Journalists: Are Any Of Them Not ****s?
Discussion
Pothole said:
The opening of your final paragraph tells me all I need to know. A child is not an object.
It is, however, a vessel you can advise on its course. Whether it follows that advice, it is up to the child.If that was all you could come up with up in terms of a cogent argument on the nature of my soul, well that says more about you to be honest.
nayf said:
Pothole said:
The opening of your final paragraph tells me all I need to know. A child is not an object.
It is, however, a vessel you can advise on its course. Whether it follows that advice, it is up to the child.If that was all you could come up with up in terms of a cogent argument on the nature of my soul, well that says more about you, to be honest.
Pothole said:
Right there we see the reason for falling standards! Does it not bother you that your credibility may be undermined by such errors?
Oddly enough, my posts don't tend to be littered with spelling mistakes. When it starts occurring frequently, without the aid of a couple of pints, perhaps I will start proof reading my PH posts. As it stands, somebody Googling my name for evidence of published work would do bloody well to stumble upon this thread. It would be ironic in the least, in a thread about ****s, if somebody did go to the trouble to find out my name and write it on here.
Whatever happens, there's a world of difference between a feature that's written over days, printed, edited, sub edited and published, and a forum post that's written while watching Grand Designs.
As to personal credibility - it's Pistonheads, if people like and respect me then great. If they don't, I'm not going to have sleepless nights over it. The vast majority of my posts are not provocative - this thread just annoyed me due to ignorant generalisations being bandied about.
I've met a lot of journalists, and it's few and far between that any outside of the big newspapers are cocks. Those people aren't represented here, despite the fact most people will happily read their work in the form of car magazines / websites / blogs et al.
pthelazyjourno said:
Pothole said:
Right there we see the reason for falling standards! Does it not bother you that your credibility may be undermined by such errors?
Oddly enough, my posts don't tend to be littered with spelling mistakes. When it starts occurring frequently, without the aid of a couple of pints, perhaps I will start proof reading my PH posts. As it stands, somebody Googling my name for evidence of published work would do bloody well to stumble upon this thread. It would be ironic in the least, in a thread about ****s, if somebody did go to the trouble to find out my name and write it on here.
Whatever happens, there's a world of difference between a feature that's written over days, printed, edited, sub edited and published, and a forum post that's written while watching Grand Designs.
As to personal credibility - it's Pistonheads, if people like and respect me then great. If they don't, I'm not going to have sleepless nights over it. The vast majority of my posts are not provocative - this thread just annoyed me due to ignorant generalisations being bandied about.
I've met a lot of journalists, and it's few and far between that any outside of the big newspapers are cocks. Those people aren't represented here, despite the fact most people will happily read their work in the form of car magazines / websites / blogs et al.
If I see something like this in an article in a paper or on a supposedly serious news website, I often stop reading the piece, or am given to believe that the writer may well not have researched it very well, that their approach to the story may have been as slapdash as their approach to learning English in the first place, or making sure they got it right in the final edit. That may make me a snob. I can live with that.
Elroy Blue said:
The contact I've had with the press involves them completely making stories up, demanding details of the dead before families have been informed (And I mean demand). Ignoring facts that they've been told becuase it doesn't fit into the spin they want to put on things and camping out on families doorsteps regardless of their wishes. It hasn't been a minor percentage and local rags are the worst (aside from the Daily Wail, an utter joke of a publication)
I'm not disputing that, and I agree with you 100 per cent about **those** members of the press. However, despite the readerships that such publications boast, there is still a huge and diverse number of publications and journalists that you'll never, ever come into contact with - because there's no reason to, and because there's no negative fallout.
It's like calling **all** teenagers a bunch of car thieves, murderers, w*****s, because of the proportionately small number of young criminals you actually arrest.
It's wrong, obviously, but it's extrapolating from those you have dealt with.
Why would you deal with the guy who reviews country and western music for a small publication? Why would you speak to somebody who writes news about the latest films for a large publishers? Or the chap who writes PR news for public relations people? Why would you speak to somebody who sub edits copy, and tells newbies where to put hyphens? They're all members of the press - they're all journalists, and there's no reason to call them a bunch of ****s!!
It's unlikely you'll meet them anyway - that's the whole point. There's no reason to. So again, it's tarring an entire industry because of the actions of a few.
The bottom line is to get rid of the free press and tie the hands of journalists, which some are seeming to advocate.
Hmm.
Just quote the old US President Thomas Jefferson: he had a VERY wise head.
'Where the press is free, and every man able to read, all is safe.'
One American wrote the following of Jefferson:
Jefferson advocated and supported a free press, and yet Thomas Jefferson was savaged by the press.
He was excoriated by the press.
He was abused more by the press than Bill Clinton, or Richard Nixon, or anybody that we have had in recent times.
Thomas Jefferson was savaged by the press.
Excoriated.
And he was human. He didn't like it.
He went nose to nose with a couple of editors in Philadelphia.
He said to one Philadelphia paper:
"Nothing in this paper is true, with the possible exception of the advertising, and I question that."
And yet that wise Thomas Jefferson, in a moment of truth, said,
"If I had to choose between government without newspapers, or newspapers without government, I wouldn't hesitate to choose the latter."
After all he had been through, he was wise enough to understand.
And there is no one here that has been through as much as Thomas Jefferson. There is no one in Washington that has been through as much as Thomas Jefferson, but he said,
"If I had to choose between government without newspapers, and newspapers without government," he would take his morning newspaper every time.
Hmm.
Just quote the old US President Thomas Jefferson: he had a VERY wise head.
'Where the press is free, and every man able to read, all is safe.'
One American wrote the following of Jefferson:
Jefferson advocated and supported a free press, and yet Thomas Jefferson was savaged by the press.
He was excoriated by the press.
He was abused more by the press than Bill Clinton, or Richard Nixon, or anybody that we have had in recent times.
Thomas Jefferson was savaged by the press.
Excoriated.
And he was human. He didn't like it.
He went nose to nose with a couple of editors in Philadelphia.
He said to one Philadelphia paper:
"Nothing in this paper is true, with the possible exception of the advertising, and I question that."
And yet that wise Thomas Jefferson, in a moment of truth, said,
"If I had to choose between government without newspapers, or newspapers without government, I wouldn't hesitate to choose the latter."
After all he had been through, he was wise enough to understand.
And there is no one here that has been through as much as Thomas Jefferson. There is no one in Washington that has been through as much as Thomas Jefferson, but he said,
"If I had to choose between government without newspapers, and newspapers without government," he would take his morning newspaper every time.
Pothole said:
I'm not convinced it was a simple spelling mistake. I have no proof, that is just my opinion.
If I see something like this in an article in a paper or on a supposedly serious news website, I often stop reading the piece, or am given to believe that the writer may well not have researched it very well, that their approach to the story may have been as slapdash as their approach to learning English in the first place, or making sure they got it right in the final edit. That may make me a snob. I can live with that.
Well I'm certainly not going to try and convince you otherwise - you've already expressed a host of misguided thoughts, so one more won't do any harm. Best if we ignore each other from here. If I see something like this in an article in a paper or on a supposedly serious news website, I often stop reading the piece, or am given to believe that the writer may well not have researched it very well, that their approach to the story may have been as slapdash as their approach to learning English in the first place, or making sure they got it right in the final edit. That may make me a snob. I can live with that.
Incidentally, there has indeed been a huge fall in standards. A lot of it is due to the way media is consumed - readers want it now, and they don't want to pay a penny. So publishers tighten their belts. Which unfortunately results in less people doing more work, with far tighter deadlines, and editing stripped back or even cut out altogether. Doesn't take a genius to predict the outcome.
Are there any criminal offences for journalists printing things that were obviously false or where they have printed somehting but have clearly been negligent in printing withotu checking basic facts?
Perhaps if we have more control we could erase some of the crap but still allow the freedom for quality reporting?
Seems to me like peopel can just print pretty much naything thesedays under the banner of journalism/free speech - which they hsould be of course, but not blatant lies or unverifiable stuff.
Perhaps if we have more control we could erase some of the crap but still allow the freedom for quality reporting?
Seems to me like peopel can just print pretty much naything thesedays under the banner of journalism/free speech - which they hsould be of course, but not blatant lies or unverifiable stuff.
Mojooo said:
Are there any criminal offences for journalists printing things that were obviously false or where they have printed somehting but have clearly been negligent in printing withotu checking basic facts?
Perhaps if we have more control we could erase some of the crap but still allow the freedom for quality reporting?
Seems to me like peopel can just print pretty much naything thesedays under the banner of journalism/free speech - which they hsould be of course, but not blatant lies or unverifiable stuff.
If you publish something that's incorrect, you can get sued for libel. Your editor can get sued for libel. Your publisher can get sued for libel. Perhaps if we have more control we could erase some of the crap but still allow the freedom for quality reporting?
Seems to me like peopel can just print pretty much naything thesedays under the banner of journalism/free speech - which they hsould be of course, but not blatant lies or unverifiable stuff.
Papers like the Sun have a very large pot for legal battles or just for paying up when they're in the wrong. The problem is, if it's going to sell 5m newspapers, they may well see it as worth the gamble.
You can also contact the PCC if you have any specific complaints.
OP: I was impressed by your reasoned, articulate, and well-balanced thoughts At least you didn't lump all of them in the same category and condemn them all regardless of what media they work for ... oh wait.
(PS): Here's a thought to hang on to. How do you think the 'phone hacking' scandal saw the light of day?
(PS): Here's a thought to hang on to. How do you think the 'phone hacking' scandal saw the light of day?
Edited by audidoody on Sunday 1st January 10:45
Pothole said:
pthelazyjourno said:
Pothole said:
nut don't you all aspire to work for the 'big newspapers...
Responded...I thought people who write for a living generally have an interest in being understood and communicating. That surely means they learn the language they intend to communicate in, consider what they write and check it before clicking 'submit', doesn't it?
I didnt realise they still existed. Most 'journalists' jobs nowadays seem to consist of relaying corporate and govt press releases, but with a bit of bad spelling and grammar added in to prove what retards they are.
Most current affairs blogging types do a far better job for no remuneration.
Most current affairs blogging types do a far better job for no remuneration.
A few decades ago, Billy Bragg included these lyrics in a song about the national press.
Where they offer you a feature
On stockings and suspenders
Next to a call for stiffer penalties for sex offenders
Things haven't changed much, and I'll blame the consumers and media owners for it more than the journos.
Where they offer you a feature
On stockings and suspenders
Next to a call for stiffer penalties for sex offenders
Things haven't changed much, and I'll blame the consumers and media owners for it more than the journos.
spikeyhead said:
A few decades ago, Billy Bragg included these lyrics in a song about the national press.
Where they offer you a feature
On stockings and suspenders
Next to a call for stiffer penalties for sex offenders
Things haven't changed much, and I'll blame the consumers and media owners for it more than the journos.
Wise words.Where they offer you a feature
On stockings and suspenders
Next to a call for stiffer penalties for sex offenders
Things haven't changed much, and I'll blame the consumers and media owners for it more than the journos.
I really despise the hypocrytical toerag, so it takes alot for me to praise him.
Lost_BMW said:
Pothole said:
pthelazyjourno said:
Pothole said:
nut don't you all aspire to work for the 'big newspapers...
Responded...I thought people who write for a living generally have an interest in being understood and communicating. That surely means they learn the language they intend to communicate in, consider what they write and check it before clicking 'submit', doesn't it?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff