So, I guess his positions can be paraphrased as;
"I would NEVER go on Jeremy Kyle, that is disgusting. Ringing the Daily Record to talk about though is different.".
Kyle does it to make money. The newspaper does it to make money. Where *does* he think the difference lies?
|
I think its unfair to say there is no difference.
The step dad wants to air his views and doing so in a newspaper in a non-sensationalist way is the best way to reach an audience, whereas the tv show is pure theatre and strives only to create ratings and discord for the sake of it.
|
Non-sensationalist...?
"Murder victim's family slam Jeremy Kyle show as 'odious' after being invited twice to confront killer's wife on TV"
He may not intend to be "sensationalist", but I don't think the same applies to the newspaper.
>> the tv show is pure theatre and strives only to create ratings
Honestly, what do you think the newspaper is then?
Surely you don't think it is altruistically objective and informative?
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 12 Dec 13 at 14:21
|
The nameless one is right of course.
The essential core of the story - a stupid murder by a crazed brute - has nothing to do with 'today's' society but might have happened at any time and in any period. Such incidents are of course extremely rare. When substances are involved they tend to be alcohol. 'Miaow miaow' is neither here nor there, except that the crazed brute in this case wanted more of it. I've tried a lot of drugs in my day (although not that one, which I think is a relation of amphetamine) and not one of them has made me want to murder my friends or neighbours. Except perhaps alcohol once or twice.
I liked the caption in the newspaper article under the photo of the crazed brute: 'Evil Gibson'. I think it's a bit cheeky of hacks to rename people like that. They'd better watch out or the Knievel estate will be gunning for them.
|
My point was that in this one article we have
a. a really brutal murder been carried out
b. Jeremy Vine show wanting to make money out of facing them up in the studios
c. Jeremy Vine viewers want to see people being humiliated on the television
d. Many people are willing to be humiliated on TV for the sake of some money
e. Human Rights Laws seem to be protecting prisoners more than civilians
f. A Woman wants to actively have a baby and be a lone parent for the forseeable future (making an assumption here, maybe unfairly, that she knows benefits will cover her financially)
g. There is a legal fund available that covers the costs of challenges to legislation
I. This firm of lawyers, who make their living from winning cases for convicted prisoners, are going to line their pockets again
and all that was just at the first read......
|
>> Many people are willing to be humiliated on TV for the sake of some money
And worse, many more people want to see people humiliated so much that they pay for the privilege (one way or another).
|
|
correct - that should count as an edit to point (c) !
|
When Princess Diana died I was living partly in Florida and partly in California so I quite often got free days and ended up watching day time television.
A day or two after Diana had died I was watching Montel Williams. Its a rubbish show, like they all are but, this seems a week for confessions, I watched it.
Just before the advert break he announced that he had bought photographs of Diana as she lay dying in the car and was going to broadcast them after the break.
After the break he came back and announced that he didn't have such photos, would never pay for such photos and believed it would be reprehensible to broadcast them.
Then he said something along the lines of...(horribly paraphrased)
"But, to all those people who complain about media standards and intrusive behavior, about the lack of morality on the television, paparazzi, how everybody should be ashamed and prosecuted etc. etc. How many of you turned the television off in disgust and protest about what I said I was about to show, and how many of you called your partners into the room to watch as well?
Remember that the next time you complain about media morality."
And that is why JK, Voicemail listening, friend and official bribing and all the rest of them exist...
We do not need new press laws, we just need everybody to stop buying / watching / paying for such stuff.
Or to come clean and admit that the problem is their desires., not the media's behaviour. The media is there to make money, and will print/broadcast anything which it believes will do so, and will avoid anything that will not.
|
The media are capitalist in the main FMR, but they have differing standards of behaviour. They aren't all the same.
I normally avoid pedantry, but I will make an exception in your honour, just this once: the word 'media' is a plural. Chaps like you, with opinions that are often quite sensible, shouldn't set a bad example in matters of basic literacy.
|
>> the word 'media' is a plural.
That rather depends;
Media can indeed be the plural form of medium.
However, it can also be a collective noun and thus treated more often as a singular when referring to something which may be regarded conceptually as a single entity.
>>Chaps like you, with opinions that are often quite sensible, shouldn't set a bad example in matters of basic literacy.
I see you got your self-exemption in early.
|
>> treated more often as a singular when referring to something which may be regarded conceptually as a single entity.
No. The media is they, not it. The fact that the word is 'treated more often' as a singular just shows that people mistakenly treat the media as a single entity. But that doesn't mean they are one. It means people are wrong in so treating them.
You needn't argue FMR. Even the Queen has been lumbered with this error. So you are in good company.
|
|
Argue? I'm struggling to even care. I suspect my meaning were clear anyway.
|
Is meaning a plural now? I didn't know. And please don't struggle to 'care'. No one in their right mind would give much of a damn, nor should they.
However those capable of it should avoid incorrect use of language instead of spreading it around. 'Lazy, tabloid... ' (I forget the third epithet you used against Oborne, but it probably applies too)
It may not cheer you up much, but you have probably noticed that the French use the word média as a singular and pluralise it as 'les médias'. Seems a bit unlike them, usually so finicky about that sort of thing.
|
>>Is meaning a plural now?
I don't know, but irony are.
|
>> irony are.
Ah, the Ironi... a small but admirable tribe...
|
>> >> treated more often as a singular when referring to something which may be regarded
>> conceptually as a single entity.
>>
>> No. The media is they, not it. The fact that the word is 'treated more
>> often' as a singular just shows that people mistakenly treat the media as a single
>> entity. But that doesn't mean they are one. It means people are wrong in so
>> treating them.
>>
I expect you were using the same argument about 50 years ago over the word "data" ?
It's a plural, but has come to have a singular sense meaning a collection of information.
How are you on "agenda"? Plural, the items for discussion at a meeting? Or singular, the list of such items, treated as one ?
|
>> I expect you were using the same argument about 50 years ago over the word "data" ?
I do treat data as a plural. But the singular 'datum' is awkward.
>> How are you on "agenda"?
Oh do stop it CP. One reason why I avoid pedantry is that it brings the real pedants out of the woodwork.
|
>>One reason why I avoid pedantry
But you don't. You just tend to say that you do immediately before you are. Again.
|
>> But you don't.
Yip yip yip... you stop it too FMR. You couldn't be more wrong.
Happy Christmas though.
|
>> b. Jeremy Vine show wanting to make money out of facing them up in the
>> studios
>> c. Jeremy Vine viewers want to see people being humiliated on the television
Jeremy Vine may be a twerp, but he's not Jeremy Kyle
8o)
|
>>
>> Jeremy Vine may be a twerp, but he's not Jeremy Kyle
>>
>> 8o)
>>
>>
>>
>>
As his lawyers may want to point out to Bobby...
|
Today's society? - No FM2R
