Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Momentum Has No Sense Of Humour!!
18 Answers
http://
Saw this last night and as usual, found it hillarious. Just as I thought the skits on Maggie Thatcher were years ago. I always thought the left had no sense of humour!!
Saw this last night and as usual, found it hillarious. Just as I thought the skits on Maggie Thatcher were years ago. I always thought the left had no sense of humour!!
Answers
1 to 18 of 18
Pathetic response from a pathetic party.
09:30 Tue 05th Jun 2018
I like Tracy Ullman and missed the start of the new series so thanks for the reminder lol
Poking fun at political figures has been a mainstay of British humour from time immemorial and, for me at least, as long as it isn’t nasty it is OK and usually quite funny.
*shakes head in dismay* Momentum have been at the forefront of abuse of those not bowing to Corbyn and this is just another of their tactics.
When are the sleepy Labour supporters going to wake up? Or have they done so already and there are just too few of them left?
Poking fun at political figures has been a mainstay of British humour from time immemorial and, for me at least, as long as it isn’t nasty it is OK and usually quite funny.
*shakes head in dismay* Momentum have been at the forefront of abuse of those not bowing to Corbyn and this is just another of their tactics.
When are the sleepy Labour supporters going to wake up? Or have they done so already and there are just too few of them left?
lindapalmara
This is how it works...newspapers can make up any headline they like and justify it by linking to tweets which support it.
The Daily Mail could easily have published a story titled, “EVEN LABOUR SUPPORTERS ARE LAUGHING AT CORBYN”, and then simply posted screen shots of a couple of tweets praising the show.
Don’t be taken in by Twitter. If 100,000 tweet about a show, newspapers can comb through them to get the story they want.
It’s how they massage the ‘news’.
This is how it works...newspapers can make up any headline they like and justify it by linking to tweets which support it.
The Daily Mail could easily have published a story titled, “EVEN LABOUR SUPPORTERS ARE LAUGHING AT CORBYN”, and then simply posted screen shots of a couple of tweets praising the show.
Don’t be taken in by Twitter. If 100,000 tweet about a show, newspapers can comb through them to get the story they want.
It’s how they massage the ‘news’.
Reported by several other sources including the Guardian:-
https:/
https:/
SP // This is how it works...newspapers can make up any headline they like and justify it by linking to tweets which support it. //
True, but there was also an article about this in the Times I bought on Saturday.
Extremists of any kind have no sense of humour. It's one of the things that characterise them as extremists. In this case it's a question of someone satirising the dear leader. Ullman's name will no doubt go on the list of people needing re-education in acceptable targets for satire, come the glorious revolution.
She's jewish herself, which probably made them angrier than they otherwise might have been.
True, but there was also an article about this in the Times I bought on Saturday.
Extremists of any kind have no sense of humour. It's one of the things that characterise them as extremists. In this case it's a question of someone satirising the dear leader. Ullman's name will no doubt go on the list of people needing re-education in acceptable targets for satire, come the glorious revolution.
She's jewish herself, which probably made them angrier than they otherwise might have been.
// So no newspaper story is believable then? //
That's not what SP said. Newspaper stories based on what a few random people have said in tweets, however... that's another matter.
Every such story should be taken with a pound of salt. It's not that they *didn't* say it, but usually the tweets are either (a) representative of only a tiny minority, picked up on to look sensational, or (b) ill-informed, people reacting to a TV show without properly understanding what they saw, or (c) both.
To branch that out to all stories newspapers is a textbook example of the "so" rule...
That's not what SP said. Newspaper stories based on what a few random people have said in tweets, however... that's another matter.
Every such story should be taken with a pound of salt. It's not that they *didn't* say it, but usually the tweets are either (a) representative of only a tiny minority, picked up on to look sensational, or (b) ill-informed, people reacting to a TV show without properly understanding what they saw, or (c) both.
To branch that out to all stories newspapers is a textbook example of the "so" rule...
A journalist can log into their Twitter feed, perform a search and they will get a whole range of opinions about a particular subject. They can then write up a story based on the tweets they’ve extracted.
After that, they sit back and watch other commenting on what may have been four tweets out of hundreds.
An honest story would be if there were 5,000 tweets about the show, and 2,800 came from identified Momentum members all of whom attacked the BBC for airing this sketch.
But that’s not the case.
I hate the way that our news is now dictated by lazy journalists who fabricate outrage.
After that, they sit back and watch other commenting on what may have been four tweets out of hundreds.
An honest story would be if there were 5,000 tweets about the show, and 2,800 came from identified Momentum members all of whom attacked the BBC for airing this sketch.
But that’s not the case.
I hate the way that our news is now dictated by lazy journalists who fabricate outrage.
-- answer removed --
1 to 18 of 18
Latest Posts
Religion & Spirituality - What...
ChatterBank3 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles26 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles29 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.