<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML xmlns:o = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<STYLE>.hmmessage P {
PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px
}
BODY.hmmessage {
FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma; FONT-SIZE: 10pt
}
</STYLE>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.19046"></HEAD>
<BODY class=hmmessage bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV>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!</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3 face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3 face=Calibri>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:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3 face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3 face=Calibri>"<EM>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.</EM>"</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3 face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3 face=Calibri>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3 face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3 face=Calibri>Opening clause for remaining paras:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3 face=Calibri>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3 face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3 face=Calibri>Para 2: <BR>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".</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3 face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3 face=Calibri>Para 3: <BR>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..."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3 face=Calibri>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.)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3 face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3 face=Calibri>Para 4: <BR>"processes of" could be deleted to
sharpen the wording.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3 face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3 face=Calibri>Para 5: <BR>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".)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3 face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3 face=Calibri>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3 face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3 face=Calibri>Should be a comma after "sources"</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3 face=Calibri>"Subject to <U>serious</U> misrepresentation" is
a very subjective phrase. Maybe should "have a process for proper
handling of complaints of misrepresentation."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3 face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3 face=Calibri>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)?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3 face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3 face=Calibri>Para 7:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3 face=Calibri>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?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3 face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3 face=Calibri>Para 8</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3 face=Calibri>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".</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3 face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3 face=Calibri></FONT><FONT size=3 face=Calibri>Para
9</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3 face=Calibri>At the end of the first line it should be "that"
not "which" (they do not mean the same thing - <FONT size=3
face=Calibri>picky grammar point again, but may as well get it right)</FONT>.
The second "which" should be deleted.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3 face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3 face=Calibri>Para 10</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri><FONT size=3>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!).
</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri><FONT size=3></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri><FONT size=3>Or maybe say <EM>"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."</EM></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3 face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3 face=Calibri>Just my tuppence worth.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3 face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3 face=Calibri>Cheers</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3 face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3 face=Calibri>Alex</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>