View previous topic | View next topic

Not just media and politicians doing spin

Page 2 of 2
Goto page Previous  1, 2

bobwilson
899035.  Wed Apr 04, 2012 8:56 pm Reply with quote

Strawberry wrote:
bob wilson did once say that work was a way of keeping stupid people off the streets.


Did I say that? Must have been in one of my more lucid moments.

Neotenic wrote:
bobwilson desperately needs a job.


You’re not far wrong there Neo – although not in the amusingly sarcastic way I think you meant it. The more successul I am in my work, the less chance I have of getting paid – and recently, I’ve been very successful. Philosophically, that’s fine (I work on the principle that the ultimate aim of any employment is to make oneself redundant). Unfortunately, the rest of the world still mostly works on the principle that people get paid for doing a job rather than for doing useful work.

But to move on to CB’s post

Quote:
I find that when you don't see a reporter's name on an article it's something that came through the wire and picked up, so a responsible editor will not put a name to it. A quick look around will show a very similarly worded article in a number of media websites.


Well, that would be a reasonable assumption but it’s not how most of the media work. There are any number of daily reports which are attributed to a specific reporter, sometimes even billed as “exclusives”, which are minor rewrites of wire stories.

Having said that, I’d agree that a responsible publishing editor wouldn’t put a name to a wire story – but the story must have been written by somebody at some point. It’s the editor’s job to look at the information being given to him, assess it, decide if it’s publishable in its’ current form or needs to be further investigated by one of his own team (who would then be justified in being credited as the author of the final story) etc.

Quote:
My point about spin, journalists and politicians was about how they are vilified in general for spin, when it's something that we accept so readily from other people.


Do we accept it from other people – do other people even engage in it (outside of the advertising world which is just the bastard, mentally deficient, younger brother of journalism)?

I’ve reread the story (and the OP) several times now and I still can’t see anything I’d call spin by the Catholic Church. If I’ve read the OP correctly what it says is that the Church “spin” is:

The news reports are stating that the police have confirmed that the priest had no knowledge of the displayed images – whereas the actual facts are that the police have not indicated whether the priest had anything to do with the images, merely that the images are not in any way criminal.

If we put this into more accessible terms:

Imagine a visiting non-native English speaking priest had stood in his pulpit and (reading from a script allegedly prepared for him) announced that “wanking” was a sin, after allegedly having been informed that “wanking” is a term for masturbation. Some people in the audience object to the use of the term “wanking” considering it profanity. The Church authorities refer the matter to the Police for a determination on the legalities, and are informed that using the word “wanking” is not a public order offence (at least in this instance).

What’s important is that there’s no crime being committed (either in the use of the word, or - in the original story - in the compilation of the images).

The spin emanates entirely from the “fnarr, fnarr” brigade who are seeking to vilify Catholic priests because they happen to be the current target. (This is probably some Catholic guilt thing among journalists who’ve studiously ignored investigating real abuse for the past 50 years).

As it says in the OP

Quote:
"The priest has stated that he had no knowledge of the offending imagery. The archdiocese immediately sought the advice of the PSNI who indicated that, on the basis of the evidence available, no crime had been committed."


Since the priest claims no knowledge of the imagery it doesn’t matter whether the imagery is legal, illegal, moral or immoral. What matters is that the Church instantly sought advice from a competent authority (good for them, long may this attitude continue).

The only spin I see is “Catholic priest, naked men, children in the audience” – which is the product of a sick mind.

Unsurprisingly, the sick mind in question belongs to .......... a journalist. Whether the sick minded journalist is employed by a wire service or by a defined news outlet is irrelevant. It's the editor's job to remove this kind of chaff from his own publication.

Nonetheless CB – do tell of an instance when spin has been used by “other people” – other, that is, than journalists, politicians and (as mentioned above) the moronic younger brothers of journalists?

 
'yorz
899045.  Thu Apr 05, 2012 12:05 am Reply with quote

Here's another spin, that I quoted in another thread:

Today's Indie:
Quote:
Sex Attack on Soldier Claim at Army Helicopter Base
A soldier has allegedly suffered a sex attack by three servicemen at an Army helicopter base. [...] The base is home to 3 and 4 Regiment Army Air Corps. Prince Harry, an Apache helicopter pilot, is stationed there but it is believed he was not on the base at the time.

Puerile insinuation.

 
bobwilson
899537.  Fri Apr 06, 2012 9:27 pm Reply with quote

Well, this could turn out to be a fascinating thread after all.

Starting with ‘yorz’s last post

That’s not spin ‘yorz. It’s not even puerile insinuation. It’s just sleb gossip – along the lines of “my cousin once knew a bloke who’s aunt was a friend of someone who had a maid who worked with someone who met a woman who served iced tea to somebody who was in an adjacent room when a friend nearly met the queen ........ – and guess what, my cousin also once met Peter Sutcliffe – Royal Connection or what?’

Given the number of sex attacks on and by service personnel it's a sad reflection on society that they only get reported when there's a spurious royal connection.

Spin (as correctly identified by CB in the OP) would be manipulating the direct facts to present a story in a different light (either favourable or unfavourable).

What CB (incorrectly) identified as spin was the Catholic Church’s collected actions in this case.

The uncontested facts are that some images were displayed which could have caused offence to the assembled audience (and it’s fair imo to adopt the position that such offence could have been reasonably foreseen); that some members of that audience were indeed offended; and that the matter was referred to the police.

What the Catholic Church did was to immediately report the matter to the police (not surprising given their track record). That’s the first opportunity for spin – the Catholic Church could easily have claimed they’d learned the lessons of recent events and involved the secular authorities asap. But they didn’t take the Mandelson option in this instance.

Instead, they waited for the verdict of the police who told them that “taking pictures of children playing hopscotch” is in no way criminal and that “some prurient indviduals with an overactive imagination might be offended” doesn’t make this a matter for criminal investigation. (Both "quotes" are, of course, apocryphal, and my subjective interpretation).

Having been cleared of any wrongdoing – and no doubt feeding the waiting press-pack – the Catholic Church quite correctly stated that, after being initially concerned about possible illegal (or immoral) activity they were satisfied that there was no wrongdoing (whether legally wrong or morally wrong).

If we just go back to CB’s original post what CB says is

Quote:
Part of (the Catholic Cardinal’s) statement read: "The priest has stated that he had no knowledge of the offending imagery. The archdiocese immediately sought the advice of the PSNI who indicated that, on the basis of the evidence available, no crime had been committed."


CB immediately follows this with

Quote:
This, along with the rest of the statement suggests the police don't think the priest had anything to do with the images (as I've seen suggested in much plainer terms in some media), but that's not what's actually being said.


So, the story is “shock horror” – Catholic priest displays images which are not in any way criminal, denies any knowledge of the non-criminal images, falsely claims that the police accept the priest had nothing to do with the images.

I doff my cap. Anyone who could take a story that begins with the display of non-criminal images and transpose this into a story about a Catholic priest lying by falsely claiming that the police had cleared him of knowingly using the non-criminal images when they’d actually just cleared the images of being criminal deserves some respect.

I nominate CB for the Peter Mandelson Award for prurient bullshit. May he wear it proudly and gain acceptance as a spokesman for the party of his choice.

For the benefit of anyone who wants to compete for this coveted award I’d like to inform everyone that this weekend I’ll be taking my nephew swimming – he’s 7, and we’ll probably be appearing in the showers together at some point. Draw your own conclusions (although sadly for CB and his mates I’m not a Catholic Priest).

 
'yorz
899540.  Fri Apr 06, 2012 11:58 pm Reply with quote

Quote:
Sex Attack on Soldier Claim at Army Helicopter Base
A soldier has allegedly suffered a sex attack by three servicemen at an Army helicopter base. [...] The base is home to 3 and 4 Regiment Army Air Corps. Prince Harry, an Apache helicopter pilot, is stationed there but it is believed he was not on the base at the time.

Beg your pardon, bob - but I read that as spin and insinuation. Two facts that have nowt to do with eachother are spun into one story, now with the added suggestion that Harry could have been involved in the attack had he been on the basis: he could have known about the plans, could have participated in the attack*, or could even have been a potential victim/target. Take your pick. The fact that to you this does not represent spin doesn't rob me of my right to read it differently.

As you wrote yourself:
Quote:
Spin (as correctly identified by CB in the OP) would be manipulating the direct facts to present a story in a different light (either favourable or unfavourable).


Edit: added * to mention another option, namely that Harry - had he been there at the time - could have intervened and come to the unfortunate's rescue. There. I think I've covered the deliberate insinuation now from all angles.


Last edited by 'yorz on Sun Apr 08, 2012 2:02 am; edited 1 time in total

 
CB27
899624.  Sat Apr 07, 2012 11:32 am Reply with quote

That's alright yorz, he's spinning it up as he's going along...

 
'yorz
899627.  Sat Apr 07, 2012 11:54 am Reply with quote

There's also the possibility that I read things into that paragraph that others don't, so that would mean 'spin' is rather subjective.

 
bobwilson
900061.  Sun Apr 08, 2012 8:06 pm Reply with quote

No, no and thrice no ‘yorz.

Taking your quoted statement as being accurate what it has is

Headline wrote:
Sex Attack on Soldier Claim at Army Helicopter Base


text wrote:
A soldier has allegedly suffered a sex attack by three servicemen at an Army helicopter base. [...] The base is home to 3 and 4 Regiment Army Air Corps. Prince Harry, an Apache helicopter pilot, is stationed there but it is believed he was not on the base at the time.


I agree that it’s a ridiculously unnecessary mention of Prince Harry in a story, a bit like those ITV shows “An audience with.....” where they spend far too long telling us who’s in the audience (30 seconds would be too long imho).

But in this case it’s neither insinuation nor spin (except in the broadest possible sense of those terms which would make them meaningless).

Spin would be if the headline read “Prince Harry in sex attack scare” or (from the opposing anti-royalist pov) “Soldier subjected to sex attack at Prince Harry base”. Insinuation would be something like “Prince Harry not present at time of alleged sex attack” (which implies that Prince Harry might be involved in sex attacks, although not in this particular instance).

I’m a bit disappointed that CB’s only response to an instance of actual spin – as referenced in my

Quote:
So, the story is “shock horror” – Catholic priest displays images which are not in any way criminal, denies any knowledge of the non-criminal images, falsely claims that the police accept the priest had nothing to do with the images.

I doff my cap. Anyone who could take a story that begins with the display of non-criminal images and transpose this into a story about a Catholic priest lying by falsely claiming that the police had cleared him of knowingly using the non-criminal images when they’d actually just cleared the images of being criminal deserves some respect.


doesn’t include an apology for an unfortunate instance of his being misleading.

Trust me CB – it’s cathartic to admit when you’re wrong, especially when hoodwinked by some slick marketing. Blustering just makes you look like an idiot (which you’re clearly not).

 
CB27
900069.  Sun Apr 08, 2012 10:02 pm Reply with quote

Give it up bob: post 898844

 
'yorz
900072.  Sun Apr 08, 2012 11:13 pm Reply with quote

Mine:
Quote:
Prince Harry, an Apache helicopter pilot, is stationed there but it is believed he was not on the base at the time.

Yours
Quote:
Spin would be “Soldier subjected to sex attack at Prince Harry base”.
Insinuation would be something like “Prince Harry not present at time of alleged sex attack” (which implies that Prince Harry might be involved in sex attacks, although not in this particular instance).


The only difference between your take and my take is that yours would feature in the headline and mine is in the text body.

I'm getting tired of this. I'll just have to accept that I am a moron who cannot read.

 
suze
901108.  Thu Apr 12, 2012 8:33 am Reply with quote

Thanks to Strawberry on another thread for this.

The matter of the priest and the porn had gone rather quiet, but apparently the priest had been told that at some point the higher ups might want a look at his laptop.

Now you're not going to believe this, but they can't now do that - the laptop has been stolen during a robbery at his church. No sign of a break in - but then rural churches are often left unlocked, so that's not a massive surprise - and nothing else was taken.

 
'yorz
901144.  Thu Apr 12, 2012 9:39 am Reply with quote

Some randy soul must have really curious about those piccies.

 
CB27
901183.  Thu Apr 12, 2012 11:31 am Reply with quote

Did Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson have a good alibi for the night in question? :)

 
'yorz
901188.  Thu Apr 12, 2012 11:59 am Reply with quote

Reactions on Strawberry's link in another thread:

paul on April 12, 2012 at 12:35 pm said:
Quote:
Get thee in my behind Satan!!


Mick on April 12, 2012 at 2:12 pm said:
Quote:
Is this an episode of Fr. Ted?

 

Page 2 of 2
Goto page Previous  1, 2

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group