Dear Mr. Morris,
Thanks for your reply.
Your reply is sent only after reading my e-mail - Part II of 2 dated 19/03/09. Even if you did not click on "Yes" to acknowledge the read receipt, my software enable a successful delivery confirmation receipt generated through the postmaster of your domain administrator. You appear to be incapable of facing the facts that I have systematically outlined in that e-mail regarding your unfair, bias, and uninformed "political comment". Frankly speaking, you are less than honest with the way you criticise me or my articles. Whether or not your website is not accessible by me alone (and/or includes everyone else) is not your word that count. I will prove it when the time come, but not to you.
The content of my e-mail in Part II of 2 dated 19/03/09 have demonstrated without doubt your state of mind. I cannot prove anything when it is only one or two correspondent(s) or incident(s) with you and your Academy. However, when the facts are examined through a period of 3 months, starting at the time I lodged in my out spoken assignment dated 16/12/08, and the subsequent behaviour I experience with your Academy and yourself, there are pattern of discriminatory behaviour in the "DNA".
The principle issue here is not whether or not you will use e-mail to introduce my article to the mail box of editors.(I don’t want this issue to be used as an diversion from the principle issues). That did not interest me at all, and I don’t think so it is practical as there are so many freelancers at your disposal. I repeat here, it is an issue for me to have my own web listing to feature my profile and my articles under the respective categories. When editors log in to your website searching for articles to fill the space in their publication, they have the chance to go to the respective categories they wish to, browsing through a list of articles written by different freelancers and decide by themselves if they are interested to buy. Your e-mail methodology is not what I am fighting for. I am fighting for my entitlements spell out clearly in your printed PROSPECTUS.
Putting aside the issues related to my tutor refusal to mark my assignment for more then a month due to that "outcast" assignment lodged on 16/12/08, and the non-response from your student service to a number of my enquiries, and the fact that I wasn't given a welcome letter with my media pass with information about my entitlements after accreditation.
The mere fact that the way and excuse you used to reject both my article "Understand China" and my "survey" article already indicated to me your state of mind and intention. Please allow me to go through some of the development as follows:
1) You first rejected both my articles in your e-mail 26/02/09 under the ground that: " We do not believe there is a market for this material in any significant newspaper or magazine. By “significant” we refer to media markets who buy freelance material."
2) When I reply on 27/02/09 with my tutor comments on both articles that contradicted your assertion that there is no market for those materials. (Note: Just for your info, the tutor remark before his detail comment on the assignment “Understand China” is: “Thanks for your excellent article. It is a great start and has a lot of potential.” I did not quote you this part in my e-mail 27/02/09. I only quoted the part related to market potential at that time )
3) You then reply on 04/03/09 with the following statement:
a) "Re comments by Mr Hammerschmidt. Mr Hammerschmidt is a highly successful journalist and editor. He has his own views on a variety of subjects. But these views are not necessarily those of the International News Syndicate. We must make our own decisions based on our previous experiences. "
b) You then claimed that my article " contain "political comment". INS does not syndicate political comment. This has nothing to do with political views, simply the subject matter. Political comment does not sell successfully."
4) As a result of this "Political comment" claimed by you, I then e-mail you on 05/03/09 asking you to provide me with at least 2 examples using my article "understand China" to explain to me your definition of "Political comments"? I also stated that "I need to understand the meaning of your definition of "Political Comment" to be accepted by you."
5) You then reply on 09/03/09 with attachment of your detail criticism of my article "understand china" with many remark that are: Unfair, Bias and uninformed at your own end. In fact, less then "honest" I should say.
6) In order not to be distracted from the 2 principle issues I raise, I then outline my response to your 09/03/09 e-mail in two separate e-mail:
a) Part I of 2 with subject title: Principle Issues Vs Political comment e-mail on 17/03/09.(Note: This is the e-mail you used to make this reply)
b) Part II of 2 with subject title: Final Notice - part II of 2 - you are not fair to me on your "Political comments" e-mailed on 19/03/09. (note: This is the e-mail you pretend that you have not received. So that you can claim that you will not make further response)
7) After receiving my above 2 e-mails, you then reply on 20/03/09 (computer date, today e-mail) using Part I of 2 of my e-mail as basis for reply and pretend that you have yet to receive Part II of 2 of my e-mail and claim that: " I am tired of your asking questions to which you have had the answers on several occasions. I am tired of your refusing to accept my help and professional comment. If you continue in this way you can scour the planet and not find an editor who will deal with you." You then ask me to " Forget the issue you are making of “political comment”, I am referring to unnecessary comment in general – a significant amount being inaccurate and unbalanced."
Your problem is, you cannot back up your own claim as demonstrated above in point 1 to 7, and now, you just make another statement "being inaccurate and unbalanced"?????
The simple fact is that, you are incapable of accepting articles with facts and angles not what you want to hear. That is, you have lack the quality of being objective as a leader in the industry.
This explain why news reported through our media consistently contain so many selective, distorted and unbalance report on International issues from time to time. The different between the statements I made and youself is that, I am able to back up my claim with facts and more facts if required and you are unable to do that. Australian Journalist, Peter Manning already prove my claim in his book “US and THEM”. And I also further prove that claim in my “outcast” assignment submitted on 16/12/09. This is the assignment that got me into trouble with the Academy and yourself till this day.
You may already be in the industry for 35 years, but it mean nothing to me if you are unable to make fair and truthful statement. For example,
Your own website: http://www.internationalnewssyndicate.com/media-buyers.php stated clearly that: “At the time of writing we have freelancers in 80 countries and territories, specializing in everything from sport to IT.” And now, you claim that: “This is totally wrong. We say we have trained students in more than 80 countries and territories”.
When are you going to say something truthful !!!!
I have mentioned in my e-mail to you on 27/02/09: "The one thing that I find my tutor respectable is that, he acknowledged in his above feedback that: “you seem to have done a great deal of research on the matter “. He is a fair man, despite our differences, he acknowledge the amount of research I have done. "
But for you, you asserted your authority, with word like "silly", “futile”, and statements that contain unfair, bias, uninformed arguments and statements that is manipulative and untruthful. All of these claims or statement I made have been outlined in the e-mail you pretend you have yet to receive. That is: "Part II of 2 of my e-mail dated 19/03/09”. And say that: “ This is the last time I will correspond….”
This is a simple case, it was a shock to me that I can be punished for being outspoken in my assignment.
I do not want to wait for your "upgrade" to be completed and log into a student session of the website as indicated in your e-mail dated 17/03/09. I am an accredited member and want to log in like other accredited member now. That is without further delay.
Anyway, as stated in my e-mail Part II of 2 as a final notice, if I did not receive my full entitlements by Monday, this case will be out of your jurisdiction. Any later offer after Monday will not stop me from perusing justice.
All the best
Wei Ling Chua
Understand China Care For Australia Understand Developing Countries True Story of Outcast Journalist
Home My Apology Media Disinformation Contact Free resources/story ideas
Copyright © 2009 - 2010 Outcast Journalist - Chua, Wei Ling