Re: “Prosecution wants court to postpone Scott trial to 2015.”
The above captioned story published in your newspaper’s edition of February 13-19 2014 bears reference.
Limkokwing University of Creative Technology is very perturbed that in the course of publication of the article with the above title, your newspaper allowed to be published and in a visible manner, the University Official Brand Name or Logo that appeared on the T-shirt worn by the individual subject matter of your article.
While the University has absolutely no interest in the article and or the publication of the individual’s picture, we have very serious reservation and objection to the visible publication, without editing, of the University Official Brand or Logo that appears on the T-shirt worn by the individual pictured.
The University’s reservation and or objection is premised on the following facts, but is not limited thereto:Limkokwing University of Creative Technology was never consulted nor was its permission sought neither was it alerted in the least, by your newspaper as to whether its official brand name or logo, that seems to be visible on the clothing worn by the individual you intended to report on and in view of the picture you desired to publish of this person, could be made visible. Clearly, this was a duty, under responsible reporting, that your newspaper owed the University especially where the article, its contents and or the pictured individual has absolutely nothing to do with the University in view of your article.
While the picture of the individual subject matter of your article may be relevant thereto, there is absolutely no reasonable correlation between your article and the University that could reasonably compel visible publication of the official brand or logo of the University, on the T-shirt worn by the individual, without any attempt to blur it out or hide it altogether except if there was prior consultation and approval, which is not the case herein. Unless of course there is a hidden motive against the University we as the University may not be privy to but we do not think there is.
There definitely exists reasonable and acceptable reporting standards and practices dealing with matters of this nature and, in fact, these standards and practices are used as frequently as is necessary by respectable media practitioners, such as your paper, hence it would not be something untoward for the University to demand that in the least, the publication should have been cautious enough to blur our official brand so as to guard against or avoid unwanted and mostly wrong inferences being made by an ordinary eye about the unintended party, the University in this case, to the article or to the pictured individual. That is if the University was unintended party to the article.
The unedited picture of the individual subject matter of your article, as far as the University’s official brand name or logo are concerned, wrongly depicts the said individual as the bearer of our official brand or standards as relates to the articles and or contents thereof and or alleged gruesome acts surrounding this pictured individual. Negation of best reporting standards and courtesy in this regard may act to the prejudice of the University whereby wrong inferences may be made about the University in relation to this person. For example, this may presuppose in the eye of an ordinary reader that he was an employee of the University at the time of commission of the alleged gruesome acts, which IS NOT the case.
It is further disconcerting to the University to note and as a matter of fact, that the picture used was taken several years ago while the pictured individual was still an employee of the University and was attending a PRIVATE University event. The University would not want to readily suspect that your newspaper trespasses on PRIVATE events and or uses unsavory news gathering means to encroach on PRIVATE events but the suspected impression is reasonably difficult to overcome in this case.
Kindly note however that Limkokwing University of Creative Technology, in its cherished stance and support for media freedom and freedom of speech, shall never dictate to your publication or to any other, what to publicize or what pictures to display but we shall endeavour to advocate for balanced and fair reporting where entities whose corporate or personal brands may be affected by the publication, directly or indirectly, are consulted on the matter to only to the extent that the publication may affect them.
It is also not the University’s case that your paper put our official brand name or logo on the picture but the University feels that under acceptable standards, your newspaper failed to protect the unintended party in the article by not exercising normal and acceptable reporting standards in matters of this nature whether it is Limkokwing’s brand or any other corporate brand. Knowing the established credibility of your newspaper,we trust that more caution, as the paper usually exercises, shall be exercised in future on matters of this nature.
The University therefore and humbly requests publication of this letter which is NOT at all intended to embarrass your newspaper but to solely protect and maintain the highest quality of our corporate brand and its integrity to the satisfaction of our stakeholders and the nation at large.
Tefo Macheli (Mr.), Corporate Secretary