SirIt would certainly be grossly ‘irresponsible’ for the Gazette to self-censor when eminent legal business commentators – and Professor Mayson is one of the most eminent – deliver uncomfortable messages. Our editorial policy is quite clear. We ‘do not avoid controversial issues and issues of relevance’. If someone of Professor Mayson’s stature forecasting a major job shake-out is not a ‘matter of relevance’, then I don’t know what is. Had someone with no knowledge of or insight into the profession made these predictions then there would have been no story.
With regard to your assertion that the Gazette has a ‘negative view’ of the profession, you seem to be confusing the medium with the message - ‘shooting the messenger’, to use the common term. Nowhere does the Gazette state that Mayson is right. The views expressed in the Gazette are those of their author, as our editorial policy also makes plain. Indeed, the editorial of the same issue suggests he may be overstating his case. Moreover, I am at a loss as to how the Gazette can check on the veracity of something which hasn’t happened yet and may not happen at all. Yet it is not our job to put our hands over our eyes and ears and try and wish things away.
Our readers are entitled to know what legal business commentators such as Professor Mayson are thinking. They are grown-ups who can make their own judgments on whether he will be proved right, as indeed you have made yours. With regard to your final comments, I am sorry if you have lost money as a consequence of readers responding to the Gazette’s news stories. However, it is not, nor ever has been, a function of the Gazette to consider how our editorial coverage might affect the earnings of recruitment consultancies. We cannot rightly be accused of ‘irresponsibility’ in this respect either. The Gazette is, after all, partly funded by recruitment advertising.Paul RogersonEditor in chiefGazette
With regard to your assertion that the Gazette has a ‘negative view’ of the profession, you seem to be confusing the medium with the message - ‘shooting the messenger’, to use the common term. Nowhere does the Gazette state that Mayson is right. The views expressed in the Gazette are those of their author, as our editorial policy also makes plain. Indeed, the editorial of the same issue suggests he may be overstating his case. Moreover, I am at a loss as to how the Gazette can check on the veracity of something which hasn’t happened yet and may not happen at all. Yet it is not our job to put our hands over our eyes and ears and try and wish things away.
Our readers are entitled to know what legal business commentators such as Professor Mayson are thinking. They are grown-ups who can make their own judgments on whether he will be proved right, as indeed you have made yours. With regard to your final comments, I am sorry if you have lost money as a consequence of readers responding to the Gazette’s news stories. However, it is not, nor ever has been, a function of the Gazette to consider how our editorial coverage might affect the earnings of recruitment consultancies. We cannot rightly be accused of ‘irresponsibility’ in this respect either. The Gazette is, after all, partly funded by recruitment advertising.Paul RogersonEditor in chiefGazette
Comments