Chicken Drumstick, Pork Pie, Glass Of...
News5 mins ago
Mp Advocates Giving Susannah Reed 'a Slap'.
55 Answers
The Mail does appear to be whipping this up into something it clearly is not.
Deborah Dunleavy has made a stupid comment on her Twitter account - as an MP she should know better than to get into such a stupid post with careless language.
But to suggest that she is advocating violence against women is clearly very wide of the mark.
I avoid Twitter because it provides a platform for the incoherent to reach the unthinking - but that does not mean that the media should encourage these ridiculous conclusions.
Does it? Media URL: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2526466/Does-just-want-slap-Susanna-Reid-Tory-politician-deletes-Twitter-account-attack-Strictly-star.html
Description:
Deborah Dunleavy has made a stupid comment on her Twitter account - as an MP she should know better than to get into such a stupid post with careless language.
But to suggest that she is advocating violence against women is clearly very wide of the mark.
I avoid Twitter because it provides a platform for the incoherent to reach the unthinking - but that does not mean that the media should encourage these ridiculous conclusions.
Does it? Media URL: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2526466/Does-just-want-slap-Susanna-Reid-Tory-politician-deletes-Twitter-account-attack-Strictly-star.html
Description:
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by andy-hughes. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
AOG, the question remains. This messenger is not a mere messenger, one who conveys a message for someone else and who has no choice in what message is. Why then did the Daily Mail (or any other paper, if any other did), run this story instead of leaving it where it was, on Twitter? The Mail is read by millions. This comment was initially read by only a few hundred and is unremarkable; nobody could properly take such a colloquial saying literally.
AOG - "Wouldn't you have been better off by not reading the story Andy?
No one forces you or anyone else to read such a media story or even present a thread on such a story."
Now that is what I call a seriou pot / kettle interface!
If you ceased picking up stories from the media and posting them on here, your input to the AB would cease instantly!
No one forces you or anyone else to read such a media story or even present a thread on such a story."
Now that is what I call a seriou pot / kettle interface!
If you ceased picking up stories from the media and posting them on here, your input to the AB would cease instantly!
what can be seen as a careless throwaway expression when spoken, can take on a different and more serious meaning in print
Well, sort of. The thing is, it wasn't in print, it was in pixels. At the moment we still tend to think Twitter = writing - but to users Twitter = tallking.
I imagine in time we'll come to take the latter view too. (Suppose, for instance, it becomes possible to dictate your tweets rather than having to type them?)
I am very old-tech, and don't tweet, but this sounds rather an overreaction.
Well, sort of. The thing is, it wasn't in print, it was in pixels. At the moment we still tend to think Twitter = writing - but to users Twitter = tallking.
I imagine in time we'll come to take the latter view too. (Suppose, for instance, it becomes possible to dictate your tweets rather than having to type them?)
I am very old-tech, and don't tweet, but this sounds rather an overreaction.
FredPuli43
/// AOG, the question remains. This messenger is not a mere messenger, one who conveys a message for someone else and who has no choice in what message is. Why then did the Daily Mail (or any other paper, if any other did), run this story instead of leaving it where it was, on Twitter? The Mail is read by millions. This comment was initially read by only a few hundred and is unremarkable; nobody could properly take such a colloquial saying literally. ///
Fortunately everyone does not wish to censor the press, especially when they show some up to be what they really are, I refer of course to those Labour members who chose to attach more to this Tory MP's words than what was actually said.
As you have already stated the Daily Mail is read by millions, which also includes millions who wish to be informed of what is actually taking place, especially such as this story which by it's very essence could develop into something much more than a simple innocent remark made on twitter, especially when there is a chance for some to attempt to gain valuable political points against a MP of an opposing party.
/// AOG, the question remains. This messenger is not a mere messenger, one who conveys a message for someone else and who has no choice in what message is. Why then did the Daily Mail (or any other paper, if any other did), run this story instead of leaving it where it was, on Twitter? The Mail is read by millions. This comment was initially read by only a few hundred and is unremarkable; nobody could properly take such a colloquial saying literally. ///
Fortunately everyone does not wish to censor the press, especially when they show some up to be what they really are, I refer of course to those Labour members who chose to attach more to this Tory MP's words than what was actually said.
As you have already stated the Daily Mail is read by millions, which also includes millions who wish to be informed of what is actually taking place, especially such as this story which by it's very essence could develop into something much more than a simple innocent remark made on twitter, especially when there is a chance for some to attempt to gain valuable political points against a MP of an opposing party.
andy-hughes
/// If you ceased picking up stories from the media and posting them on here, your input to the AB would cease instantly! ///
Yes but you are missing the point, I pick up stories from the media, so as to start up a debate on a particular issue, unlike you I then don't complain that I would rather not have been made aware of it.
/// If you ceased picking up stories from the media and posting them on here, your input to the AB would cease instantly! ///
Yes but you are missing the point, I pick up stories from the media, so as to start up a debate on a particular issue, unlike you I then don't complain that I would rather not have been made aware of it.
AOG - "I pick up stories from the media, so as to start up a debate on a particular issue, unlike you I then don't complain that I would rather not have been made aware of it."
I am not, and have not, complained that I would rather not have been made aware of the Twitter post, that is not the point I was making.
My point is, that the media, Mail included, took up what should have been a minor exchange on a speech medium, and included the nonsense spouted by some counsellors who, as you correctly pointed out, used it to make political hay, but it is their turning this into a news story that is, in my view, inappropriate journalism.
The Labour counsellors used Twitter to make their invalid points against a Conservative MP - but the Mail then used its far bigger reach and audience to make their points against the Labour Counsellors.
Neither is right to do so - only one has a serious audience reach, so the print media, in my view, is the party at fault here.
I am not, and have not, complained that I would rather not have been made aware of the Twitter post, that is not the point I was making.
My point is, that the media, Mail included, took up what should have been a minor exchange on a speech medium, and included the nonsense spouted by some counsellors who, as you correctly pointed out, used it to make political hay, but it is their turning this into a news story that is, in my view, inappropriate journalism.
The Labour counsellors used Twitter to make their invalid points against a Conservative MP - but the Mail then used its far bigger reach and audience to make their points against the Labour Counsellors.
Neither is right to do so - only one has a serious audience reach, so the print media, in my view, is the party at fault here.
How often, in these revered pages, has someone in the Media section said Shula/TracyB/Helen etc etc needs a slap? It's become a way of saying that the person is for some reason annoying, I seriously doubt that the posters would advocate real violence, I know I didn't, but then Helen in The Archers is soooooooo annoying and whiney.
A person in the public eye however should realise that they're making bullets for their opponents to fire and they are glad to do so.
A person in the public eye however should realise that they're making bullets for their opponents to fire and they are glad to do so.
andy-hughes
/// Neither is right to do so - only one has a serious audience reach, so the print media, in my view, is the party at fault here. ///
And what if then it developed into something a lot more serious, as remarks made on twitter have done so in the past, would not the Daily Mail or any other publication be lacking in their duty not to have reported on such an issue when it was in it's infancy?
/// Neither is right to do so - only one has a serious audience reach, so the print media, in my view, is the party at fault here. ///
And what if then it developed into something a lot more serious, as remarks made on twitter have done so in the past, would not the Daily Mail or any other publication be lacking in their duty not to have reported on such an issue when it was in it's infancy?
Latest Posts
Body & Soul6 mins ago
Computers8 mins ago
Religion & Spirituality - What...
ChatterBank15 mins ago
Crosswords16 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.