The Terrible Journalism & Tom English Thread

[Luddite]

20 hours ago, Clown Job said:

That’s horrific 

 

Horrific in what way?

[Luddite]

23 hours ago, DA Baracus said:

Are folk doubting that it was offensive shit said?

Multiple people walked out. Are we to believe they were all being unreasonable?

Or do you 'need to see the comments for yourself'?

Doesn’t it depend on who said what, who heard it and in what context it was said?

To answer your second question, do I think human beings are capable of being unreasonable…yes, I do.

I would like to read the comments myself and form an opinion, not be told how outraged I should be.

Edited May 10, 2022 by Luddite

[Clown Job]

15 minutes ago, Luddite said:

Horrific in what way?

In a racist, homophobic, misogynist way.

[Luddite]

7 minutes ago, Clown Job said:

In a racist, homophobic, misogynist way.

Got it. Just “horrific” seems a little melodramatic, for me personally.  I can understand a multi-vehicle pile up being described as “horrific”.  A man saying words, less so.

Again, I understand that’s just me . Thanks for the response

Edited May 10, 2022 by Luddite

[Clown Job]

15 minutes ago, Luddite said:

Got it. Just “horrific” seems a little melodramatic, for me personally.  I can understand a multi-vehicle pile up being described as “horrific”.  A man saying words, less so.

Again, I understand that’s just me . Thanks for the response

I’m sorry if you’re upset you with the use of my words to describe his behaviour 

 

[Luddite]

15 minutes ago, Clown Job said:

I’m sorry if you’re upset you with the use of my words to describe his behaviour 

 

Upset? Again that seems a tad hyperbolic if you consider I made a simple enquiry about your choice of words and then politely thanked you for your response.

Again, thank you for your response

I have also given your comment a green-likey-positive affirmation upvote thingy, hopefully to assure you of my placid nature

 

[DA Baracus]

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/61349288

[Doctor Manhattan]

5 minutes ago, DA Baracus said:

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/61349288

Surprised at the BBC starting up their own Banter Years thread. Not very original, but let's all pile in anyway.

[RiG]

Eilidh Barbour has written a piece in The Telegraph (which isn't behind a paywall for me at least) on the award show walk out.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/womens-sport/2022/05/10/racism-sexism-not-laughing-matters-had-walk-sfw-awards-dinner/?utm_content=women sport&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1652221196-1

[Florentine_Pogen]

12 hours ago, Doctor Manhattan said:

Surprised at the BBC starting up their own Banter Years thread. Not very original, but let's all pile in anyway.

No surprise that BBC Glasgow seem to have given up on basic journalistic research. It is a matter of fact that 'Rangers' ceased to exist in 2012.

They should be using 'The Rangers', Sevco5088 or ZombieHvns2012, shoorely ?

 

[AJF]

15 minutes ago, RiG said:

Eilidh Barbour has written a piece in The Telegraph (which isn't behind a paywall for me at least) on the award show walk out.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/womens-sport/2022/05/10/racism-sexism-not-laughing-matters-had-walk-sfw-awards-dinner/?utm_content=women sport&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1652221196-1

A really good piece. It's concise and while she touches on her own experience regarding her love for football and how she felt, she then shifts attention from herself and on to the wider issue at hand.

[DA Baracus]

How are there still unfunny scumbags like this Copeland arsehole getting gigs above the level of shitehole pubs? 

Why did the organisers feel it appropriate to hire this c**t, knowing what his shite material features? Given the diversity of Scottish football, which is growing quite a bit and certainly is more diverse than it used to be, why did they feel it necessary to hire a homophobic, racist, sexist bigot? What would that have said to the players, coaches and other staff involved in the game who aren't white, protestant males?

Some of the terms used I haven't heard in years. Abysmal stuff.

[Bairnardo]

How are there still unfunny scumbags like this Copeland arsehole getting gigs above the level of shitehole pubs? 
Why did the organisers feel it appropriate to hire this c**t, knowing what his shite material features? Given the diversity of Scottish football, which is growing quite a bit and certainly is more diverse than it used to be, why did they feel it necessary to hire a homophobic, racist, sexist bigot? What would that have said to the players, coaches and other staff involved in the game who aren't white, protestant males?
Some of the terms used I haven't heard in years. Abysmal stuff.

It's absolutely no surprise that these people still have an audience, that thousands and thousands among us find their shit funny.

But as to getting that particular booking, yeah, an absolutely wild misstep from the SFWA

[williemillersmoustache]

2 minutes ago, DA Baracus said:

How are there still unfunny scumbags like this Copeland arsehole getting gigs above the level of shitehole pubs? 

Why did the organisers feel it appropriate to hire this c**t, knowing what his shite material features? Given the diversity of Scottish football, which is growing quite a bit and certainly is more diverse than it used to be, why did they feel it necessary to hire a homophobic, racist, sexist bigot? What would that have said to the players, coaches and other staff involved in the game who aren't white, protestant males?

Some of the terms used I haven't heard in years. Abysmal stuff.

Reeks of jobs for the boys, "I know the very fellow for this, I met him at....well never mind where I met him *wink* but he's on the level"

 

[Ric]

Just for clarity, horrific comes from the French, it is derived from the same word in modern day French that refers to people being shocked. In common parlance, and thanks to the increased hyperbole of "social media debate", it seems to be only associated with the most egregious act, but in fact, describing Copeland's words as "horrific" is entirely acceptable, etymologically at least.

53 minutes ago, DA Baracus said:

How are there still unfunny scumbags like this Copeland arsehole getting gigs above the level of shitehole pubs?

It's supply and demand, DA, you know how this goes. If there is some degenerate that wants to hear sexist, racist and just down right awful shit, they'll be someone there to deliver it.

2 hours ago, AJF said:

A really good piece. It's concise and while she touches on her own experience regarding her love for football and how she felt, she then shifts attention from herself and on to the wider issue at hand.

Yeah, I think both her and Bennet have done a decent job here. Misogynists just love confronting and belittling women, Barbour will be well aware of that (as we all should be, to be honest) so the idea that she could just say her piece then move on was never an option. Highlighting this sort of offensive chat will only result in equally, if not worse, offensive chat coming her way because the trolls know she reacts to it (again, as we all should).

This should shine a light on some very un-reconstructed white boomer males who think everything is fair game because they get little push back on it from their audience. Copeland has said he agrees with the statement that was put out but it's a shitty statement, "We are sorry for you being offended", is not the way to handle this and their PR along with anyone who booked Copeland should really waken up.

Edited May 11, 2022 by Ric

[Jimmain]

I dated a journo back in the late 80's/early 90's, and was dragged to many a hack dinner or night out. They are generally, self absorbed, horrible fucking c***s. 

Incidentally I met my Ex a few years ago, and she had taken a couple of DR hacks to court for sexual harassment in the workplace. They settled out of Court, as according to my Ex's Lawyer they didn't have a leg to stand on. Of course, the p***ks kept their jobs.

It clearly hasn't changed much since then...

 

 

[Luddite]

1 hour ago, Ric said:

Just for clarity, horrific comes from the French, it is derived from the same word in modern day French that refers to people being shocked. In common parlance, and thanks to the increased hyperbole of "social media debate", it seems to be only associated with the most egregious act, but in fact, describing Copeland's words as "horrific" is entirely acceptable, etymologically at least.

I’m not sure who requires “clarity” on the word horrific or that it is synonymous with words like “shocking” , but as I’m the only one on here that queried the poster’s choice of word I assume this is aimed at me (in which case you probably should have tagged me).

For “clarity” , if you re-read my post, I didn’t question his choice of word with claims that it made his sentence in any way unintelligible. I was enquiring about the particular events that “horrify” (or “shock” , if you prefer) a fellow human being who, I assume, has been living through and experiencing the same onslaught of wild and absurd events that I have over the past decade or so.

As I politely stated in my original message I understand that what shocks or horrifies (or offends ?) someone is a personal matter, though am regularly confused/amused/bemused at how sensitive many people appear to be.

I don’t know if it is mere “virtue signaling” or if people genuinely struggle to deal with some of these things.

The last time I think I felt genuinely horrified or shocked was probably seeing images of American citizens trying to overthrow their government on Jan 6th 2021.

I think you touched on my point when you referenced hyperbolic social media.
Words end up losing value.

[Ric]

25 minutes ago, Luddite said:

I’m not sure who requires “clarity” on the word horrific or that it is synonymous with words like “shocking” , but as I’m the only one on here that queried the poster’s choice of word I assume this is aimed at me (in which case you probably should have tagged me).

For “clarity” , if you re-read my post, I didn’t question his choice of word with claims that it made his sentence in any way unintelligible. I was enquiring about the particular events that “horrify” (or “shock” , if you prefer) a fellow human being who, I assume, has been living through and experiencing the same onslaught of wild and absurd events that I have over the past decade or so.

As I politely stated in my original message I understand that what shocks or horrifies (or offends ?) someone is a personal matter, though am regularly confused/amused/bemused at how sensitive many people appear to be.

I don’t know if it is mere “virtue signaling” or if people genuinely struggle to deal with some of these things.

The last time I think I felt genuinely horrified or shocked was probably seeing images of American citizens trying to overthrow their government on Jan 6th 2021.

I think you touched on my point when you referenced hyperbolic social media.
Words end up losing value.

Simply pointing out the meaning of the word and that its usage is correct. I posted other comments too, the reply was not specifically directed at you.

The whole "genuinely confused/amused/bemused at how sensitive people can be" is lacking in context. Surely you understand why someone would be offended by racism, bigotry, hatred and misogyny? If not, spend some time with people who encounter that sort of stuff on a regular basis and you'll be less confused, amused or bemused in the future. I should point out that is not a dig, I am constantly learning and regularly get it wrong.

When was the last time I was horrified? I'm horrified on an almost daily basis. Whether that be our domestic politics, or the within wider world.

[Luddite]

4 hours ago, Ric said:

Simply pointing out the meaning of the word and that its usage is correct. I posted other comments too, the reply was not specifically directed at you.

The whole "genuinely confused/amused/bemused at how sensitive people can be" is lacking in context. Surely you understand why someone would be offended by racism, bigotry, hatred and misogyny? If not, spend some time with people who encounter that sort of stuff on a regular basis and you'll be less confused, amused or bemused in the future. I should point out that is not a dig, I am constantly learning and regularly get it wrong.

When was the last time I was horrified? I'm horrified on an almost daily basis. Whether that be our domestic politics, or the within wider world.

You tagged the other people you were replying to. I am the only one who made any question of the word horrific. You’re claiming  that was not in response to what I posted is disingenuous.

In your second paragraph you have swapped the word horrified for the word offended.

I live in the southern United States and have been here for 20 years so consider your request to “spend some time with people who encounter racism on a daily basis” fulfilled. 

I understand that there are regular examples of people claiming to be offended about many things, but if Have an interest in a particular instance I like to assess the details of it and form my own opinion. I would never tell someone they should NOT be offended, but I like to assess myself If I, personally, find it offensive. 

You are horrified a daily basis? Okay, I guess it all comes down to personal thresholds, which I made mention of in both my previous messages.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 11, 2022 by Luddite

[Ric]

1 minute ago, Luddite said:

You’re claiming  that was not in response to what I posted is disingenuous.

Buddy, I quoted others because I was directing my comments specifically to them. I didn't quote you or Clown Job because I wasn't, it was a general point for all.