 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / December 2007"Halt English Usage" (of this type)
Heard on TV: 1. "Prevent" pronounced as "pervent." My diagnosis: sloppy speech/talking too fast. Forgivable? 2. A reporter/commentator: "They are suspect of it." (Meaning "they are suspicious.") One hopes it was just a "speako," but it may signal an unwarranted change in English usage. 3. From John Gibson, Fox News anchor: "The vapid leading the hollow" regarding an attempt by Rep. Dennis Kucinich and others (in Congress) to impeach Vice-President Dick Cheney. Too flowery? Okay? Your call. (My call: Ugh.) 4. "...between the ages of 2-1/2 to six." We've done this, but what the heck. See comment under No. 2. 5. From a woman reporter to the mother of a child who had been found after being missing: "How much are you hugging him and holding him today?" Can we be any more sweet and caring -- or silly? Reporter, get a grip. Maria, aka Hard-Hearted Hannah Motto: Halt English Usage (of this type). > Heard on TV: > > 1. "Prevent" pronounced as "pervent." > > My diagnosis: sloppy speech/talking too fast. > Forgivable? Acceptable. Metathesis is a natural part of language evolution. Just as "bird" came from "brid" presumably because a few people, then many people, found it slightly easier to say, it's not unlikely that "pervent" will eventually replace "prevent" for the same reason. I probably most often say "pervent" when speaking casually, which is how I mostly speak. > 2. A reporter/commentator: "They are suspect of it." > (Meaning "they are suspicious.") Are you sure that was the intended meaning? It can be construed to be entirely correct, another way of saying "they are suspected of it". > One hopes it was just a "speako," but it may signal an > unwarranted change in English usage. No change in English can be said to be unwarranted without careful consideration of the felt need that probably gave rise to it. I suspect that nearly all changes are justified by felt need. > 3. From John Gibson, Fox News anchor: "The vapid leading the > hollow" regarding an attempt by Rep. Dennis Kucinich and > others (in Congress) to impeach Vice-President Dick Cheney. > > Too flowery? Okay? Your call. (My call: Ugh.) My call, I like it. It's effective, concise, and probably original. English expression needs more color that doesn't rely on tiresome clichés. > 4. "...between the ages of 2-1/2 to six." > > We've done this, but what the heck. See comment under > No. 2. Empirical evidence might show that that one is a lost cause. Score one for Norma Loquendi, a lamentable zero for logic. > 5. From a woman reporter to the mother of a child who had > been found after being missing: "How much are you hugging > him and holding him today?" > Can we be any more sweet and caring -- or silly? Human interest in a story is always welcome to me. The reporter's empathy is heartwarming, and I suspect the mother liked it. > Reporter, get a grip. The reporter that needed to get a grip was one I read about a few score years ago. After a horrible train wreck from which bodies were recovered in pieces, a reporter asked a husband, "What sort of shape was your wife's body in when they found her?" That gets my 'ugh'. > Maria, aka Hard-Hearted Hannah > Motto: Halt English Usage (of this type). BC, aka Advocatus Diaboli Dilettantibus. Motto: Language evolves. Relax and enjoy watching it.  SignatureBob Cunningham, Wistful Prescriptivist, Southern California, USofA 'Many terms which have now dropped out of favour will be revived, and those that are at present respectable will drop out, if usage so choose, with whom lies the decision, the judgement, and the rule of speech.' (' . . . si volet usus, Quem penes arbitrium est et ius et norma loquendi.') -- Horace, Ars Poetica 1.70 > > Heard on TV: > > > > 1. "Prevent" pronounced as "pervent." > > > > My diagnosis: sloppy speech/talking too fast. > > Forgivable? > Acceptable. Metathesis is a natural part of language > evolution. Just as "bird" came from "brid" presumably > because a few people, then many people, found it slightly > easier to say, it's not unlikely that "pervent" will > eventually replace "prevent" for the same reason. . . . Metathesis seems likely to vary with the difficulty of enunciating according to the (notional) norm cf. (1) the first case I ever noticed, an elderly lady who pronounced LANTERN as LANTREN. The sequence of four consonants NTRN with no vowel or the tiniest schwa is obviously difficult for some mouths -- so she moved the schwa towards the end. (2) my Dutch wife cannot pronounce the STH in ANAESTHESIA; cf. also French difficulties with TH. American speech seems extra fertile of this change or mispronunciation. A favourite example from films is in Dr. Strangelove, where the soldieir Col. Batguano (Keenan Wynn) repeatedly accuses his prisoner of PREVERSION. I wonder whether this was Wynn's improvisation or written by scriptwriter Terry Southern. SignatureDon Phillipson Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada) >>> Heard on TV: >>> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > PREVERSION. I wonder whether this was Wynn's > improvisation or written by scriptwriter Terry Southern. Southern is one of a long line of preverters. I think he dunnit. When I was in secondary school, "prevert" was a euphemism, and perhaps a slightly humorous lubricant to allow mention of what was then pretty much avoided in conversation. On purpose gets my vote. One re-shuffling I couldn't understand, even at age eight, was how my friend Dorothy could not pronounce her own surname (which I knew to be Washington, from its presence on the blackboard). "Warshinton" she said. May still say. Long time passing. SignatureFrank ess > One re-shuffling I couldn't understand, even at age eight, was how my > friend Dorothy could not pronounce her own surname (which I knew to > be Washington, from its presence on the blackboard). "Warshinton" she > said. May still say. Long time passing. There's an Australian ABC reporter, based in Warshington, who consistently says "Warshington", with a rhotic pronunciation of the first syllable. In all other respects she speaks normal accentless Australian, but obviously she's picked up the local pronunciation of the place name. I'm always a little uncomfortable when pronouncing the name of my home city, Newcastle, when speaking with my father or my siblings. In my natal dialect of Victorian English it would be [njuk&sl], which is more or less the same as the BrE pronunciation. The Australian Novocastrians, however, pronounce it as [mjukA:sl], so that's how I say it. To someone from Victoria that sounds like an affectation. SignaturePeter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >I'm always a little uncomfortable when pronouncing the name of my home >city, Newcastle, when speaking with my father or my siblings. In my >natal dialect of Victorian English it would be [njuk&sl], which is more >or less the same as the BrE pronunciation. The Australian Novocastrians, >however, pronounce it as [mjukA:sl], so that's how I say it. To someone >from Victoria that sounds like an affectation. I think that the way you say it is close-ish to the way Newcastle (upon Tyne) is pronounced by its locals. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) > The Australian Novocastrians, > however, pronounce it as [mjukA:sl], so ... "Mewcastle"? SignatureMark Brader, Toronto "... people are *always* doing stuff ... msb@vex.net that I wish were typos" --Marcy Thompson > > The Australian Novocastrians, > > however, pronounce it as [mjukA:sl], so ... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Mark Brader, Toronto "... people are *always* doing stuff ... > m...@vex.net that I wish were typos" --Marcy Thompson Glotteral stop before the N. John Kane, Kingston ON Canada >> The Australian Novocastrians, however, pronounce it as [mjukA:sl], >> so ... > > "Mewcastle"? Sorry about that. I was probably distracted by a comment from the cat as I was typing it. SignaturePeter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. Peter Moylan: >>> The Australian Novocastrians, however, pronounce it as [mjukA:sl], >>> so ... Mark Brader: >> "Mewcastle"? Peter Moylan: > Sorry about that. I was probably distracted by a comment from the cat as > I was typing it. That's all right. There aren't that many cats out there who play chess. SignatureMark Brader, Toronto "He seems unable to win without the added msb@vex.net thrill of changing sides." -- Chess > > 3. From John Gibson, Fox News anchor: "The vapid leading the > > hollow" > original. English expression needs more color that doesn't > rely on tiresome clichés. Except, of course, that it does rely on a cliche. Without the implied reference to the blind, it would hardly even be intelligible. ¬R > > > 3. From John Gibson, Fox News anchor: "The vapid leading the > > > hollow" [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Except, of course, that it does rely on a cliche. Without the implied > reference to the blind, it would hardly even be intelligible. You're right, of course. What I meant and didn't say was English expression needs more color that doesn't rely on mindless repetition of clichés. A clever and original play on a cliché is quite another matter. > English expression needs more color that doesn't rely on > mindless repetition of clichés. A clever and original play > on a cliché is quite another matter. In this case, it would seem, "clever" means "caustic" and "original" means "imprecise." ¬R > Maria said: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > casually, > which is how I mostly speak. What I forgot to mention was this: the speaker was one of the on-air news commentators-reporters. In my opinion, he (it was a "he") should be doing a better job of pronunciation. >> 2. A reporter/commentator: "They are suspect of it." >> (Meaning "they are suspicious.") > > Are you sure that was the intended meaning? Yes. (Context, which I did not provide in this post.) < ..... It can be > construed to be entirely correct, another way of saying > "they are suspected of it". Yes, but that wasn't the case this time. >> One hopes it was just a "speako," but it may signal >> an [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > careful consideration of the felt need that probably gave > rise to it. Hmm. What makes you think [she said with a smile] that I didn't give the matter careful consideration? I did consider the whole matter, and decided that the bimbo (bimbette?) simply used the wrong word, and probably didn't know the difference. > ...I suspect that nearly all changes are justified > by felt need. You are generous in your suspicions. Sometimes, people simply do not know what they're saying, and have no one -- apparently -- bothering to tell them the difference. >> 3. From John Gibson, Fox News anchor: "The vapid leading >> the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > doesn't > rely on tiresome clichés. At first, I liked it. But the more I thought about it, the worse it seemed. Too derivative and yet not quite on-target. Or something. Note: In all fairness to Gibson, it was part of a definite "opinion piece," and not part of the "news." >> 4. "...between the ages of 2-1/2 to six." >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > cause. > Score one for Norma Loquendi, a lamentable zero for logic. I'd say you are right, Bart. >> 5. From a woman reporter to the mother of a child who had >> been found after being missing: "How much are you hugging [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > mother > liked it. Sure, the mother probably liked it. But in my view, professional reporters would limit personal-type comments to off-air moments. And while unprofessional comments on-air can be endearing, they sometimes seem to be self-serving. Simply, they're not professional. >> Reporter, get a grip. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > husband, "What sort of shape was your wife's body in when > they found her?" That gets my 'ugh'. Mine, too. Definitely. >> Maria, aka Hard-Hearted Hannah >> Motto: Halt English Usage (of this type). > > BC, aka Advocatus Diaboli Dilettantibus. > Motto: Language evolves. Relax and enjoy watching it. Okay. I'll go crazy, maybe, but okay. Maria [...] > > ...I suspect that nearly all changes are justified > > by felt need. > > You are generous in your suspicions. Sometimes, people > simply do not know what they're saying, and have no one -- > apparently -- bothering to tell them the difference. I'm glad I said "nearly all". >3. From John Gibson, Fox News anchor: "The vapid leading the >hollow" regarding an attempt by Rep. Dennis Kucinich and >others (in Congress) to impeach Vice-President Dick Cheney. > > Too flowery? Okay? Your call. (My call: Ugh.) John Gibson, Ugh! Fox News, Oy! >> 3. From John Gibson, Fox News anchor: "The vapid leading >> the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > John Gibson, Ugh! Fox News, Oy! Ah, Murray. We differ sometimes, don't we? I like Fox News when it comes to political matters, but sometimes I find their coverage of news, in general, to be less-than-good. When that happens, I email Fox about my displeasure. They ignore me. What draws me to Fox is the fact that they present the conservative (or Republican) side of things while other stations seldom do. (I do watch stations besides Fox.) Sudden thought: I still miss Peter Jennings. Maria >>> 3. From John Gibson, Fox News anchor: "The vapid leading >>> the [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >conservative (or Republican) side of things while other >stations seldom do. (I do watch stations besides Fox.) So much for fair and balanced. FWIW, Fox is the only news that Cheney watches (he's veritably addicted). It's comforting to know that we are governed by those who are willing to expand their perspectives. >Sudden thought: I still miss Peter Jennings. Why? Murray Arnow wrote, in part: > Maria wrote, in part: >> Sudden thought: I still miss Peter Jennings. > > Why? I liked him, that's all. He was good at his job. Some may think he was biased, but I don't. (Selective memory?) Maria > What draws me to Fox is the fact that they present the conservative (or > Republican) side of things while other stations seldom do. (I do watch > stations besides Fox.) They are masters of propaganda. --Jeff SignatureI object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent. -Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi > I like Fox News when it comes to political matters, but sometimes I > find their coverage of news, in general, to be less-than-good. When > that happens, I email Fox about my displeasure. They ignore me. I'm curious, Maria, to know whether you ever watched the documentary "Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism". It had a great deal to say about deliberate distortion of the truth, and a number of those interviewed were former Fox journalists who could no longer put up with deliberate lying. It would certainly have put me off subscribing to cable TV - locally, Fox is the only supplier of cable TV - if I hadn't already been put off for other reasons. SignaturePeter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >> I like Fox News when it comes to political matters, but >> sometimes I [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > documentary > "Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism". No. Where was it presented? That is, what station (TV or cable) was it on? > ....It had a great deal to > say about deliberate distortion of the truth, and a number > of those > interviewed were former Fox journalists who could no > longer put up > with deliberate lying. I can hear the calls of "wise up" even as I say this, but say it I will: I have no doubt that mistakes are made ("lies are told"), but no more on Fox than on any other news station. And I'm wondering which "journalists" have left? I ask because there are few of what I'd call "journalists" to begin with on any of the cable news stations. Plus, those who have left may not necessarily be telling the truth themselves. Sour grapes perhaps, or political reasons. > .....It would certainly have put me off subscribing > to cable TV - locally, Fox is the only supplier of cable > TV - if I > hadn't already been put off for other reasons. I'm surprised at your saying that Fox is the only supplier of cable TV locally. Here, cable TV is not supplied by Fox; it is provided by cable companies (we have Comcast) which present various cable news channels (Fox, CNN, MSNBC, etc.), various entertainment programs, reruns, the History Channel, and so on. The cable company also provides the "regular" television channels -- NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, local stations -- that one can get even without subscribing to cable. There are other Fox "networks" besides Fox News, by the way. One is regular programming (sitcoms, drama, entertainment), and another is Fox Business. I'm not so sure that all this represents an improvement over the TV fare of the 1950s and 1960s. And the commercials, cable or otherwise, are much worse. If I see one more Viagra commercial, I may send some nasty letters. Is nothing sacred? Is everything for children's ears and eyes? I'm going to stop now, because I get so upset about today's standards. Maria Resident of southeast Michigan, near Detroit; native of east Tennessee. >I can hear the calls of "wise up" even as I say this, but >say it I will: I have no doubt that mistakes are made ("lies >are told"), but no more on Fox than on any other news >station. I hope you can back that up. What I've seen of their "journalists" makes it clear to me that if the distortions aren't willful, then the talking-heads are the singularly misinformed and ignorant. I have rarely seen a "news" broadcast without a Murdock editorial bias in reporting the "facts." I initially started watching Fox without any idea about their philosophy, but eventually it was clear to me that the "personalities" were incredibly adept at drawing conclusions from cherry-picked facts without regard to truth. And, Maria, when you stop mentioning Fox News, I'll stop ranting. >>I can hear the calls of "wise up" even as I say this, but >>say it I will: I have no doubt that mistakes are made ("lies [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >seen a "news" broadcast without a Murdock editorial bias in reporting the >"facts." Can you provide an example? Not a quote or a clip of a broadcast, but just a general description of how a new item is slanted by Fox. I'm not challenging your statement. I'm just trying to understand what you see in the news segments that comes across as biased. That's "news segments" offered by journalists, not commentary like Bill O'Reilly's. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL >>>I can hear the calls of "wise up" even as I say this, but >>>say it I will: I have no doubt that mistakes are made ("lies [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Can you provide an example? Not a quote or a clip of a broadcast, but >just a general description of how a new item is slanted by Fox. You caught me, Tony. I so seldom watch Fox that the incidents that caused me distress occurred long ago, and I can't recall them. If necessary, I'll resume watching Fox and start taking notes. >I'm not challenging your statement. I'm just trying to understand >what you see in the news segments that comes across as biased. > >That's "news segments" offered by journalists, not commentary like >Bill O'Reilly's. The problem I have with Fox is that this distinction is not always easy to make. In alt.usage.english, Murray Arnow wrote: [...] >>>I have rarely seen a "news" broadcast without a Murdock editorial >>>bias in reporting the "facts." [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >me distress occurred long ago, and I can't recall them. If necessary, I'll >resume watching Fox and start taking notes. Roger Ailes, the Chairman and CEO of Fox News, gave evidence to the (British) Lords Communications Committee when it visited New York in September to look at media ownership. I imagine that Murray will find the evidence amusing. For example: The Committee were told that Fox News was launched because Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch believed that there was space in the market for "fair and balanced" news. They believed that most news reporting has a left of centre bias. Rupert Murdoch also spoke to the Committee. He admitted that he exercises some editorial control over some of his downmarket newspapers in Britain and America (The Sun, the News of the World, the New York Post) but said that he doesn't meddle with prestigious publications like The Times (of London) and The Wall Street Journal.* He didn't say whether he meddles with Fox News. All he had to say about that particular Murdochian organ was that he wished Sky News was more like it and that "the only reason that Sky News was not more like Fox news was that 'nobody at Sky listens to me'." Perhaps things are the same at Fox. Or perhaps they're not. <http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/usii.doc> *ObCrossthread: Note the various capitalisations of the definite article. They are as used in the minutes of evidence, except for the WSJ, which is given - erroneously in my view - as "the Wall Street Journal". SignatureV [...] >Roger Ailes, the Chairman and CEO of Fox News, gave evidence to the >(British) Lords Communications Committee when it visited New York in [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > market for "fair and balanced" news. They believed that most > news reporting has a left of centre bias. For a response to this, and a look at Fox news from another perspective, search amazon.com books for - fair and balanced -. This yields "Fair and Balanced, My a.s!: An Unbridled Look at the Bizarre Reality of Fox News" by Joseph Minton Amann and Tom Breuer. >Rupert Murdoch also spoke to the Committee. He admitted that he >exercises some editorial control over some of his downmarket newspapers [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >and that "the only reason that Sky News was not more like Fox news was >that 'nobody at Sky listens to me'." Murdoch doesn't need to personally interfere so long as he makes sure the right on-air personalities are employed and that they understand his point of view. Even newsdroids know which side their bread is buttered on. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * > <http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/usii.doc> Thanks for the link, V. I've printed the document and will read it fully ASAP. Maria >> <http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/usii.doc> > > Thanks for the link, V. I've printed the document and will > read it fully ASAP. And now that I have read the whole thing, I recommend it to all. Very interesting. One note, OBaue: Since this is a British document, I couldn't help noticing all the "run on" sentences, though they wouldn't be classified as such in BrE, I'm sure. (I'm not complaining, mind you, only commenting.) Maria Resident of southeast Michigan, near Detroit; native of east Tennessee. >>> <http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/usii.doc> >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > classified as such in BrE, I'm sure. (I'm not complaining, mind you, > only commenting.) I didn't read the whole lot, but I can confirm that the run-on sentences are just as shocking in BrE as they are in AmE. But what can you expect from reporters who talk of "comsumers"? I'm not convinced that the document advances the debate in any way. Each player gave their own opinion. There's no indication of whether or not they were lying. As an observer of what happened to the Australian press, I have my own opinion, but I could equally well be lying. All that I can offer is a "fair and balanced" (=biased) opinion. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >>>>I can hear the calls of "wise up" even as I say this, but >>>>say it I will: I have no doubt that mistakes are made ("lies [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >The problem I have with Fox is that this distinction is not always easy to >make. I'm genuinely curious about what might be considered "bias" in news reporting. Murdoch is admittedly a conservative and a supporter of GWB and many, if not all, of GWB's global policies. A television news bias, in my mind, would be a reporter saying something like "There is more proof today that "the surge" has been successful because US troop casualties have declined by...". If the reporter simply states that "US troop causalities have declined by ....", that does not indicate bias. A positive report - if there can be such a thing in this godawful fiasco that GWB has got us into - is not a biased report unless it gives the impression that something has influenced the positive aspect, and that the influence is debatable as to cause. A reporter stating that "progress has been made" or "there's an improvement in" is not - in my opinion - a sign of bias provided that there's some factual base for the description of "progress" or "improvement". Another place one might see bias is when certain stories are ignored and other stories are covered. That vision of bias has to be tempered with giving the reporter credit for covering what is known and reportable on and not what is not coverable because not enough factual information has been gathered. In this case, I don't see where Fox News has ignored stories that other services have covered. I haven't kept a checklist, though. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL >In this case, I don't see where Fox News has ignored stories that >other services have covered. I haven't kept a checklist, though. The issue with Fox, as I understand it, is usually one of "framing": presenting the story in such a way as to imply that the Administration (these days) or Republicans more generally are Obviously Right And Good, and the opposition is Evil And Eats Innocent Kittens For Breakfast. (To paraphrase the late Dr. David Brudnoy, I exaggerate only slightly.) See <http://headsuptheblog.blogspot.com/search/label/fox> for a litany of recent Fox frames (and other general incompetence). -GAWollman SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are wollman@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness >>In this case, I don't see where Fox News has ignored stories that >>other services have covered. I haven't kept a checklist, though. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >See <http://headsuptheblog.blogspot.com/search/label/fox> for a litany >of recent Fox frames (and other general incompetence). We should give credit where credit is due. If Fox can frame this administration as being Obviously Right in anything, they are better at being illusionists than David Copperfield is. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL In alt.usage.english, Garrett Wollman wrote: >>In this case, I don't see where Fox News has ignored stories that >>other services have covered. I haven't kept a checklist, though. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >See <http://headsuptheblog.blogspot.com/search/label/fox> for a litany >of recent Fox frames (and other general incompetence). It's a litany of frames, all right. I couldn't see any political bias in the first three (oh-so-sarky) blog articles. SignatureV "We need Gordon." -- Nicolas Sarkozy at the signing of the Lisbon Treaty > >Can you provide an example? Not a quote or a clip of a broadcast, but > >just a general description of how a new item is slanted by Fox. > > > You caught me, Tony. I so seldom watch Fox that the incidents that caused > me distress occurred long ago, and I can't recall them. If necessary, I'll > resume watching Fox and start taking notes. I would expect that articles at http://www.foxnews.com/ could provide a basis for discussion. SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux >> I can hear the calls of "wise up" even as I say this, but >> say it I will: I have no doubt that mistakes are made [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I hope you can back that up. Back it up? I haven't done any comparative studies, and any comparisons I've done casually are not recorded. Plus, I think what you want are hard facts, and all I have at this point is my own opinion* based on what I've seen on various news channels and what I've read in various publications. *an opinion which seems fair and logical to me, but may not strike you that way. Vinny has provided a link to a document that I've printed and will read, and then I'll get back to you in more detail. In the meantime, I have a question for those who feel that people who watch Fox News are somehow not smart enough to figure out what's going on and what the /real/ facts are: How do you know you're not wrong? (I may alter or withdraw that question after I've read Vinny's contribution. So don't get all het up just yet. Then again, maybe I'll let the question stand.) > ........What I've seen of their "journalists" > makes it clear to me that if the distortions aren't [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > bias in > reporting the "facts." Are you talking about news programs or commentary? I will admit that commentary on Fox will generally come down on the conservative-Republican-"right" side of the page, but even so, the other side is usually presented and discussed. News stories on Fox (and non-Fox stations) are generally Who-What-When-How, with very little (if any) opinion intruding. (The fourth W -- Why -- is not always known, and may not appear in first the publication/broadcast of news stories.) Also, I am unhappy with the general coverage of some news stories on Fox -- "tabloid stories" I call them -- which are Done To Death. Too much coverage, too much repitition, too many "reporters" who are inexperienced and unprofessional. It's not so much that they offer opinions as it is that they don't know the basics of their jobs and -- big nonsurprise -- don't have a good grasp of English usage. > I initially started watching Fox without any idea about > their > philosophy, but eventually it was clear to me that the > "personalities" were incredibly adept at drawing > conclusions from > cherry-picked facts without regard to truth. I'm sure it will surprise no one to know that I might say the same of people who condemn Fox and any other conservative presentation. We see and hear what we expect, want, and need to see and hear. > And, Maria, when you stop mentioning Fox News, I'll stop > ranting. I've lost track of the progression of this thread, but I do think my initial mention of Fox was in connection with a flowery comment from a Fox news anchor. Totally On Topic. Maria >In the meantime, I have a question for those who feel that >people who watch Fox News are somehow not smart enough to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >get all het up just yet. Then again, maybe I'll let the >question stand.) I don't watch any particular news channel. I skip around. Sometimes I'll skip from one channel to another in the middle of a news program. Sometimes I watch the channel that carried the last show I watched. Anytime a news program goes to a weather report, I start thumbing the remote. I have no interest in weather reports. I really haven't noticed any great difference between the various news programs. That's "news", not commentary. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL >> .....It would certainly have put me off subscribing >> to cable TV - locally, Fox is the only supplier of cable [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >television channels -- NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, local stations -- >that one can get even without subscribing to cable. Ditto.(1) My cable is provided by Brighthouse Networks and I have - dunno, maybe - 100 channels to choose from. Fox's channels are just part of the selection available. >And the commercials, >cable or otherwise, are much worse. If I see one more Viagra >commercial, I may send some nasty letters. Do you get the "Smiling Bob" commercials? For "Enzyte"? They may be off the air now because they've been forced to pay US$2.5 million for false advertising. > Is nothing sacred? Is everything for children's ears and eyes? Viagra ads are comparatively tasteful compared to the "feminine hygiene" ads. *Really* tasteful compared to the pharmaceutical ads that drone on about the possible side effects including "oily rectal discharge". (1) "Ditto" should be a skunked word now that Rush has appropriated it to mean "a person who agrees with Rush's conservative idiocy". ("Ditto Heads") SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL >I can hear the calls of "wise up" even as I say this, but say it I >will: I have no doubt that mistakes are made ("lies are told"), but no >more on Fox than on any other news station. Maria is right to be cynical about journos. They rarely actually lie, of course. She carries on her website a story of mine about a journo manipulating the truth. A worse story indirectly involved a fellow radio writer friend of mine who played the part of an inept Spanish waiter in a BBC TV sitcom set in an English hotel. The explanation for the waiter's incompetence was that he was Spanish. An episode of the series was the BBC's entry in a competition held in (IIR) Madrid. A few journos who covered the festival realised that they had bugger all copy to file to justify their amazing bar expenses so they cooked up a story. They phoned the Spanish justice minister, explained the plot to him because he had neither heard of or seen the sitcom, and asked him what he thought of a story that portrayed the Spanish as brainless, garlic munching cretins. The hapless minister said that if that was the case, then it was regrettable. Other ministerial offices were called and the justice minister's 'regrettable' comment was related for reactions. The statements from the other ministers merely supported the justice minister's comment but the truth was that no minister gave a stuff. That several ministers had expressed much the same opinion was enough for the journos to file copy about Spanish fury over racist slurs about 'stupid Spaniards' and calls for the programme to be banned in Spain. Odd, because TVE hadn't even bought it! The Spanish wires picked up the story and soon a fine old diplomatic row was boiling merrily away. Misleading politicians is like taking candles from babies. All in all a rather jolly jape and good for a chuckle. SignatureJames Follett. Novelist. (G1LXP) http://www.jamesfollett.dswilliams.co.uk > Misleading politicians is like taking candles from babies. You give babies candles for the wind? SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. Maria <maria.c-b@sbcglobal.net> het geskryf: >> documentary >> "Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism". > > No. Where was it presented? That is, what station (TV or > cable) was it on? Oh, look... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuorIjt1HG0 > Maria <maria.c-b@sbcglobal.net> het geskryf: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuorIjt1HG0 Wow. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Sometimes I think the surest sign 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |that intelligent life exists Palo Alto, CA 94304 |elsewhere in the universe is that |none of it has tried to contact us. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | Calvin (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> Maria <maria.c-b@sbcglobal.net> het geskryf: >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Wow. May I conclude that the documentary was simply not aired in places where it contradicted the prevailing opinions? In Australia, at least, it was available to anyone who chose to watch it. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >>> Maria <maria.c-b@sbcglobal.net> het geskryf: >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > where it contradicted the prevailing opinions? In Australia, at > least, it was available to anyone who chose to watch it. Oh, no. I'm pretty sure it was aired in the US. (I know the DVD was available. It wasn't released in theaters.) I just never got around to watching it before. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Reality is that which, when you 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |stop believing in it, doesn't go Palo Alto, CA 94304 |away. | kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | Philip K. Dick (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ In alt.usage.english, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote: >> Maria <maria.c-b@sbcglobal.net> het geskryf: >>>> documentary >>>> "Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism". [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Wow. Wow indeed! I'm no fan of Rupert Murdoch. He dragged British newspapers into the gutter. But did he really "buy his first politician" in 1972, as claimed by a sneaky little tag in the background a minute into the clip? That's presumably a reference to a Murdoch newspaper supporting a particular candidate in the 1972 Australian election. I'm not sure you'd get away with calling that "buying a politician" in Britain. The lawyers might come a-knocking.* And Fox News - is it really a "far-right organisation" by American standards, as Walter Cronkite claims? Then there's the women who was warned not to take a job at Fox because it is - gasp! - "a very conservative news network". Conservatism in the American media! My dears, how beastly! I could skweam and skweam and skweam! The film is just a load of left-liberal media types bleating about the new kid on the block not being their kind of guy. I couldn't see anything wrong with the editor's memos; I wasn't convinced by the gripes of the disgruntled and anonymous ex-employees; and the only Stalinism on display was the propagandistic editing (for example, juxtaposing an ex-employee's unexplained plea for anonymity with the claim that employees are "monitored by a Stalinist system"). *George Soros financed the film. I'd say that what he did in 2004 - spending $20 million trying to get Kerry elected - was more like "buying a politician". Showering a campaign with money is unambiguously about trying to affect the outcome of an election, whereas it's always hard to disentangle the motives of media moguls like Murdoch. They do sometimes wield political influence but mostly they are interested in making money. Did The Sun back Blair because Murdoch knew that most of his readers backed Blair or did most of his readers back Blair because bla di bla di bla? Mostly the former, I'd say. The Sun's support for Blair amplified an existing popular mood. It didn't create it. SignatureV who only watched the first part >>> documentary >>> "Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism". [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuorIjt1HG0 Thanks. I've watched the first part so far, and part of the second. (There seem to be eight parts.) What I saw was mostly ex-employees who may or may not have an axe to grind, but I'll watch all the tapes before coming to any conclusion. The only familiar (to me) person so far in the featured clips is Walter Cronkite, a person I neither revere nor dislike, and whose word I don't necessarily consider the last and best. The ex-employees are unknown to me. One of the comments made was about Murdock's feelings about Ted Kennedy. All I'll say about that is that Ted Kennedy does not deserve praise and really never has. He's electable, that's all. (Does that make me prejudiced? A right-wing wacko? Maybe to some people.) Also, the parts I've watched seem to be mostly about the early years of Fox. I didn't watch it then, so I can hardly dispute much. I do, though, think that some of the clips (so far) were chosen to bolster the views of the persons involved. What clips were left on the cutting room floor? More later, after I've seen all the tapes. Maria >>> documentary "Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on >>> Journalism". [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuorIjt1HG0 Okay, I've looked, and I've taken notes. Points numbered, but in no particular order: 1. A general description of the "documentary": "The released interviews from the documentary 'Outfoxed, Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism'. "The film provides an in-depth look at Fox News and the dangers of ever-enlarging corporations taking control of the public's right to know. See for yourself how media empires, led by Rupert Murdoch's Fox News, have been waging war against journalism and independent news. "Produced and Directed by Robert Greenwald." One site about Robert Greenwald. Look, don't look, or look elsewhere; your choice: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Greenwald 2. The "Outfoxed" production was apparently helped or supported in some way by moveon.org, which is known as a liberal organization. 3. Many of the interviews were with former Fox employees, and not former employees who had no problem with Fox. They sounded like disgruntled or even bitter former employees, and "Outfoxed" gave them a way to vent. 4. There is even criticism in "Outfoxed" about the graphics on Fox. Too much movement or something -- I'm not sure what the other objections were. Oh yes, the use of flags. 5. Criticism of the phrase "some people say." (I didn't know that Fox created this phrase.) 6. Said criticism illustrated by the use of clips limited, pretty much, to the phrase. This is to make the point that Fox used the phrase too much or were too imprecise. 7. Objection to the Fox (?) suggestion that the term "suicide bombers" be replaced by "homicide bombers." Hey, have it either way, former employees, but what's the big deal? 8. Opinion that Hannity & Colmes isn't really balanced even though H. is conservative and C. is liberal. Why? Because H. is better looking, and thus comes off with more authority. 9. Statement that the term "fair and balanced" is consumer fraud. 10. Complaint that Bush (current) emphasizes God too much. I think just about all presidents and would-be presidents emphasize God in order to gain favor. Now, it seems I was wrong. Maybe only Bush is guilty of this. 11. Bill O'Reilly criticized for his treatment of Jeremy Glick, a youn man whose father died in the 9-11 attacks, but who said it was "radical extremists trained by this government" who were responsible. I hope I've quoted him properly. See the end of (I think) tape 4-8. Anyway, the tape where Glick was the last issue. 12. Claim that Fox portrays Geo Bush as "heroic." (All the time?) 13. Revelation, rather late in the day, that the Fairness Doctrine was changed/dropped many years ago. (Someone who wished to use it was unaware that it no longer applied.) 14. Implication that Fox is responsible for the fact that the structure of cable/nextwork productions has changed. The change is lamented. 15. Statement that Fox is an adjunct of the Republican Party. 16. Fox (apparently) generates fear. The example: Fox featured guidelines for dealing with anthrax after the anthrax scare (post 9-11). And Fox made too much of it. No mention of any other station offering advice about anthrax. 17. The eight "Outfoxed" videos are examples of one-sidedness good enough to be textbook examples for what to avoid. If I had the time and desire and the energy to find years of clips from the opposite side of the "Outfoxed" coin, I could make a similar documentary that would trash the people and organizations I have no use for. Will I? Of course not. I'd probably foil my own efforts with my penchant for fairness and balance. That is, I wouldn't pick and choose only the examples that support my views as "Outfoxed" does. (Note that this reply is not a documentary. It's an opinion piece.) 18. Frankly, I am surprised than anyone would fall for "Outfoxed" and not see its blatant flaws and distortions. Ready now to be burned at the liberal stake. Maria >18. Frankly, I am surprised than anyone would fall for >"Outfoxed" and not see its blatant flaws and distortions. This type of production is not made to inform people to allow them to make decisions. It is made to reinforce the decisions that people have already made. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL In alt.usage.english, Maria wrote: >Okay, I've looked, and I've taken notes. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >know. See for yourself how media empires, led by Rupert Murdoch's Fox >News, have been waging war against journalism and independent news. Where "independent" means "Indymedia".* >"Produced and Directed by Robert Greenwald." > >One site about Robert Greenwald. Look, don't look, or look elsewhere; >your choice: >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Greenwald See also his propaganda factory, <bravenewfilms.org>. >2. The "Outfoxed" production was apparently helped or supported in some >way by moveon.org, which is known as a liberal organization. The film was funded by MoveOn and by the Center for American Progress, which are both funded by George Soros - you know, the billionaire who spent $20 million trying to unseat George Bush in 2004 (and is behind just about every high-profile leftie organisation in the US). >3. Many of the interviews were with former Fox employees, and not >former employees who had no problem with Fox. They sounded like >disgruntled or even bitter former employees, and "Outfoxed" gave them a >way to vent. Or not. I only watched the first part. Did Anonymous1 ever get to say what his grudge was? In the first part, he's just used as a bit of contentless paranoid mood music, all cloak and no dagger. [rest snipped because I didn't watch those bits] >17. The eight "Outfoxed" videos are examples of one-sidedness good >enough to be textbook examples for what to avoid. Based on the bits I watched: I agree. Greenwald would no doubt say that his bias is a justified counterbalance to what he sees as Fox's bias. That's a respectable position, I suppose. But the film is *too* one-sided and the Soros funding makes it smell of hypocrisy. >If I had the time and desire and the energy to find years of clips from >the opposite side of the "Outfoxed" coin, I could make a similar [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >18. Frankly, I am surprised than anyone would fall for "Outfoxed" and >not see its blatant flaws and distortions. Like Tony says, the people who like that sort of thing like it because they like that sort of thing (or something, like). >Ready now to be burned at the liberal stake. Hey, it's only got one side. If you slip round the back, you'll find it's not there. *Also bankrolled by Soros. SignatureV "We need Gordon." -- Nicolas Sarkozy at the signing of the Lisbon Treaty >In alt.usage.english, Maria wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > >The film was funded by MoveOn and by the Center for American Progress, >which are both funded by George Soros - you know, the billionaire who ^^^^^^^^^^^^ Soros is doing all this? Interesting. Anyone know of a ("reputable", whatever that means these days!) web-site that list political-funders and exactly what projects they support? (Is there a growing sense that Soros fulfills the same purpose on the left (well, anti far-right) as does Scaife (Richard Mellon Scaife) does for the (far?) right, eg think-tanks galore, etc?) >spent $20 million trying to unseat George Bush in 2004 (and is behind >just about every high-profile leftie organisation in the US). [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >what his grudge was? In the first part, he's just used as a bit of >contentless paranoid mood music, all cloak and no dagger. ... FWIW: A very interesting book (for those of *whatever* political position -- left, right, rich, poor, ...) is: "Into the Buzzsaw", each chapter having its own author and subject, typically about how the result of some (well done) investigative journalist's discoveries -- that not only do those stories get "spiked", but all too often so does the journalist. From memory, for me the *most* interesting was the *long*, detailed saga of a few determined people tracking down what *really* happened to that TWA-flight that came down off Long Island a few years ago. Who knows what *really* happened, but it soon becomes pretty obvious that *one* proposed set of explanatory facts could not *possibly* have been what actually happened. Very, very interesting! And that's just *one* of the maybe 15 or so chapters. One way to get a feeling for the book is to look at the reviews on Amazon for it. While I'm recommending books, here's one I'll recommend, but with a special warning to very-very-pro-bush Republicans. The title is "the best democracy money can buy", by (the american) Greg Palast. American "corporate" media typically allow him *zero* room in their publications and tv programs, so unless you buy his books (for which you have to at least know they *exist*), you have no access to what he writes. UNLESS you live *outside* the U.S.. For instance, in the U.K., where the BBC makes lots of use of his work and findings. Anyway, enough of that. OK, what's the warning for the the on-the-right potential readers of his book. (He also has a newer one, "Armed Madhouse", find for those not on the right, but a bit more difficult to handle for those on the right.) But the first one makes it easy for making it palatable and even enjoyable for the rightists:o There's one long chapter that discusses the 2000 election -- claims it was stolen in Florida and thus for the whole election. DO NOT LOOK AT THAT CHAPTER! Because if you let it get into your head, it'll screw you up. If you believe it, you (on the right) will either be angry, or delighted ("we did it! -- and it was like taking candy from those spineless, lay on their backs (sheep) tilting their heads back and asking "please slit my throat, etc, etc" dems), or if you take it to be a bunch of lies, you might get way too angry for your own good, harming your health. THEREFORE, for that one chapter, staple its pages together! Or perhaps just tear them out and toss into the fireplace. Anyway, having done that, you've got a pretty good read. Like more about the Exxon Valdez than you even believed possible. And this, and that, etc. Sorry, this is idiotically long, let myself go. Bye. david > From memory, for me the *most* interesting was the *long*, detailed > saga of a few determined people tracking down what *really* happened > to that TWA-flight that came down off Long Island a few years ago. For me, the fascinating part was the abrupt change in Murdoch's goals. When he was a purely Australian phenomenon, he was famous for his unprecedented interference into editorial independence. He dictated what the papers should say, and he dictated the political bias that they should display. For him to move into "pair and balanced" journalism was a change unequalled since piddy went on the wagon, or since the leopard decided to change its spots. Impressive, but not entirely convincing. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. I failed to notice it, but we're already five minutes into the new year. Happy New Year, everybody. Happy end of old year, for those are so inclined. For those who care, I've neglected the cross-posting, but I'm still willing to pass on my best wishes to alt.lang.strine. Auld acquaintances should never be forgot. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. In alt.usage.english, Peter Moylan wrote: >I failed to notice it, but we're already five minutes into the new year. >Happy New Year, everybody. Happy end of old year, for those are so inclined. > >For those who care, I've neglected the cross-posting, but I'm still >willing to pass on my best wishes to alt.lang.strine. Auld acquaintances >should never be forgot. Say "Non!" to 2009! SignatureV Still saying "Non!" to 2008 at this end. In alt.usage.english, David Combs wrote: >Soros is doing all this? Interesting. >Anyone know of a ("reputable", whatever that means these days!) >web-site that list political-funders and exactly what projects >they support? I once found an authoritative- and complete-looking list of the foundations and political candidates funded by George Soros but my Firefox bookmarks are now so extensive that I can't find a damned thing. (Time to delete them all and start again.) Sourcewatch and Lobbywatch come close to what you're looking for but they're not universal. They tend to be interested only in particular types of activism. That neither website lists George Soros suggests that both are primarily interested in "exposing" conservative activists and lobbyists. (I think one of them is primarily interested in "exposing" the not-at-all-secret activities of the dastardly "network" of libertarians who once worked for Living Marxism.) > (Is there a growing sense that Soros fulfills the same > purpose on the left (well, anti far-right) as does > Scaife (Richard Mellon Scaife) does for the (far?) right, > eg think-tanks galore, etc?) I've never heard of Scaife. Soros funds think-tanks galore etc. and is a sort of one-man would-be-world-shaper. He's trying to revive big-governmentism in the USA (and has recently set up propaganda outfits in the EU to prop up our ailing statist leftism (or leftist statism (or just statism))). If Scaife is mutatis-mutandising from the right then the answer is Yes. [snip book recommendations] > or if you take it to be a bunch of lies, you might get way too > angry for your own good, harming your health. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >And this, and that, etc. In a similar vein, there's _Hitler was a British Agent_ by Greg Pallast and "Spymaster", which reveals that Adolf Hitler was a Jewish homosexual and paedophile kidnapped by British intelligence during a visit to Tavistock and programmed using advanced psychological techniques to take control of Germany and start World War Two so that leading British and American plutocrats (including the Bush family) could make millions from their investments in the German arms industry. The proof that this is true is the total success (until now!!!) of the operation to keep it secret. Such secrecy could be achieved only by a conspiracy of the world's most powerful people - and look who was involved in the true Hitler story right from the start: the Rothschilds*, one of whom was Hitler's real father; and the Windsors, who trained young FitzRothschild to be a paedophile and later helped him lead a complicated double life as Wallace Simpson in pre-war Shanghai, in the Bahamas during the war and, after spiriting him/her out of Berlin with the aid of Ian Fleming, in post-war France. (Leading doctors have proved that Mrs Simpson only had one ball.) Quad erat carborundum. Only these two families had both the means and the motive to keep this astonishing and important story secret; the story *was* kept secret; therefore the story is completely true. <http://www.greghallett.com/hwaba.html> >Sorry, this is idiotically long, let myself go. Bye. Haven't we all? Why, when I was a young man I had perfect teeth and a belly like Romney Marsh (flat, radioactive and smelling faintly of methane). SignatureV Say "Non!" to 2008! > In a similar vein, there's _Hitler was a British Agent_ by Greg Pallast > and "Spymaster", which reveals that Adolf Hitler was a Jewish homosexual [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > American plutocrats (including the Bush family) could make millions from > their investments in the German arms industry. <snip> > Quad erat carborundum. Only these two families had both the means and > the motive to keep this astonishing and important story secret; the > story *was* kept secret; therefore the story is completely true. > > <http://www.greghallett.com/hwaba.html> Are you suggesting that Greg Palast and Greg Hallett are the same person? I hadn't heard that. Fran In alt.usage.english, Frances Kemmish wrote: >> In a similar vein, there's _Hitler was a British Agent_ by Greg >>Pallast [...] >> <http://www.greghallett.com/hwaba.html> > >Are you suggesting that Greg Palast and Greg Hallett are the same >person? I hadn't heard that. No, that was an unfortunate thinko cum typo. (Good job I didn't spell his name right or he might have sued.) SignatureV Say "Non!" to 2008! >11. Bill O'Reilly criticized for his treatment of Jeremy >Glick, a youn man whose father died in the 9-11 attacks, but >who said it was "radical extremists trained by this >government" who were responsible. I hope I've quoted him >properly. See the end of (I think) tape 4-8. Anyway, the >tape where Glick was the last issue. Out of fairness to Mr. Glick, his complete message was that Bush 41, was responsible for training the radical forces in Afaganhistan. It was these radicals who attacked on 9/11. It is true that the US supported the extremists in Afghanistan in an effort to remove the Commies. Whether or not Bush was solely responsible as director of CIA is debatable. But the fact remains that the 9/11 terrorist were trained in the camps supported by the US at an earlier time. O'Reilly did everything to impede Glick's explanation of his statement and went on to misquote Glick thereafter. Cherry picking? >>11. Bill O'Reilly criticized for his treatment of Jeremy >>Glick, a youn man whose father died in the 9-11 attacks, but [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >O'Reilly did everything to impede Glick's explanation of his statement and >went on to misquote Glick thereafter. Cherry picking? Neat book: "charlie wilson's war". How this congressman (complete with girlfriends galore!) singlehandly manages, after years of effort, to get Stingers to the muhajadeens, so now they could shoot down the Russian (oops, I forgot. Substitute "Soviet") helicopters. He ends up dealing with whoever runs Pakistan at the time, the Saudis (for money to finance the thing), etc, etc, with access net paces (and people) in the cia -- and finally (after soviets have pulled out) is given big party right there in the main lobby of the cia. Cool book. David [evil fox] > 7. Objection to the Fox (?) suggestion that the term > "suicide bombers" be replaced by "homicide bombers." Hey, > have it either way, former employees, but what's the big > deal? In an ObAUE kind of way, the deal for me is that the change of terminology shifts attention from a distinction between bombers who are trying to kill people and run away giggling and those who are willing to die for their convictions, to a distinction between bombers who are trying to kill people and those who merely want to get their attention. As I see it, the performance artists are not a significant factor in the present situation and the mere murderers can be deterred like most criminals, while the motivation and training of shaheedeen is something we have to think about countering. Possibly crippling, disfigurement, and radical castration, if they were detected in advance, and the revenge-murder of their entire extended families, if they were not, would have some deterrent effect in the medium term. Which brings me to my own reasons for not watching Fox. I quickly find myself wanting to commit violent atrocities on the pack of them, and that's bad for the soul, or the karma, or something. Whatever I turn out to have. [scream louder, murdock, hannity, coulter; I am as yet unmoved to pity] >> I'm curious, Maria, to know whether you ever watched the >> documentary "Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism". > > No. Where was it presented? That is, what station (TV or cable) was > it on? I saw it on Australian TV, either ABC or SBS, but that information won't be very helpful to you. Anyway, I see that someone has now supplied a U-tube reference. I can't see that unless I go to my Windows computer, but I imagine that it's the same programme. >> .....It would certainly have put me off subscribing to cable TV - >> locally, Fox is the only supplier of cable TV - if I hadn't already >> been put off for other reasons. > > I'm surprised at your saying that Fox is the only supplier of cable > TV locally. There's probably a bigger choice in the bigger cities. Here, the "cable" TV is supplied by satellite, and it's Foxtel or nothing. I chose nothing, but that's because I'm no great fan of spectator sports. Many people subscribe for the sports and ignore the rest. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >> I'm surprised at your saying that Fox is the only supplier of cable >> TV locally. > > There's probably a bigger choice in the bigger cities. In the bigger cities the choice is between Foxtel and Foxtel. Optus was in the game for a while, but they were swallowed up. That's probably why Australia has such a low take-up rate of cable; that and the price. SignatureRegards John for mail: my initials plus a u e at tpg dot com dot au > Heard on TV: > > 1. "Prevent" pronounced as "pervent." > > My diagnosis: sloppy speech/talking too fast. > Forgivable? Yes. Once the first vowel becomes a schwa, it's hard to even hear the order of the 'e' and 'r'. > 2. A reporter/commentator: "They are suspect of it." > (Meaning "they are suspicious.") > > One hopes it was just a "speako," but it may signal an > unwarranted change in English usage. But which sense of "suspicious"- they suspected, or they were suspected? > 3. From John Gibson, Fox News anchor: "The vapid leading the > hollow" regarding an attempt by Rep. Dennis Kucinich and > others (in Congress) to impeach Vice-President Dick Cheney. > > Too flowery? Okay? Your call. (My call: Ugh.) 'Ugh' seconded, but only half-flowery. If it had been "the vapid leading the vacuous" it would have been forgivable. > 4. "...between the ages of 2-1/2 to six." > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Can we be any more sweet and caring -- or silly? > Reporter, get a grip. Really. Or asking a member of a losing team how they feel about the loss. The loser feels obligated to go through a lugubrious song and dance about how they just have to do better, instead of calling the reporter a horse's a.s and turning their backs. -- John >> Heard on TV: >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > even hear the > order of the 'e' and 'r'. I'll buy that reasoning. Forgiven. >> 2. A reporter/commentator: "They are suspect of it." >> (Meaning "they are suspicious.") [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > were > suspected? They suspected; they were suspicious. >> 3. From John Gibson, Fox News anchor: "The vapid leading >> the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > vapid > leading the vacuous" it would have been forgivable. But still derivative. (See my reply to Bob C.) >> 4. "...between the ages of 2-1/2 to six." >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > calling the > reporter a horse's a.s and turning their backs. We agree. Some reporters just try way too hard to be "relevant" (and poignant?), and thus miss doing a good all-around job. It's like they confuse getting the feelings with getting the facts. Feelings are fine, but not necessarily news. Maria [ ... ] >> 3. From John Gibson, Fox News anchor: "The vapid leading the >> hollow" regarding an attempt by Rep. Dennis Kucinich and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 'Ugh' seconded, but only half-flowery. If it had been "the vapid > leading the vacuous" it would have been forgivable. The nature of reporterness in this day and age (ugh!) leads me to posit: it was /written/ as " ... the vacuous" but emerged " ... the hollow" because of a short circuit in the presentation process. Know it well, I do. { ... ] >> Reporter, get a grip. > > Really. Or asking a member of a losing team how they feel about the > loss. The loser feels obligated to go through a lugubrious song and > dance about how they just have to do better, instead of calling the > reporter a horse's a.s and turning their backs. Ayuh. SignatureFrank ess >> Heard on TV: >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Yes. Once the first vowel becomes a schwa, it's hard to even hear the > order of the 'e' and 'r'. I see this as an inevitable consequence of the fact that AmE (unlike other Englishes) uses the /R/ vowel. In AusE or BrE the combinations [r@] and [@r] sound so completely different that there's little risk of substituting one for the other. That's because /r/ in these dialects is a consonant, not a vowel. Once you replace the consonant /r/ by the vowel /R/, the difference between [@R] and [R@] becomes almost (although not quite) inaudible. In effect, the standard AmE pronunciation is as if the word were spelt "prvent": a combination that is almost unpronounceable in nonAmE. SignaturePeter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >>> Heard on TV: >>> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > combination > that is almost unpronounceable in nonAmE. Peter, I have never heard of the "r" vowel. Can you explain further? (To me, both the lack of sounding out present r's and the addition of nonpresent r's are inexplainable, inexplicable, and plain old mysterious ways.) Maria Resident of southeast Michigan, near Detroit; native of east Tennessee. >>>> Heard on TV: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Peter, I have never heard of the "r" vowel. Can you explain further? For most rhotic Americans, words like "her", "fir", and "per" consist of a single consonant followed by a single vowel: a rhoticized mid central vowel written /R/ in ASCII/IPA and as a schwa with a hook off the bar of the turned "e" in IPA. The same vowel is used in words like "bird" (/bRd/), "curt" (/kRt/), and "urchin" (/RtSIN/). (And, for that matter, in /kRS@nbAm/.) It's not a vowel followed by /r/; the r-coloring starts at the beginning of the articulation. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Politicians are like compost--they 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |should be turned often or they start Palo Alto, CA 94304 |to smell bad. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ Maria (or somebody else of the same name) wrote in message <f837j.3787$NY.351@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com>: > 5. From a woman reporter to the mother of a child who had > been found after being missing: "How much are you hugging > him and holding him today?" This is more the sort of question that a s****l w****r would ask, ready to take the child away if the answer falls outside (either way) her (unspecified) tolerance band. Signatureξ:) Proud to be curly Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply > Maria (or somebody else of the same name) wrote in message > <f837j.3787$NY.351@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com>: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > ready to take the child away if the answer falls outside (either way) > her (unspecified) tolerance band. A nephew of mine is right now struggling with having to fill the role of a single father, because the mother of his newborn baby keeps running away from home. (A severe case of post-natal depression, I assume, but nobody is willing to admit that she needs psychiatric help.) The s****l w****rs want to take the child and give it up for adoption, based on the sexist assumption that a single father, unlike a single mother, is a contradiction in terms. My sister, who is the grandmother of the child, is fighting a losing battle against the bureaucracy. She wants her son to be declared the legal parent of the baby, but she's losing the case because her son is male. SignaturePeter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. > A nephew of mine is right now struggling with having to fill the role of > a single father, because the mother of his newborn baby keeps running [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > to be declared the legal parent of the baby, but she's losing the case > because her son is male. That's the plot of a movie with Pierce Brosnan. A true story of a father who took his case up to the highest court in Ireland to get his daughters back. "Evelyn," 2002. SignatureGood luck -- Donna Richoux >> Maria (or somebody else of the same name) wrote in message >> <f837j.3787$NY.351@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com>: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >to be declared the legal parent of the baby, but she's losing the case >because her son is male. Any particular reason for the splats in "s****l w****r"? >> A nephew of mine is right now struggling with having to fill the >> role of a single father, because the mother of his newborn baby [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Any particular reason for the splats in "s****l w****r"? In cases like this, some of us are inclined to regard the phrase as a pair of dirty words. OK, they're only doing their job, and some of the nastier features of the system are the result of policies handed down from higher up, but sometimes such cases leave a nasty taste in one's mouth. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >>> A nephew of mine is right now struggling with having to fill the >>> role of a single father, because the mother of his newborn baby [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >nastier features of the system are the result of policies handed down >from higher up, but sometimes such cases leave a nasty taste in one's mouth. Thanks. I thought it might be for the same reason we tend to splat "P**l G**l". SignatureWCdnE >> Maria (or somebody else of the same name) wrote in message >> <f837j.3787$NY.351@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com>: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >to be declared the legal parent of the baby, but she's losing the case >because her son is male. I'm a bit unclear on what you're saying here. Is your nephew the biological father of the child? And if so, why isn't his name on the birth certificate? It it is on the birth certificate, he is the legal father. If it isn't, why not? If his name is not on the birth certificate, how are the social workers supposed to know he really is the father? They seem to me to be doing their job here. Not that I have any great affection for social workers, but their actions are frequently limited by law or regulation. Or worse, the latest whim of politicians. In any case, retention of a family attorney and a DNA test should quickley establish parenthood. How upset would your nephew be if it turns out he is not the father? My wife and I are licensed foster parents specializing in medically fragile infants, and we frequently become the placeholder parents of a child while these things are worked out. We have on several occasions had a child in our care who was awaiting resolution of fatherhood, sometimes when the putative father has finally shown up to claim the child only after serious efforrts to locate him. In more than one case this has held up an adoption, causing considerable emotional distress to the new adoptive parents who want a child very much but are no longer sure it will happen; often as not the claimant father is not the biological father. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >>A nephew of mine is right now struggling with having to fill the role of >>a single father, because the mother of his newborn baby keeps running [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >biological father of the child? And if so, why isn't his name on >the birth certificate? That's often not controllable by the biological father. The single mother often determines what name goes on the birth certificate and the biological father can't change this without a court order. It's a rather stupid thing for the mother to do since it impedes her ability to obtain court-ordered financial support from the father, but it's very common. >In any case, retention of a family attorney and a DNA test should >quickley establish parenthood. How upset would your nephew be if >it turns out he is not the father? Yeah, right. The retention of a family attorney and a DNA test can be financially quite burdensome. Worth it? Perhaps, but the father has to have the financial means to do so. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL >>>A nephew of mine is right now struggling with having to fill the role of >>>a single father, because the mother of his newborn baby keeps running [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >mother often determines what name goes on the birth certificate and >the biological father can't change this without a court order. If the supposed father is that close to the mother, why would she not list him? It could be an indication that the mother doesn't think the nephew is the father. >It's a rather stupid thing for the mother to do since it impedes her >ability to obtain court-ordered financial support from the father, but >it's very common. It is certainly a complication. But sometimes the mother wants nothing to do with the father, or presumed father. Or doesn't really know who the father is. In any case, social services is right to hesitate at this point and ask for proof of parenthood. One of the advantages of marrying the mother before the child is born is that the husband is the legal father regardless of actual biology, and any man claiming otherwise has the burden of proving parenthood and demonstrating to a court why he should have custody even is it turns out he is the biological father. >>In any case, retention of a family attorney and a DNA test should >>quickley establish parenthood. How upset would your nephew be if [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >financially quite burdensome. Worth it? Perhaps, but the father has >to have the financial means to do so. Legal aid is available in many areas. And, depending on jurisdiction, social services will pay for a DNA test for a claimant; it is in their best interest to clear the matter up as quickly as possible. I know social services has a bad rep, and some of it is well-deserved. There are a couple of social workers here who sometimes make our lives as foster parents a bit miserable. But most of them are hugely overworked and still trying to do the right thing. The latest philosophy here in Arizona, mostly at the urging of the state legislature, has been family re-unification, get the kid back to his/her parents as quickly as possible rather than do what's best for the child, and the state social services department hs been doing just that. Some of our kids have been restored to parents we consider grossly undeserving, but there is little we, or the social workers can do about it. You see, so long as the child is in the system it is costing the state money in foster payments and medical expenses. Rapid re-unification gets the child off the books. Several recent deaths of children who were restored to the parents have the legislature now holding hearings. Since we care for babies with medical problems, which can be as severe as needing frequent tube feedings and complicated medicine regimes, it near breaks our hearts to see a baby go back to a mother obviously unable to cope with the baby's problems and who is a presumably rehabilitated druggie. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >>>I'm a bit unclear on what you're saying here. Is your nephew the >>>biological father of the child? And if so, why isn't his name on [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >not list him? It could be an indication that the mother doesn't >think the nephew is the father. I'm not really speaking about the actual person involved in this situation. I don't know them, and couldn't comment about it. Situations where a single mother does not list the father's name on the birth certificate are common, though. Many of these women are young, uneducated, and - frankly - none too bright. They think if the father is not involved, the father needn't be on the birth certificate. My wife deals with this type of thing frequently in her job. When one of her clients is still in the expecting stage, she finds a way to get it across that the father should be named on the birth certificate so financial support can be sought. You'd be amazed, though, (or maybe you wouldn't) how many aren't sure *which* person should be named as the father. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL tony cooper wrote, in <qau2m31n9d2hn8u00i94qvdrq11l087kcr@4ax.com> on Thu, 13 Dec 2007 13:33:07 -0500: > You'd be amazed, though, (or maybe you wouldn't) how many aren't sure > *which* person should be named as the father. When a local girl acquired an out-of-wedlock daughter and named her Michaela I asked one of my daughters if Michael was the father's name. "Huh, how would she know?" she replied. SignatureNick Spalding BrE/IrE >tony cooper wrote, in <qau2m31n9d2hn8u00i94qvdrq11l087kcr@4ax.com> > on Thu, 13 Dec 2007 13:33:07 -0500: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Michaela I asked one of my daughters if Michael was the father's name. >"Huh, how would she know?" she replied. An overbearing approach is not untypical of the sort of thing English social services and the family courts get up to. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/camilla_cavendish/article304 2581.ece A 71-year-old man has been jailed for 20 months because his teenage stepgrandson keeps running away from foster carers and turning up on his doorstep. <quote> Charles Roy Taylor is a 71-year-old with a heart condition. He knew that a jail sentence was the penalty he might pay if he did not take steps to avoid his stepgrandson. But this seems desperately unfair. The teenager, whom we shall call John, has been in care since his mother died of an overdose. He has been phoning his grandparents and running away to see them for some time. In the end, social services became concerned that the grandparents were “undermining the care plan” by continuing to see John. It does not appear to be clear to the grandparents what the care plan is. But it does not seem to include them, even though they could presumably be John's first port of call when he leaves the care system at 18. </quote> In England, family court sessions are held in private and there is no appeal from their decisions. SignatureRobin Herts, England >My wife and I are licensed foster parents specializing in >medically fragile infants, and we frequently become the >placeholder parents of a child while these things are worked out. 'Licensed foster parents'; 'medically fragile children'; 'placeholder parents'. Wonderful jargon. Good for a chuckle. SignatureJames Follett. Novelist. >>My wife and I are licensed foster parents specializing in >>medically fragile infants, and we frequently become the >>placeholder parents of a child while these things are worked out. > >'Licensed foster parents'; 'medically fragile children'; 'placeholder >parents'. Wonderful jargon. Good for a chuckle. I'm not sure why the first two are a chuckle since the first is an accurate statement of our status and the second is a pretty accurate generic statement; some of the children may be medically fragile but they are not necessarily sick. "Placeholder parents" was made up by me with deliberate aforethought so feel free to chuckle, although it strikes me as a pretty good discription of what we are for some of our children Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >> A nephew of mine is right now struggling with having to fill the >> role of a single father, because the mother of his newborn baby [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> declared the legal parent of the baby, but she's losing the case >> because her son is male. Sorry, that was a bit misleading. He is in fact a legal parent of the child. The point in question is whether he can be the legal custodian. > I'm a bit unclear on what you're saying here. Is your nephew the > biological father of the child? And if so, why isn't his name on the > birth certificate? It it is on the birth certificate, he is the legal > father. If it isn't, why not? If his name is not on the birth > certificate, how are the social workers supposed to know he really is > the father? They seem to me to be doing their job here. He's the biological father, I have no doubt that his name is on the birth certificate, and the two parents were living together both before and after the birth of the child. In fact, they're still technically living together, because she comes back home after each episode of running away, stays a few days, and then disappears again. The sole reason why he's at risk of losing the child is that our Social Welfare system is filled with people who believe that a single parent must necessarily be female. If he had abandoned his partner and the child, she would retain custody of the child without question. The problem is that she is the one who has abandoned the father and the child. The child is considered to be "at risk" because of having an unstable mother, and the father is at risk of being punished for that. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >>> A nephew of mine is right now struggling with having to fill the >>> role of a single father, because the mother of his newborn baby [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >Sorry, that was a bit misleading. He is in fact a legal parent of the >child. The point in question is whether he can be the legal custodian. Ah. OK. >> I'm a bit unclear on what you're saying here. Is your nephew the >> biological father of the child? And if so, why isn't his name on the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >Welfare system is filled with people who believe that a single parent >must necessarily be female. While in the USA in most states a father will be looked at carefully before custody is awarded, it is no longer a given that the child will go to the mother. In this case it would take rather grievous circumstances to remove the child from the father's custody, and then only if the mother or a third party filed a complaint that the child was receiving inadequate care. >If he had abandoned his partner and the >child, she would retain custody of the child without question. The >problem is that she is the one who has abandoned the father and the child. >The child is considered to be "at risk" because of having an unstable >mother, and the father is at risk of being punished for that. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * [...] >> The sole reason why he's at risk of losing the child is that our >> Social Welfare system is filled with people who believe that a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > carefully before custody is awarded, it is no longer a given that > the child will go to the mother. [...] UK, too. I was a single parent for years, no problem. SignatureMike. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > Heard on TV: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Too flowery? Okay? Your call. (My call: Ugh.) Oh, the irony. But I've got nothing against the usage. --Jeff SignatureI object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent. -Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi > Heard on TV: <snip> > 5. From a woman reporter to the mother of a child who had > been found after being missing: "How much are you hugging [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Maria, aka Hard-Hearted Hannah > Motto: Halt English Usage (of this type). Oh, what gets me are the "How did you feel, seeing your husband gunned down before your eyes?" type of questions. SignatureSkitt >> Heard on TV: > <snip> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > husband > gunned down before your eyes?" type of questions. Yes, and those kinds of questions are all too common. One wonders just what kind of training such reporters have had. Maria >>> Heard on TV: >> <snip> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Yes, and those kinds of questions are all too common. One > wonders just what kind of training such reporters have had. I wonder if anyone could muster a reply along the lines "Well, I must tell you, it was rather ghastly, what with all the blood and everything." SignatureSkitt On 10 Dec 2007, Skitt wrote >>>> Heard on TV: >>> <snip> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > must tell you, it was rather ghastly, what with all the blood > and everything." What's the quote -- I've looked and can't find it -- by the aristocratic lady speaking of a battle she'd watched? (Something like "the noise, and smoke, and commotion" or something; I think "my dear" may have come into it.) SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed [...] > What's the quote -- I've looked and can't find it -- by the > aristocratic lady speaking of a battle she'd watched? > > (Something like "the noise, and smoke, and commotion" or something; > I think "my dear" may have come into it.) Well, there was a /man/, perhaps apocryphal, but I see him as a Guardee, who said, in tones of refined disgust, "My dear! The noise! The /people/!" SignatureMike. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com On 10 Dec 2007, Mike Lyle wrote > [...] >> What's the quote -- I've looked and can't find it -- by the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Guardee, who said, in tones of refined disgust, "My dear! The > noise! The /people/!" Ah; thanks. I thought it was one of those late 18th/early 19th century things where the ladies perched on the hills to watch the action. (I've no idea where that impression comes from, though.) SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed HVS wrote, in <Xns9A02DC6BCB226whhvans@news.albasani.net> on Mon, 10 Dec 2007 21:40:05 GMT: > On 10 Dec 2007, Skitt wrote > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > (Something like "the noise, and smoke, and commotion" or something; > I think "my dear" may have come into it.) The version I know is that of the Guards officer who was asked what some particularly disastrous battle was like and he replied "My dear, the noise, the smell and the people". SignatureNick Spalding >>> Heard on TV: >> <snip> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Yes, and those kinds of questions are all too common. One > wonders just what kind of training such reporters have had. I was privileged to see a reporter reporting from across the street as his home was consumed in the recent wildfires. He answered all those kinds of questions in a very moving way. Cliche or no, very close to the core. SignatureFrank ess >> Oh, what gets me are the "How did you feel, seeing your husband >> gunned down before your eyes?" type of questions. > > Yes, and those kinds of questions are all too common. One wonders > just what kind of training such reporters have had. I'm still waiting to hear "How do you feel, having to deal with all these insensitive reporters?" SignaturePeter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. "Skitt": >>> Oh, what gets me are the "How did you feel, seeing your husband >>> gunned down before your eyes?" type of questions. Maria Conlon: >> Yes, and those kinds of questions are all too common. One wonders >> just what kind of training such reporters have had. Peter Moylan: > I'm still waiting to hear "How do you feel, having to deal with all > these insensitive reporters?" The one I'm still waiting for is where they say "I feel like doing THIS to someone", and give the reporter a punch in the face. I mean, what better occasion for a little temporary insanity? SignatureMark Brader, Toronto "Don't get clever at 5PM Friday." msb@vex.net -- Tom Van Vleck >"Skitt": >>>> Oh, what gets me are the "How did you feel, seeing your husband [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >THIS to someone", and give the reporter a punch in the face. I mean, >what better occasion for a little temporary insanity? May well have happened, many times even. Wouldn't make the broadcast 'though. SignatureRichard Bollard Canberra Australia To email, I'm at AMT not spAMT. >> "Skitt": >>>>> Oh, what gets me are the "How did you feel, seeing your husband [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > May well have happened, many times even. Wouldn't make the broadcast > 'though. I rather hope so. People seem to be being conditioned to the idea that the meeja are /entitled/ to their comments on very recent very private matters. It wasn't about personal tragedy, and I can't remember what it /was/ about, but I remember with pleasure when the late soccer manager Brian Clough said to a reporter, "I'll brain ye!" Another famous footy boss generally deals with it in a very different way: A.Ferguson detests the press, and takes care to make everything he says to them utterly unintelligible. "Ah'm acroofyin yingoo the whuffle lang wharrp the lad, goggrichly." SignatureMike. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >>> Oh, what gets me are the "How did you feel, seeing your husband >>> gunned down before your eyes?" type of questions. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I'm still waiting to hear "How do you feel, having to deal with all > these insensitive reporters?" Margaret Trudeau gave a convincing demonstration of how it feels, a few years ago. She was present at a large gathering on Parliament Hill, shortly after the death of her former husband Pierre, when a political reporter for CTV, the unspeakable Mike ("Puffy") Duffy, reminded her, in the course of a live interview, that her eldest son had died in an avalanche on that date not many years earlier. Mrs. Trudeau collapsed to the ground and remained indisposed for some while thereafter. Mr. Duffy goes on chuckling. Skitt <skitt99@comcast.net> het geskryf: > Oh, what gets me are the "How did you feel, seeing your > husband gunned down before your eyes?" type of questions. "Oh, my God," I thought. "He has the car-keys." SignatureNat ----- "Bob, Bob, Bob, Bob, it's the bit about starting new threads when you have the choice of taking it to e-mail or just dropping it. That's what's rubbing some of us the wrong way." ---Al in Dallas > > Heard on TV: > <snip> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Oh, what gets me are the "How did you feel, seeing your husband gunned down > before your eyes?" type of questions. Thank heavens he renewed the life insurance last week ? John Kane, Kingston ON Canada |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.