(no subject)

[sebastienne]

Hi Emma,

We did not 'tell any proportion of our readership that it did not exist.'
We reported the opinions of one person. That is what newspapers do. We
also reported the views of someone else who disagreed with him and quoted
George melly as a well-known example of a bisexual - again, hardly a
denial that bisexuals exist. We suspect that our readers have enough
intelligence to make up their own minds on such issues.

regards

Kieran Meeke
Features Editor

Comments

[sebastienne.livejournal.com]

oh, THANK YOU! this is of great shininess.

if you could forward this to features@ukmetro.co.uk, the address I got the snotty reply from, I'd be much obliged.

the woman who edited the article gave me a nice apologetic reply, said she'd forward my opinions to Dr Rahman. I've had nothing from health@ukmetro.co.uk, but the features editor was a wanker at me. So yes.. contrary opinions to him would be appreciated.

[(Anonymous)]

oooh can we see what she wrote in apology?

[sebastienne.livejournal.com]

well, less snotty and more reasonable...

Hi Emma,
Thank you for your email.

When we decided to publish the article we were aware that some of the
statements were quite controversial. But, as you can clearly see from the
piece, these views are held by Dr Qazi Rahman and not Metro.

To ensure our readers were completely clear of this fact, we presented the
debate in the 'for' and 'against' form as opposed to our standard story
structure. I did not in anyway want to be seen siding with either Dr Qazi
Rahman or Prof Jeffrey Weeks, and I am confident that readers will see
that we were simply reporting on what is a very interesting argument.

Surely we would have been more ignorant by ignoring the debate altogether?


We do appreciate all our readers comments and I will be forwarding all
feedback to Qazi Rahman.