Curiosity wrote:
Captain Caveman wrote:
Sorry, double posted.
MAJOR LOL.
"Sorry, only meant to call you a wanker the once!"
Cavey - I think the main thrust of what most people are saying is that yes, most newspapers seem to have been caught up in this, but not every single reporter or journalist from every single newspaper.
Can you not at least agree that SOME journalists are people of integrity who perform a useful task, and that this is not an irrelevant minority?
If not, then why do you always quote them during arguments?
But seriously Curio, and I'm trying to be as even-handed as possible, I honestly thought it was pretty clear from what I was saying that,
in my opinion, "many" journalists (UK newspaper journalists obv., since that is entirely and exclusively what we have been talking about
right from the off and in specific response to a lack of surprise at the specific antics of phone hacking newspaper journalists by Grim... and myself -
not car mag or village newsletter "journos" FFS, etc.) were 'scumbags'?
Most people who read newspapers, read tabloids. Their cumulative circulation is much greater than the 'quality' press. Most newspaper journalists are employed by the tabloid, not quality press. On the basis of numbers/percentages, all fair comment then?
I've also tried to argue that even the quality press is not the paragon of virtue that they seem to claim when judging others, as well, with a fair number of what I thought were reasonable, recent examples, and other stuff that PSJ kindly posted.
Regardless though, and I'm perfectly happy for people to disagree, there really is no need for this kind of thing. (My consolation, I suspect, is that most people would doubtless broadly agree with me?)
As I have intimated, I have my own, deeply personal reasons for hating the newspaper press, which I won't go into, but is related to my nasty incident of some many years ago now.
Anyway, 'nuff said. I have my view and that hasn't changed; I'm perfectly happy if other people hold an alternate view and don't feel the need to mock, flame, provoke, patronise and/or insult them for this.
_________________
Beware of gavia articulata oculos...
Dr Lave wrote:
Of course, he's normally wrong but
interestingly wrong