Spin in a "newsletter"

On Jan. 20, 2010, the “Friends of Chapel” posted a digital copy of a document it referred to as a “Chapel Newsletter” (check the file name: “January+14+Chapel+News+Letter_1”).

Chapel Guardian takes this document to task for two reasons.

1) Hijacking a name

This is, again, an example of how the so-called “Friends” have attempted to claim the “Chapel of Awareness” name as their own, just as they did with a post office box in Cardiff a few months ago. This group continuously attempts to mislead the Chapel community that it is actually the Chapel, when it is not.

The only newsletters regarding Chapel of Awareness come from Chapel of Awareness, not a splinter group.

Members of the “Friends” have often cited a business model (even though Chapel is a non-profit religious organization) that Chapel must follow. With that in mind, consider a recent example in the business world: the conflict between comedian Conan O’Brien and the NBC network.

When NBC decided to reshuffle its programming, Conan O’Brien protested, including on his show. However, just because he was upset with the network, did he and his production group start claiming to be NBC? Of course not.

That is just as unacceptable as the Friends of Chapel’s continued attempts to hijack the Chapel of Awareness name for themselves because they are unhappy with the organization’s actions.

2) Speaking for the judge

The “Friends of Chapel” spin on the court hearing is interesting.

Their “newsletter” claims the judge was open to their case. Yet he handed down a preliminary ruling in which basically over 75% of that case was found not in their favor, followed by an order for mediation even after they flooded the courtroom.

“The judge clearly stated that if we are unable to gain willingness and cooperation from the Chapel board, we should not wait 90 days, and should come back to his court right away for his ruling.”

The context in the whole “newsletter,” and the overall tone, indicate that the Friends of Chapel know that the judge will rule in their favor. A judge is impartial … neutral to both sides. Unless the judge is unprofessional, it is highly unlikely he would have expressed such “openness” without making a ruling. If anything, he narrowly dismissed the complaint, and then ordered mediation.

As always, read the material for yourself. And read between the lines.