If you Google Ecclestone

[Derek Smith]

I have recently regularly Googled Ecclestone to see what is happening with regards the German corruption trial of Gribkowsky.

Look what I got:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/lostinshowb...

As for the younger one, I can't believe this:

Guardian said:

As for the designer shoes she buys by the gross, that seems to be where the humanitarianism comes in. "Every three to four months," she explains, "I ship a whole load over to Croatia for charity." An aid philosophy that is perhaps best summarised as "let them eat Louboutins".

The final quoted bit is clever. The whole article was probably written around it.

Did she really say that?

The moral is clear: Google "Bernie Ecclestone"+Gribkowsky

[rdjohn]

Brilliant find; my favourite quote was when referring to Paris Hilton - "the Californian heiress no militant group will ever kidnap for fear of having to spend even an hour in her company."

[Rude-boy]

Derek Smith said:

The final quoted bit is clever. The whole article was probably written around it.

No it's not. It is a simple line, thought in a moment by anyone with half an idea of history and writing, in an article which oozes such vapid jealousy that it says little or nothing about the sisters but a whole lot about the 'poor' scribe who doubtless struggles to accept that her likely allowance and inheritance are doubtless eclipsed to the power of 10 by the sisters.

Wiki said:

Marina Hyde (born 13 May 1974 as Marina Elizabeth Catherine Dudley-Williams) is an English columnist who writes articles on topics such as current affairs, politics, celebrity and sport for The Guardian newspaper. She is the daughter of Sir Alastair Edgcumbe James Dudley-Williams and the granddaughter of aviation pioneer and Conservative politician Sir Rolf Dudley-Williams.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marina_Hyde

Don't get me wrong, they do not appear to be the sort of girls i would like to associate with (forgetting the money involved), but that article is a perfect example of the gushing sewer of utter ste spewed forth by many people in the Media who pretend that their observations count for more than a good fart.

[snorkel sucker]

Hmmm...

If Vettel wins any more races this season, I fear an episode of billion $$$ girl may serve up more hearty entertainment.

By the sound of her, either way, you'll get to see some tit.

[JMC1]

Oh come on...... He may not be the greatest journalist on the planet, but surely it pisses you of just a little bit to think that your very expensive British GP ticket or your new sky subscription that you are going to need if you want to keep watching F1 in the future is going to help the brats buy more shoes and more houses ect etc.

Jealous... hell yes but they do not do themselves any favours courting the press and rubbing everybody's noses in it. Be rich, be young, be happy but be a little more considerate of how your family comes by it.

A lot of young drivers bust their b...ocks and never reach F1 and are left skint for the priveledge of trying which is probably just, but remember those who tried and remember the poor paying public that keep the Ecclestone family in their ivory towers.

[zac510]

Rude-boy said:

No it's not. It is a simple line, thought in a moment by anyone with half an idea of history and writing, in an article which oozes such vapid jealousy that it says little or nothing about the sisters but a whole lot about the 'poor' scribe who doubtless struggles to accept that her likely allowance and inheritance are doubtless eclipsed to the power of 10 by the sisters.

This style of writing is that of the 'Lost in Showbiz' article in the newspaper. It's not unique to Hyde; sometimes a different journalist will write the same style but it's always a sarcastic cynical dig at vacuous celebs. Celebs that claim to do charity work in some way are regular (and easy) fodder.

[JMC1]

So who on here is scared of Mr. E then

[radlet6]

I think that what really boils the p*ss here is that some perfectly deserving and talented, but unconnected,person who has worked hard for such an opportunity in TV has been passed over in favour of one of Bilbo's spoilt brats - because let's be honest here she really needs the cash doesn't she?

Good to know that nepotism is alive and well. So no negative PR heading Bilbo's way from SKY TV then?

[vtgts300kw]

JMC1 said:

Oh come on...... He may not be the greatest journalist on the planet, but surely it pisses you of just a little bit to think that your very expensive British GP ticket or your new sky subscription that you are going to need if you want to keep watching F1 in the future is going to help the brats buy more shoes and more houses ect etc.

Jealous... hell yes but they do not do themselves any favours courting the press and rubbing everybody's noses in it. Be rich, be young, be happy but be a little more considerate of how your family comes by it.

A lot of young drivers bust their b...ocks and never reach F1 and are left skint for the priveledge of trying which is probably just, but remember those who tried and remember the poor paying public that keep the Ecclestone family in their ivory towers.

:facepalm:

[Derek Smith]

Rude-boy said:

Don't get me wrong, they do not appear to be the sort of girls i would like to associate with (forgetting the money involved), but that article is a perfect example of the gushing sewer of utter ste spewed forth by many people in the Media who pretend that their observations count for more than a good fart.

I'm not sure writers do pretend their observations count for anything. The classic definition of a writer is someone who counts words and to a great extent this is true. The job consists of balancing the needs of the editor with those of the readers. They do not always coincide. It is no good being thought a superb columnist by the editor if no one reads the article, an easy thing to ascertain online.

After editing a magazine for four years I can tell you that the best writers are those who hit the wordage, write in English and submit before the deadline. If they produce articles that get talked about then that is a bonus.

A good phrase is one which gets a reaction.

Whilst the author of this article might appear to be jealous, she might not be. The image that Clarkson portrays in his writing is unlikely to reflect what he honestly feels and believes. He's supplying a need. A generous, forgiving and open-minded Clarkson is not what readers want. A vapid, empty-headed Glenda Slagg type can generate readers. Every time you write something in the comments of an article you raise the ratings of the author.

Writers, at least those who wish to keep their job, will not be self-indulgent. They will slant in a way that the editor wants.

I was once praised by an editor who had taken a whole series of articles from me without rejecting any. (This before I was an editor myself so I now realise that he probably would have accepted one or two that were borderline at most.) I asked him what made me so good. I used to struggle to find the right words, once holding onto an article for a couple of months before coming up with just the right word. I took, and still do, my writing seriously. His reply was somewhat deflating.

"I don't have to rewrite it."

Most professional writers will allow the subject to put themselves away. The Ecclestone girls seem willing to put themselves in the frame. Another columnist might write about how hard it is for those mega-rich women to know who is only after their money. They too probably won't believe what they write. That is not what they are there for.

Criticise the Media all you want but it supplies a need. If people didn't want to read it the publication would fold. It is very competative out there.

[zac510]

The article in the OP has so many lashings of sarcasm how can it be seen as pandering to the celeb culture by rude-boy?

He should read it every week, it's actually quite witty if you understand dry, sarcastic humour.