Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Shot Yourself In The Foot Love......
23 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. 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.
Interesting BBC piece about Oakeshott. Surprising that Hancock would trust her with sensitive material.
https:/
https:/
beats me why Hancock trusted her in the first place - the woman who made allegations about politicians and pigs' heads. But even after that she kept working - allegedly on a six-figure salary for TalkTV, Murdoch's channel. Then she handed this story over to Murodch's rivals.
She's a knave but Hancock's a fool. She won't be out of work, though.
She's a knave but Hancock's a fool. She won't be out of work, though.
TTT - Not sure why you put the word journalist in italics, since Ms Oakeshott clearly is of that profession.
The word 'trust' with the media, is a difficult concept to pin down.
The main news press are to be treated with caution - they can be useful, but of course they have their eye on 'the story' at all times, because that is what they are paid for.
As far as i am concerned, Ms Oakeshott has done what any journalist in her area of the media would do - she has taken a golden opportunity and made the very best of it.
Mr Hancock was naive enough to imagine that such explosive material given to her would stay with her, which is somewhat akin to teaching your children to swim my throwing them in a pool with a shark.
The word 'trust' with the media, is a difficult concept to pin down.
The main news press are to be treated with caution - they can be useful, but of course they have their eye on 'the story' at all times, because that is what they are paid for.
As far as i am concerned, Ms Oakeshott has done what any journalist in her area of the media would do - she has taken a golden opportunity and made the very best of it.
Mr Hancock was naive enough to imagine that such explosive material given to her would stay with her, which is somewhat akin to teaching your children to swim my throwing them in a pool with a shark.
AH"TTT - Not sure why you put the word journalist in italics, since Ms Oakeshott clearly is of that profession. " - quotes? Anyway neither am I now, I suppose initially I wanted to credit the profession with some sort ethical standard and thus remove her from that set. But since I posted I realised that there are very few journos who wouldn't sell their granny to the Ravenous Bugblatter beast of traal for a scoop so I revise that opinion.
The Daily Telegraph I cannot help noticing has the words "The Lockdown Diaries" or somesuch as a banner across its extensive front page.
This is simply them pursuing their bee-in-a-bonnet about lockdown restrictions in rhe so-called "public interest"
It's very dishonest in my opinion. Whatever you think Hancock, or the lockdown, both of which are thankfully behind us.
As I said elsewhere, I'd hope to see a balanced review of how the pandemic was handled come out eventually. This plainly is not it.
I may be wrong, but I doubt for example the Times would do this: it's more the territory of the Express, Mirror or Mail.
Or indeed Morning Star.
Hence "rag"
This is simply them pursuing their bee-in-a-bonnet about lockdown restrictions in rhe so-called "public interest"
It's very dishonest in my opinion. Whatever you think Hancock, or the lockdown, both of which are thankfully behind us.
As I said elsewhere, I'd hope to see a balanced review of how the pandemic was handled come out eventually. This plainly is not it.
I may be wrong, but I doubt for example the Times would do this: it's more the territory of the Express, Mirror or Mail.
Or indeed Morning Star.
Hence "rag"
ichkeria, when the stuff about MPs' expenses came out, it was offered to The Times. The editor, an honest and principled man, refused to take what was in effect stolen property. The Telegraph bought it - and, to be fair, did a detailed job of analysing and publishing it.
There was a case for not doing this as Parliament was going to pubish it anyway. But it turned out when they did that it was full of convenient redactions so no MPs would get hurt.
On balance, I think the Times was right to refuse it, but I also think with hindsight that the Telegraph was right to print it. It was genuinely in the public interest and there was no other way of publishing it. (And the Times man who refused the story was duly sacked.)
As to the current case, I don't know yet. The incompetence of ministers isn't really news; and yet documenting the government's handling of a major pandemic is something the public ought to know.
There was a case for not doing this as Parliament was going to pubish it anyway. But it turned out when they did that it was full of convenient redactions so no MPs would get hurt.
On balance, I think the Times was right to refuse it, but I also think with hindsight that the Telegraph was right to print it. It was genuinely in the public interest and there was no other way of publishing it. (And the Times man who refused the story was duly sacked.)
As to the current case, I don't know yet. The incompetence of ministers isn't really news; and yet documenting the government's handling of a major pandemic is something the public ought to know.
Jno - As you point out, there is a difficult balance between 'the public interest' and 'what interests the public', and the two are often quite different.
In my view, thanks to his immoral courtship of public attention while still serving as an MP, Mr Hancock has sacrificed any and all protection from the ravages of the media, for whom, in my view, he is completely fair game.
Add in the genuine public interest in his decisions and actions as a minister, and I say - roll the presses.
In my view, thanks to his immoral courtship of public attention while still serving as an MP, Mr Hancock has sacrificed any and all protection from the ravages of the media, for whom, in my view, he is completely fair game.
Add in the genuine public interest in his decisions and actions as a minister, and I say - roll the presses.
Isabel Oakeshott was interviewed on Radio 4’s Today programme this morning; you can listen to it here (from 1:09 to 1:20).
https:/
https:/
Latest Posts
ChatterBank3 mins ago
God Is Not A Whiteman, So Says The Coe
News42 mins ago
74 Million "Uninformed Horrible...
ChatterBank50 mins ago
ChatterBank81 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.