4a3f9f91/attachment.html>