Rights of reply

January 17, 1997

Julian Petley and Martin Barker justify removing our contribution to their book Ill Effects on the effects of the media by accusing us of being "quite unwilling" to go through the normal editorial process (THES, January 10).

Just for the record: Our piece was invited by them and a contract issued by the publisher. We were quite happy to go through a normal process of editing and the publisher confirmed with us there was no problem over time.

It was removed because, as Martin Barker wrote to us, it "read like a hostile review of the book in which it appears".

He also stated that the only way they could have included it was "as part of a separate 'debate section' to which they would have had to write 'a lengthy response' ".

It was this "right of reply" for which there not time.

David Miller, Stirling Media Research Institute Greg Philo, Glasgow Media Group

You've reached your article limit.

Register to continue

Registration is free and only takes a moment. Once registered you can read a total of 3 articles each month, plus:

  • Sign up for the editor's highlights
  • Receive World University Rankings news first
  • Get job alerts, shortlist jobs and save job searches
  • Participate in reader discussions and post comments
Register

Have your say

Log in or register to post comments