NRA Journal Spring edition

News from the National Rifle Association (UK)

Moderator: dromia

Forum rules
Please note that the NRA section has been locked until further notice.
Message
Author
Christel
Site Admin
Posts: 17444
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 7:52 pm
Location: Wind Swept Denmark
Contact:

Re: NRA Journal Spring edition

#31 Post by Christel »

bobbob wrote:I have something in a plain grey plastic bag. Must be my journal as Bnz got his.
Why don't the NRA have a "couples" membership? We would be happy to have just one copy to save money.
I second that...and to save on resources, environment and all that :grin:
User avatar
bobbob
Full-Bore UK Supporter
Posts: 2047
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 4:13 pm
Location: Essex
Contact:

Re: NRA Journal Spring edition

#32 Post by bobbob »

Hi Karen,
Will do :goodjob:
Never say something in Cyberspace you can't say Face to Face!!

Type a message, post your news,
Disagree with other members' views;
But please, do have some decorum,
When debating on the Full-Bore Forum.
karen

Re: NRA Journal Spring edition

#33 Post by karen »

IainWR wrote:Hi Cheeky

Why not publish your original letter in full on here with a link to the abridged version
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

In 10 years I published every letter I received - good or bad - whilst letting the relevant person at the NRA respond if necessary.

I have a feeling that your letter was not the only one edited and I have seen other critical letters that were sent which have not been published at all.

I would suggest complaining to Blaze and the Chairman and demanding a printed apology as the editing has totally changed the tone of your letter.

Or maybe report them to Lord Leveson? :lol:

love

Karen
User avatar
ovenpaa
Posts: 24684
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 8:27 pm
Location: Årbjerg, Morsø DK
Contact:

Re: NRA Journal Spring edition

#34 Post by ovenpaa »

... and please do publish your letter on the forum as I for one would like to see the original.
/d

Du lytter aldrig til de ord jeg siger. Du ser mig kun for det tøj jeg har paa ...

Shed Journal
Gaz

Re: NRA Journal Spring edition

#35 Post by Gaz »

I'm surprised that they altered your letter and still published it under your name. That's something a good journalist should never do without permission from the person named underneath. Be good to see the original.
cheeky

Re: NRA Journal Spring edition

#36 Post by cheeky »

IainWR wrote:Hi Cheeky

Why not publish your original letter in full on here with a link to the abridged versi
Here is the original letter. I'd have been happy for this to have been published, or an edit that I had approved, but not the one that is in the Journal and only purports to be from me - it was not checked off with me and conveys rather different meaning and tone as well as missing most of the point. Ironically, given what I had written about inaccuracies and lack of expertise, it is obvious to anyone who knows me that I did not write the letter in the Journal because of a mistake Blaze has introduced while editing it - I wrote "in the National" (the National Match between the home nations), which the clearly uninformed editor changed to "at the Nationals" (an entirely different concept!). I would like to be able to provide a link to the one in the Journal but it is not on the NRA website yet.

ORIGINAL LETTER:

Gentlemen,

The typo on the front cover of the NRA Journal was not a good sign (the Chairman got it right on page 3) but I wanted very much to give the new format a chance.

Cheaper paper I can happily accept, if that means the overall cost to the NRA is down. Further, it is good to see some new advertisers, although some of the traditional ones appear to be missing; perhaps they are waiting to see what the new Journal is like.

The large number of articles on often less well covered topics and disciplines is welcome, even if some of them concern quite small numbers of NRA members. However, they should not come at the cost of proper coverage of such important NRA mainstays as Target Rifle and the Imperial Meeting, let alone the Palma Match.

While I am very interested indeed in learning about Strensall Range (but not so much about trespassers - how about a mention of when there's an open meeting there that we can enter, to help the range and the YRA prosper?) I was very surprised to find more text on that than on the Imperial and its thousand-plus competitors. And why was there such a small and strange selection of Imperial results? Could nobody be bothered to look further back than those that were posted on the scoreboards on Final Saturday, nor to ask anybody 'in the know' which the most important competitions of the fortnight were?

Where was the mention of Scotland's win in the National - their second in 46 years and their first National retention for well over a century? Where was the coverage of the Match Rifle and of who won the Elcho and the Hopton (rather than mere reference to the existence of the trophies)? Who won the county matches? Or the Ashburton? And why oh why was there nothing at all on Glyn Barnett's spectacular Grand Aggregate success? His shooting jacket had more coverage than he did!

Indeed Glyn's shooting jacket featured in no fewer than five photographs, as did its wearer Ed Compton. Ed is a lovely bloke and a deserving champion, but what about all the other competitors and all the other winners? The same was true of the article on the World Long Range Championships - it contained two photographs of the very happy Richard Jeens, which made four in total in the Journal, of which three were almost identical.

It surely cannot have escaped the editorial team's attention, given that it was covered (albeit briefly), that the primary competition at the World Championships - into which three years of collective training had been poured - was not the individual championship but a 135 year old international team competition called the Palma Match. Yet the article contained no photograph of the team and barely any of its scores. Indeed there is not a single identifiable picture of a shooting TEAM in the entire Journal, despite team orientation being the distinguishing characteristic of Great Britain on the world stage! The article also attributed to the Captain a mixed metaphor that he didn't write, and managed to split the wind coaches into two people each, as "wind reader" and "coach". I am beside myself about that!

There are further areas where some attention to detail wouldn't have gone amiss. I feel fortunate to have been identified by my first initial in the team list for the Great Britain TR team to the USA and Canada, but a lot of people will be wondering which of the Jeens brothers, which of the Balls, Luckmans, McCulloughs, Purdys, Pugsleys and Youngs has been selected. Likewise which Alexander, Smith etc. is on the NRA Team to the Channel Islands.

All this does make me wonder about whether I should trust the accuracy of the articles about disciplines about which I know less and, for the first time in over twenty years, it makes me no longer look forward to the next copy of the Journal landing on the doormat.

I do hope that the important omissions will be rectified at the earliest opportunity and that the new Journal team will accept articles from experts. In this case I am fairly sure Tony de Launay will have submitted one on the Imperial and I know for certain that John Webster did so concerning the Palma Match and World Championships. I hope people such as they will still contribute, now that they know how little the new Journal appears to value the time volunteers put into such contributions. I also hope the Journal team will allow those who 'know their onions' to proof read what the team chooses to write independently.

As I wrote at the beginning, I am very keen to give the new Journal, and any constructive new directions the NRA takes, a chance but I feel sure that the problems visible in this edition of the magazine will have to be sorted out quickly for many of us to continue reading it at all, and thus for the advertisers to benefit from our doing so. I wish you well with that endeavour.

Please feel free to publish this letter, which I am sure reflects what many others are thinking even if they don't take time to write - I received e-mails on it from five people today. Either way, I beg you to act on its contents.

Yours in sport,

Matthew Charlton
cheeky

Re: NRA Journal Spring edition

#37 Post by cheeky »

I guess those asking for the original letter to be posted here weren't so interested after all?
Christel
Site Admin
Posts: 17444
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 7:52 pm
Location: Wind Swept Denmark
Contact:

Re: NRA Journal Spring edition

#38 Post by Christel »

cheeky wrote:I guess those asking for the original letter to be posted here weren't so interested after all?
Give them time, you posted the letter on a Friday, people may not have been here during the weekend.
User avatar
ovenpaa
Posts: 24684
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 8:27 pm
Location: Årbjerg, Morsø DK
Contact:

Re: NRA Journal Spring edition

#39 Post by ovenpaa »

Far from it and I have at long last read the abridged article published by Blaze, it is rather different and certainly does not fully reflect your original letter.

This is the second of the 'new direction' journals to be published and I feel it has been dumbed down even more so now, it has articles on competitions that were run 9 months ago and quite why the Chairman's Introduction should be underlined with an image of a shooter with an AR type rifle is beyond me, in fact it is interesting that the cover is of a similar ilk.

The journal seems to lack content and all in all it is a bit of a lightweight offering this month.
/d

Du lytter aldrig til de ord jeg siger. Du ser mig kun for det tøj jeg har paa ...

Shed Journal
John MH

Re: NRA Journal Spring edition

#40 Post by John MH »

Seen the new Journal and, like the NRA of late its not doing too well, maybe generate more revenue from advertising but I suspect Blaze take the lions share of that.

Editing letters is an appalling practice common amongst all journalist as far as I can see, they edit what you say and often completely change the context.

I preferred to old one that was for NRA members, this one seems dumbed down in an attempt to appeal to a wider audience. Who would buy it at £4.25? Not me for sure.
Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests