The Times, Children in Need and us

			Dave Pitchford Intelligent Giving Managing Editor
			HAVING WORKED ON NEWSPAPERS myself, I completely understand errors creeping into articles, especially when they've been rushed. However the misquotes in The Times of 15 November really set a new low standard (attributable to the news agency that sent in the report). (See article) To set a few things straight: We have never accused the Royal Opera House and Sue Ryder Care of “appalling levels of transparency”. RoH's annual report is merely disappointing. Sue Ryder's is poor. See the profiles for yourself (search, top right). We have never said or implied that "bigger institutions were often lazy, producing poor annual reports and giving the public little idea how their money was spent". In fact, as a rule, the larger the institution, the better the annual report. Children in Need did not score highly in transparency. We have never released a list of the best charities - only the most transparent. We have never 'looked for negatives' when analysing charities. We have never produced a list of the worst charities and we never will. We simply stated that the four named charities "could do better". I'm David Pitchford, not Pritchford sigh We categorically state that Children in Need is a significant force for good. If you don't have the stamina to research a children's charity for yourself (shame), it's far better to support the campaign than not to give anything. > Our article, Four things wrong with Pudsey