Dear Scott Burgess, Reporting the man from Microsoft seems to you to be somehow remiss, yet he is the man from America talking about his fellow Americans. You on the other hand seem free to "report" on what the press says and then add comments, a luxury news reporters are not allowed for good reason, because it leads to distortion of what people say. All the best Paul Brown"
I mean, what's with that first line ? How does one 'report the man' ? Equally, if he is 'the man from America' how can there be fellow Americans ? Wouldn't that make him 'a man from America' ?
Mind, you, I'll bet Paul B still thinks Dubya's occasional verbal uptrips make him a total maroon. Yes, yes: this is pretty weaseley, and yes, I know I'm the last person to sneer at someone getting their Englishing all confuserised, but hey ? I'm just a fat drunk with a keyboard. Paul B, on the well-known other hand, seeks to cast himself as the valiant defender of journalistic standards despite making the average blogger look like Churchill.
But, let's not let the terrible writing distract us from the repulsive nature of the underlying idea. Is a Guardian journalist really resorting to that old standby of racist through the ages, namely digging up a single example of a member of the targeted race saying something that reinforces his prejudices then arguing that 'they say it themselves' ? Surely not!
Brace yourselves - that first sentence was as good as it got. Next, we have this:
You on the other hand seem free to "report" on what the press says and then add comments, a luxury news reporters are not allowed for good reason, because it leads to distortion of what people say.
Was there an offer on commas when he wrote that e-mail or what ? Mind you, with those scare quotes there'll always be a job waiting for "Paul" at the so-called BBC. Of course, we must not let the "English As A Sixth Language" writing style distract us from the asininity of the basic point: journalists don't comment on what they report ? Say what ? We could get specific, but for now let's just - for the sake of Paul's absurd argument - ask how, if all journalists do is report verbatim other people's comments, their jobs differs from that of sub-editors, carefully clipping the story to fit.
In reality, of course, journalists always comment on what they report. Providing fact and commentary are delineated as such, there is no reason at all why any distortion should occur. What, I think, Paul really means - and again you are reminded that one of us is a professional writer and one a drunk - that journalists should report what people say without adding their own comments. Yet, isn't one of the main roles of a journalist to add context ? Is Paul really saying that if Michael Howard claimed a Conservative government would cure cancer, he'd report it with nary a whisper ?
Given that the stated charges are so weak, I think it's fair to speculate on what really teed off Paul. Check out the start of his second sentence: 'You on the other hand seem free to "report" on what the press says…' Is this a Freudian slip or what ? A member of the public commenting on the press. I mean, he probably doesn't even have the hat, let alone passed Nuance 101. It's a disgrace.
Just five years ago, Paul Brown could have got away with it, but now things have changed. No longer can the mainstream media deliver the talking points d'jour to the public like pearls before swine. No wonder they're all sulky, how can they enjoy the privileges of being a member of the Fourth Estate when rude oiks keep interrupting their pontifications ?
No comments:
Post a Comment