Nipper Salmond

[eez-eh]

6 hours ago, BawWatchin said:

I'm sure the 15 person jury with the 9 feminists and woman judge will be entirely impartial....

What the f**k is wrong with you?

[Genuine Hibs Fan]

 

1 hour ago, ICTJohnboy said:

 

Yep....

So much for a fair trial. This is going to be a trial by the fucking media.

I mean, it's fairly obvious that headline is quoting an accuser/witness. What's the issue exactly? And how does it contribute to a 'trial by the media'?

Edited March 10, 2020 by Genuine Hibs Fan

[ICTJohnboy]

1 minute ago, Genuine Hibs Fan said:

So

I mean, it's fairly obvious that headline is quoting an accuser/witness. What's the issue exactly? And how does it contribute to a 'trial by the media'?

 

Can only repeat what BawWatchin said.

"It's stating it as a fact rather than an allegation. They already have him judged before the judgement. How is that allowed to happen?"

[Ira Gaines]

5 minutes ago, Genuine Hibs Fan said:

 

I mean, it's fairly obvious that headline is quoting an accuser/witness. What's the issue exactly? And how does it contribute to a 'trial by the media'?

Oh come on to f**k. On THIS thing at least, BawWatchin does actually have a point.

[BawWatchin]

Just now, Genuine Hibs Fan said:

So

I mean, it's fairly obvious that headline is quoting an accuser/witness. What's the issue exactly? And how does it contribute to a 'trial by the media'?

Actually, they took 2 of her quotes and added some of their own wording inbetween to create that title.

There's quite a difference between:

Woman 'humiliated' after Alex Salmond 'lay on her naked' (the title they used)

and

Woman claims to be 'humiliated' after Salmond allegedly 'lay on her naked' (the title they could have used)

You would think words such as "claim" and "allegedly" would be key to the context at the pre-judgement phase. Not so for the anglo media though who already have the knives out.

[Genuine Hibs Fan]

1 minute ago, ICTJohnboy said:

 

Can only repeat what BawWatchin said.

"It's stating it as a fact rather than an allegation. They already have him judged before the judgement. How is that allowed to happen?"

That it's stating it as a fact? The use of quotations mean that it absolutely is not. That he's been judged before the judgement? If sky news or any other news outlet states, after all evidence is heard but no judgement made, that he is guilty as sin, then yes. Quoting a witness might be a little sensationalist but is in no way out of the ordinary. 

I think you two might have made up your minds more than anyone else here.

[Genuine Hibs Fan]

7 minutes ago, BawWatchin said:

Actually, they took 2 of her quotes and added some of their own wording inbetween to create that title.

There's quite a difference between:

Woman 'humiliated' after Alex Salmond 'lay on her naked' (the title they used)

and

Woman claims to be 'humiliated' after Salmond allegedly 'lay on her naked' (the title they could have used)

You would think words such as "claim" and "allegedly" would be key to the context at the pre-judgement phase. Not so for the anglo media though who already have the knives out.

So you're saying that we shouldn't be able to imply the obvious context for ourselves? 

[BawWatchin]

1 minute ago, Genuine Hibs Fan said:

So you're saying that we shouldn't be able to imply the obvious context for ourselves? 

People generally won't. The title implies that he is already guilty and the vast majority of people who skim past it will process it as such without a second thought. It's entirely deliberate.

[welshbairn]

10 minutes ago, BawWatchin said:

Actually, they took 2 of her quotes and added some of their own wording inbetween to create that title.

There's quite a difference between:

Woman 'humiliated' after Alex Salmond 'lay on her naked' (the title they used)

and

Woman claims to be 'humiliated' after Salmond allegedly 'lay on her naked' (the title they could have used)

You would think words such as "claim" and "allegedly" would be key to the context at the pre-judgement phase. Not so for the anglo media though who already have the knives out.

What's the difference? The apostrophes in the first replace the words in the second quite adequately for a headline, and the meaning isn't altered.

[BawWatchin]

Just now, welshbairn said:

What's the difference? The apostrophes in the first replace the words in the second quite adequately for a headline, and the meaning isn't altered.

The first title implies that it happened. The second one uses the same quotes, but indicates that it's not definitive. The first title feeds you an assumption, the second one doesn't.

[welshbairn]

Just now, BawWatchin said:

The first title implies that it happened. The second one uses the same quotes, but indicates that it's not definitive. The first title feeds you an assumption, the second one doesn't.

No. What do think the apostrophes are for? 

[Savage Henry]

No. What do think the apostrophes are for? 

Alt Nats are going to Alt Nat. Everybody’s biased except the ones I like.

[BawWatchin]

Just now, welshbairn said:

No. What do think the apostrophes are for? 

You're missing the point entirely here. It's the context in which they use the quotes in. It's the same way in which 2 newspapers are able to spin a story in 2 very different directions, while using the same quotes. It's the context in which they use them in.

[Genuine Hibs Fan]

27 minutes ago, BawWatchin said:

People generally won't. The title implies that he is already guilty and the vast majority of people who skim past it will process it as such without a second thought. It's entirely deliberate.

4 minutes ago, BawWatchin said:

You're missing the point entirely here. It's the context in which they use the quotes in. It's the same way in which 2 newspapers are able to spin a story in 2 very different directions, while using the same quotes. It's the context in which they use them in.

I don't think we're missing the point but I am confused by the contradiction. 

The context doesn't matter because your average Joe will read that headline and think he's guilty as sin. Simultaneously, the context of the quotes is key as it shows an attempt to spin the story?

 

[Genuine Hibs Fan]

11 minutes ago, MixuFixit said:

[extremely begrudgingly]

I think Bawwatchin has a bit of a point about what most people take from that headline.

Not that it matters to the jury.

I think he might do too, just not the one he means to. Alt nats will read that and see it as a media stitch-up, mad yoons will read it as a sign he is guilty of sin. Those waiting to see the result can see exactly what is meant because we're not primed to be immediately furious.

It's hard to believe these views would be altered in the slightest by writing to the lowest common denominator. 

[BawWatchin]

4 minutes ago, Genuine Hibs Fan said:

I don't think we're missing the point but I am confused by the contradiction. 

The context doesn't matter because your average Joe will read that headline and think he's guilty as sin. Simultaneously, the context of the quotes is key as it shows an attempt to spin the story?

 

You may not think you are, but your responses clearly indicate that you are missing the point entirely.

Woman 'humiliated' after Alex Salmond 'lay on her naked' isn't indicating an allegation. It's a statement of fact before the judgement. The title already has the reader believing that it has happened. It doesn't leave any context for doubt.

[BawWatchin]

16 minutes ago, MixuFixit said:

Not that it matters to the jury.

The jury are just regular people like the rest of us and they will have skimmed through media headlines like this just like the rest of us and just like the rest of us, it'll have a subscious impact on their judgement of the situation. So it absolutely matters. 

[Genuine Hibs Fan]

1 minute ago, BawWatchin said:

You may not think you are, but your responses clearly indicate that you are missing the point entirely.

Woman 'humiliated' after Alex Salmond 'lay on her naked' isn't indicating an allegation. It's a statement of fact before the judgement. The title already has the reader believing that it has happened. It doesn't leave any context for doubt.

I get it completely. I disagree with you. As has been explained to you many times now, the use of quotations makes it abundantly clear that it is an allegation.

A statement of fact would be - Woman humiliated after Alex Salmond lay on her naked. When a news outlet publishes this I'll be more than happy to be upset about it but I can't pretend not to be able to parse simple English because I support independence. 

[NotThePars]

People would be more likely to concede on BawWatchin’s point if he hadn’t suggested appointing women to a jury meant it was a feminist witch-hunt tbf.

[ICTJohnboy]

4 minutes ago, MixuFixit said:

They'll be instructed not to read any of it.

 

No doubt, but will they adhere to that instruction?