Hi folks

I'm a Senior Lecturer in Journalism (and a former Today programme
producer). I've been commissioned to do some research into listener
responses to some of the innovations on the programme by THE RADIO
JOURNAL (which is the national academic journal on all things radio-
related.)

 As I've interviewed one of the correspondents and producers about the
work I'm to study, I know they want to read this when its finished -
so it would be a good way to get your responses across. Can you let me
know if anyone out there is interested and i can send you further
details? Nothing too onerous, I promise!

Yours

KATE WRIGHT

that little jingle springs to mind...

those who can do
those who can't, teach
those who can't teach, teach teachers
those who can't teach teachers do educational research
and those who can't do educational research work for exam boards


"Journalismlecturer"  wrote in message 
news:d783df04-3501-42d3-8068-3f0d0f3b3bcb@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> Hi folks
>
> I'm a Senior Lecturer in Journalism (and a former Today programme
> producer). I've been commissioned to do some research into listener
> responses to some of the innovations on the programme by THE RADIO
> JOURNAL (which is the national academic journal on all things radio-
> related.)
>
> As I've interviewed one of the correspondents and producers about the
> work I'm to study, I know they want to read this when its finished -
> so it would be a good way to get your responses across. Can you let me
> know if anyone out there is interested and i can send you further
> details? Nothing too onerous, I promise!
>
> Yours
>
> KATE WRIGHT

Journalismlecturer wrote:
> 
> Hi folks
> 
> I'm a Senior Lecturer in Journalism (and a former Today programme
> producer). I've been commissioned to do some research into listener
> responses to some of the innovations on the programme by THE RADIO
> JOURNAL (which is the national academic journal on all things radio-
> related.)
> 
>  As I've interviewed one of the correspondents and producers about the
> work I'm to study, I know they want to read this when its finished -
> so it would be a good way to get your responses across. Can you let me
> know if anyone out there is interested and i can send you further
> details? Nothing too onerous, I promise!
> 
> Yours
> 
> KATE WRIGHT

I'm interested.  Whom should I contact?

-- 
Remove "antispam" and ".invalid" for e-mail address.

Hello Frederick,

Thanks for your post! Its probably not safe to leave emails on these
things because of those web spiders...would you be ok for me to leave
directions as to how to Google me so you can get my email easily and
then we can chat about it? I am Kate Wright, and I'm a Senior Lecturer
in Journalism at Roehampton University. So if you google my name and
uni my email should come up....  Is that ok?

Journalismlecturer wrote:
> 
> Hello Frederick,
> 
> Thanks for your post! Its probably not safe to leave emails on these
> things because of those web spiders...would you be ok for me to leave
> directions as to how to Google me so you can get my email easily and
> then we can chat about it? I am Kate Wright, and I'm a Senior Lecturer
> in Journalism at Roehampton University. So if you google my name and
> uni my email should come up....  Is that ok?

Yes, that's fine.  Will do.

-- 
Remove "antispam" and ".invalid" for e-mail address.

"Journalismlecturer"  wrote in message 
news:d783df04-3501-42d3-8068-3f0d0f3b3bcb@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> Hi folks
>
> I'm a Senior Lecturer in Journalism (and a former Today programme
> producer). I've been commissioned to do some research into listener
> responses to some of the innovations on the programme by THE RADIO
> JOURNAL (which is the national academic journal on all things radio-
> related.)

The only innovation I've noticed recently was when Naughtie let an 
interviewee finish an answer without talking over him.  That gets my vote.
-- 
Hungerdunger
To reply by email, remove the MARX from my address

Journalismlecturer goes:

>Hi folks

>I'm a Senior Lecturer in Journalism (and a former Today programme
>producer). I've been commissioned to do some research into listener
>responses to some of the innovations on the programme by THE RADIO
>JOURNAL (which is the national academic journal on all things radio-
>related.)

> As I've interviewed one of the correspondents and producers about the
>work I'm to study, I know they want to read this when its finished -
>so it would be a good way to get your responses across. Can you let me
>know if anyone out there is interested and i can send you further
>details? Nothing too onerous, I promise!

So the population for this survey of opinions is going to be
self-selected, is it? Is the commissioning body happy with that? Not
very representative, is it? The readers of a Usenet wireless
newsgroup? 

By the way, all participants take part. It's what being a participant
involves. You can't look for participants to take part, since anyone
who takes part is a participant, but nobody is a participant until
they're already taking part. 


-- 
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com

>
>So the population for this survey of opinions is going to be
>self-selected, is it? Is the commissioning body happy with that? Not
>very representative, is it? The readers of a Usenet wireless
>newsgroup? 

You are making the assumption that the entire body of this survey will
be made up of correspondents from this ng, an utterly ludicrous
assumtption. And no doubt miserable, negative peopel like yourslef
won't be taking part, so what harm has been done?
>
>By the way, all participants take part. It's what being a participant
>involves. You can't look for participants to take part, since anyone
>who takes part is a participant, but nobody is a participant until
>they're already taking part. 

Perhaps you should see your doctor with a view to increasing your
rmedication?

On 29 May, 11:22, S.  wrote:
> >So the population for this survey of opinions is going to be
> >self-selected, is it? Is the commissioning body happy with that? Not
> >very representative, is it? The readers of a Usenet wireless
> >newsgroup?
>
> You are making the assumption that the entire body of this survey will
> be made up of correspondents from this ng, an utterly ludicrous
> assumtption. And no doubt miserable, negative peopel like yourslef
> won't be taking part, so what harm has been done?
>
>
>
> >By the way, all participants take part. It's what being a participant
> >involves. You can't look for participants to take part, since anyone
> >who takes part is a participant, but nobody is a participant until
> >they're already taking part.
>
> Perhaps you should see your doctor with a view to increasing your
> rmedication?

Yes participants will be self-selecting and yes, that  does create
some methodological problems  are regards the external validity of the
study.

Although for a qualitative study its quite normal to use non-random
sampling, as long as thought is then given to the structuring of
sample groups and the limitations of the study and discussed. Usually
what qualitative studies aim to do is draw out the experiences of
participants, in order to try and make tentative analytic
generalisations, rather than statistical ones. they look at different
issues to quant studies - whys and hows, rather than whats, if you
like.

 And yes, this is only one of the avenues I'm looking at for
participants. Anyone genuinely wanting to enquire in detail  about the
methodology used is really very welcome to do so by following the
instructions laid out earlier. I'd welcome constructive criticism!

But if you just want to have a pop - well fine... I'm big enough and
ugly enough to take it!  I worked on Today under Rod Liddle so.. you'd
really have to try pretty hard to make me feel rubbish about myself.
Although thanks to my very courteous defender! Much appreciated :)

S. goes:

>>So the population for this survey of opinions is going to be
>>self-selected, is it? Is the commissioning body happy with that? Not
>>very representative, is it? The readers of a Usenet wireless
>>newsgroup? 

>You are making the assumption that the entire body of this survey will
>be made up of correspondents from this ng, an utterly ludicrous
>assumtption. And no doubt miserable, negative peopel like yourslef
>won't be taking part, so what harm has been done?

>>By the way, all participants take part. It's what being a participant
>>involves. You can't look for participants to take part, since anyone
>>who takes part is a participant, but nobody is a participant until
>>they're already taking part. 

>Perhaps you should see your doctor with a view to increasing your
>rmedication?

Trying taking a bit more water with it. 


-- 
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com

On 29 May, 07:05, Alan Hope  wrote:

...

> So the population for this survey of opinions is going to be
> self-selected, is it? Is the commissioning body happy with that? Not
> very representative, is it? The readers of a Usenet wireless
> newsgroup?

Are you suggesting (surely not) that this particular newsgroup does
not reach a wide variety of the British public and opine suitably
representatively the listening demographic; or that participants
therein cannot authoritatively elucidate the views of the wider
population? :-)

--
Shocked in Shepton Mallet

In article 
, on 
Tue, 27 May 2008, Journalismlecturer  wrote
>Hi folks
>
>I'm a Senior Lecturer in Journalism (and a former Today programme
>producer). I've been commissioned to do some research into listener
>responses to some of the innovations on the programme by THE RADIO
>JOURNAL (which is the national academic journal on all things radio-
>related.)
>
> As I've interviewed one of the correspondents and producers about the
>work I'm to study, I know they want to read this when its finished -
>so it would be a good way to get your responses across. Can you let me

<>
>know if anyone out there is interested and i can send you further
>details? Nothing too onerous, I promise!
<>
I might be (interested) - not _quite_ sure what you're after.
[]
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for thoughts on PCs. **

Essex home for sale, œ59,950: see http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/home/

Laugh, and the world ignores you. Crying doesn't help either.

Journalismlecturer wrote:
> Hello Frederick,
>
> Thanks for your post! Its probably not safe to leave emails on these
> things because of those web spiders...would you be ok for me to leave
> directions as to how to Google me so you can get my email easily and
> then we can chat about it? I am Kate Wright, and I'm a Senior Lecturer
> in Journalism at Roehampton University. So if you google my name and
> uni my email should come up....  Is that ok?

Kate

In case you haven't realised, your e-mail address is embedded in the 
headers of your posts here. Best change that if you intend to use usenet 
again as harvesters will pick it up sooner or later.

James Harris goes:

>On 29 May, 07:05, Alan Hope  wrote:

>...

>> So the population for this survey of opinions is going to be
>> self-selected, is it? Is the commissioning body happy with that? Not
>> very representative, is it? The readers of a Usenet wireless
>> newsgroup?

>Are you suggesting (surely not) that this particular newsgroup does
>not reach a wide variety of the British public and opine suitably
>representatively the listening demographic; or that participants
>therein cannot authoritatively elucidate the views of the wider
>population? :-)

Well, I was, but nowhere near as purty. 


-- 
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com

And Journalismlecturer was like:

> Thanks for your post! Its probably not safe to leave emails on these
> things because of those web spiders...would you be ok for me to
> leave directions as to how to Google me so you can get my email
> easily and then we can chat about it? I am Kate Wright, and I'm a
> Senior Lecturer in Journalism at Roehampton University. So if you
> google my name and uni my email should come up....  Is that ok?

I must be missing something here. What's that email address in your
headers?

Just asking.

-- 
| Patrick Hardlentil -  patrick@dogslobber.demon.co.uk
| Like death in a top hat

On 30 May, 19:34, "Patrick Hardlentil"
 wrote:
> And Journalismlecturer was like:
>
> > Thanks for your post! Its probably not safe to leave emails on these
> > things because of those web spiders...would you be ok for me to
> > leave directions as to how to Google me so you can get my email
> > easily and then we can chat about it? I am Kate Wright, and I'm a
> > Senior Lecturer in Journalism at Roehampton University. So if you
> > google my name and uni my email should come up....  Is that ok?
>
> I must be missing something here. What's that email address in your
> headers?
>
> Just asking.
>
> --
> | Patrick Hardlentil -  patr...@dogslobber.demon.co.uk
> | Like death in a top hat

Hi there - I am going to change that so the spiders don't start
sending me stupid amounts of spam! Basically if you Google "Kate
Wright" "Journalism" and "Roehampton University" my email should pop
up... Look forward to hearing from you all!

And Journalismlecturer was like:

> On 30 May, 19:34, "Patrick Hardlentil"
>  wrote:
>> And Journalismlecturer was like:
>>
>> > Thanks for your post! Its probably not safe to leave emails on these
>> > things because of those web spiders...would you be ok for me to
>> > leave directions as to how to Google me so you can get my email
>> > easily and then we can chat about it? [...]
>>
>> I must be missing something here. What's that email address in your
>> headers?
>
> Hi there - I am going to change that so the spiders don't start
> sending me stupid amounts of spam!

Horse, meet Stable Door. Horse? Where are you, Horse? Come back!

> Basically if you Google "Kate Wright" "Journalism" and "Roehampton
> University" my email should pop up...

We don't need to, though, because it's in your post. Do you see?

To bring things slightly back on topic, Today is largely drivel. Too
many groups and companies determining the news by issuing press
releases. Too many artificial debates between intellectuals of
willfully opposing views. Too little careful dissection of what
politicians say. Too much of Naughtie letting us know how many books
he's read.

I never miss an edition.

-- 
| Patrick Hardlentil -  patrick@dogslobber.demon.co.uk
| Don't make me fetch my cormorant

Patrick Hardlentil wrote:
> 
> And Journalismlecturer was like:
> 
> > On 30 May, 19:34, "Patrick Hardlentil"
> >  wrote:
> >> And Journalismlecturer was like:
> >>
> >> > Thanks for your post! Its probably not safe to leave emails on these
> >> > things because of those web spiders...would you be ok for me to
> >> > leave directions as to how to Google me so you can get my email
> >> > easily and then we can chat about it? [...]
> >>
> >> I must be missing something here. What's that email address in your
> >> headers?
> >
> > Hi there - I am going to change that so the spiders don't start
> > sending me stupid amounts of spam!
> 
> Horse, meet Stable Door. Horse? Where are you, Horse? Come back!
> 
> > Basically if you Google "Kate Wright" "Journalism" and "Roehampton
> > University" my email should pop up...
> 
> We don't need to, though, because it's in your post. Do you see?
> 
> To bring things slightly back on topic, Today is largely drivel. Too
> many groups and companies determining the news by issuing press
> releases. Too many artificial debates between intellectuals of
> willfully opposing views. 

I hate it when they (Today and others) say "Later we'll be debating
...".

> Too little careful dissection of what
> politicians say. Too much of Naughtie letting us know how many books
> he's read.
> 
> I never miss an edition.

-- 
Remove "antispam" and ".invalid" for e-mail address.

On 4 Jun, 15:20, Frederick Williams <"Frederick
...

> > To bring things slightly back on topic, Today is largely drivel. Too
> > many groups and companies determining the news by issuing press
> > releases. Too many artificial debates between intellectuals of
> > willfully opposing views.
>
> I hate it when they (Today and others) say "Later we'll be debating
> ...".

That's not so bad compared with news reports that tell us what a
certain politician is going to say at a later conference. Surely
that's just passing on propaganda. Perhaps news should always be
retrospective rather than predictive.