Jeez, this is an awful week to write my threads for Sunday in advance.
I might go for a non time sensitive piece on AV/electoral reform/House of Lords reform.
why not give us the upside of the courts decision and write how Nicola Sturgeon's strategy is in tatters and a career in pantomime is all she has left ?
Oooh an opportunity to wind up the Nats and Leavers, you don't get opportunities like that every day.
Whilst it does seem the Times is the one to alter the image, I think Mr. Observer's reaction at first glance is reasonable (although clearly needs amending given that, for whatever reason, the Times have lightened it).
No, it's a stupid reaction. Anyone with a brain would know that the Sun picture eds are most unlikely to be hateful race baiters fuelled by Brexit loathing of Ms Miller.
But Southam desperately WANTED to believe this, so he leapt to a ludicrous conclusion.
It shows that there are credulous nitwits on all sides of this debate. Brexit is sending people bonkers.
I remember some people claimed that the sun and daily mail only photoed the one or two child migrants who looked a bit old, until it was revealed it was Getty who took the images and all looked similarly not a child.
Yep. Exactly the same mental process.
To be fair, it's not surprising that people are skeptical about press photos these days:
http://petapixel.com/2016/10/26/world-press-photo-debut-new-photo-contest-no-rules/ The prestigious World Press Photo contest has been tarnished in recent years by findings of inappropriate staging and digital manipulation of photos. So, the organizers have come up with a solution: there will soon be a new separate contest that does away with all the rules.
World Press Photo announced today that starting in October 2017, there will be a brand new contest for “creative documentary photography” (the official name has yet to be finalized).
Unlike the organization’s traditional contest for photojournalists, which disqualified 20% of finalists last year and subsequently implemented a Code of Ethics, the new contest won’t be bound by journalism ethics.
“This contest will be for professional visual storytellers who, in wanting to communicate about actual people, events or issues, deploy creative techniques in constructing, processing and presenting images,” World Press Photo says. “This contest will not have rules limiting how images are produced, and will not have categories.”…
Whilst it does seem the Times is the one to alter the image, I think Mr. Observer's reaction at first glance is reasonable (although clearly needs amending given that, for whatever reason, the Times have lightened it).
No, it's a stupid reaction. Anyone with a brain would know that the Sun picture eds are most unlikely to be hateful race baiters fuelled by Brexit loathing of Ms Miller.
But Southam desperately WANTED to believe this, so he leapt to a ludicrous conclusion.
It shows that there are credulous nitwits on all sides of this debate. Brexit is sending people bonkers.
I remember some people claimed that the sun and daily mail only photoed the one or two child migrants who looked a bit old, until it was revealed it was Getty who took the images and all looked similarly not a child.
Yep. Exactly the same mental process.
To be fair, it's not surprising that people are skeptical about press photos these days:
http://petapixel.com/2016/10/26/world-press-photo-debut-new-photo-contest-no-rules/ The prestigious World Press Photo contest has been tarnished in recent years by findings of inappropriate staging and digital manipulation of photos. So, the organizers have come up with a solution: there will soon be a new separate contest that does away with all the rules.
World Press Photo announced today that starting in October 2017, there will be a brand new contest for “creative documentary photography” (the official name has yet to be finalized).
Unlike the organization’s traditional contest for photojournalists, which disqualified 20% of finalists last year and subsequently implemented a Code of Ethics, the new contest won’t be bound by journalism ethics.
“This contest will be for professional visual storytellers who, in wanting to communicate about actual people, events or issues, deploy creative techniques in constructing, processing and presenting images,” World Press Photo says. “This contest will not have rules limiting how images are produced, and will not have categories.”…
The rumours over the FBI "investigation" into the Clinton Foundation are eye popping. Suggestion of rogue right wing agents trying to create a case out of "Clinton's Cash" book by Breitbart's Editor-at-Large.
Speaking of libel, could the judges sue the Daily Mail (In particular) ?
Can judges even sue ?
Only central, local government, trade unions and political parties cannot sue for libel, IIRC.
Whether they would of course... not sure what libel there actually is in the DM story.
Can private or public businesses sue for libel?
I am reminded of Professor Richard Murphy who settled after he said some unwise things about Lord Ashcroft, and now seems to spend his time saying unwise things about commercial organisations rather than people.
Jeez, this is an awful week to write my threads for Sunday in advance.
I might go for a non time sensitive piece on AV/electoral reform/House of Lords reform.
why not give us the upside of the courts decision and write how Nicola Sturgeon's strategy is in tatters and a career in pantomime is all she has left ?
Oooh an opportunity to wind up the Nats and Leavers, you don't get opportunities like that every day.
I was right, and it was obvious I was right. Yet the mad Remainers WANTED to believe so very very much.
There's quite a few people on Twitter now who could face a successful libel action from the Sun.
Sean, I realise that a soft Devonian cream-tea boy such as yourself finds such things hard to understand, but I was a remain voter, and I pointed out that piccies of her in Google Images showed her having a wide range of skin tones, and that it was a non-story.
It's not a remain versus leave thing. It's a people-want-to-believe-anything-that-matches-their-prejudices thing, and that's something we all fall into at times.
BTW, she has a lovely smile in the Times photo.
But we agree. That's my point. Brexit is sending Britain bonkers, and even previously sensible people (like Southam) are leaping to absurd conclusions if what they read confirms their prejudices (as you say).
This is happening on BOTH sides, it's not just the Leavers who are "paranoid".
I feel a fucking idiot, frankly. Even as I retweeted those things I heard in my head printing and reproduction and contrasting and technicalities. I should have realised. I guess I did want it to be true. That is bad.
Mr. Observer, I wouldn't worry about it. Most long-standing members of PB have cocked up at one point or another. (This season's weekend tips have not been stellar).
The rumours over the FBI "investigation" into the Clinton Foundation are eye popping. Suggestion of rogue right wing agents trying to create a case out of "Clinton's Cash" book by Breitbart's Editor-at-Large.
Remember that previous equally ridiculous vast right wing conspiracy about Bill Clinton being involved with some teenage intern.
I was right, and it was obvious I was right. Yet the mad Remainers WANTED to believe so very very much.
There's quite a few people on Twitter now who could face a successful libel action from the Sun.
Sean, I realise that a soft Devonian cream-tea boy such as yourself finds such things hard to understand, but I was a remain voter, and I pointed out that piccies of her in Google Images showed her having a wide range of skin tones, and that it was a non-story.
It's not a remain versus leave thing. It's a people-want-to-believe-anything-that-matches-their-prejudices thing, and that's something we all fall into at times.
BTW, she has a lovely smile in the Times photo.
But we agree. That's my point. Brexit is sending Britain bonkers, and even previously sensible people (like Southam) are leaping to absurd conclusions if what they read confirms their prejudices (as you say).
This is happening on BOTH sides, it's not just the Leavers who are "paranoid".
I feel a fucking idiot, frankly. Even as I retweeted those things I heard in my head printing and reproduction and contrasting and technicalities. I should have realised. I guess I did want it to be true. That is bad.
Speaking of libel, could the judges sue the Daily Mail (In particular) ?
Can judges even sue ?
Only central, local government, trade unions and political parties cannot sue for libel, IIRC.
Whether they would of course... not sure what libel there actually is in the DM story.
Can private or public businesses sue for libel?
I am reminded of Professor Richard Murphy who settled after he said some unwise things about Lord Ashcroft, and now seems to spend his time saying unwise things about commercial organisations rather than people.
Making a technically correct judgement (Whatever you think of it) leads to a headline of "Enemy of the people" ?
The rumours over the FBI "investigation" into the Clinton Foundation are eye popping. Suggestion of rogue right wing agents trying to create a case out of "Clinton's Cash" book by Breitbart's Editor-at-Large.
Remember that previous equally ridiculous vast right wing conspiracy about Bill Clinton being involved with some teenage intern.
I feel a fucking idiot, frankly. Even as I retweeted those things I heard in my head printing and reproduction and contrasting and technicalities. I should have realised. I guess I did want it to be true. That is bad.
Fair play to you for having the good sense not to keep digging, and the decency to admit your rare mistakes.
If I actually clicked post on some of the stuff I write then I'd be perpetually correcting things and saying sorry. Nowadays when I'm seeing red I usually manage to stop myself before it's too late.
Which is exactly where, according to the BoE's own target, it is meant to be.
Doom, gloom, disaster.
Yesterday's hyperventilating BBC news was that "inflation will TRIPLE!" To 2.7% a mere 0.7% above target, and historically still quite a low level.
This morning's hyperventilating BBC news was discussing the terrible inevitable rise in base rates, as they come off the tiny all-time low of 0.25%.
Sometimes news people really do make a mountain out of a molehill.
I can't quite make up my mind which of the following is the most likely explanation:
1. The BBC is full of soft lefties and continuity remainers, desperate to hype up anything which can be spun as evidence of impending doom, however feeble.
2. "Panic panic panic" has better entertainment value than "nothing much going on today."
3. 24 hour news is unduly influenced by the reporting of minutiae, both because such things are talked up into being more important than they actually are by commentators looking to justify their existence, and because a continuous supply of filler material is needed for broadcast schedules and websites.
I was right, and it was obvious I was right. Yet the mad Remainers WANTED to believe so very very much.
There's quite a few people on Twitter now who could face a successful libel action from the Sun.
Sean, I realise that a soft Devonian cream-tea boy such as yourself finds such things hard to understand, but I was a remain voter, and I pointed out that piccies of her in Google Images showed her having a wide range of skin tones, and that it was a non-story.
It's not a remain versus leave thing. It's a people-want-to-believe-anything-that-matches-their-prejudices thing, and that's something we all fall into at times.
BTW, she has a lovely smile in the Times photo.
But we agree. That's my point. Brexit is sending Britain bonkers, and even previously sensible people (like Southam) are leaping to absurd conclusions if what they read confirms their prejudices (as you say).
This is happening on BOTH sides, it's not just the Leavers who are "paranoid".
I feel a fucking idiot, frankly. Even as I retweeted those things I heard in my head printing and reproduction and contrasting and technicalities. I should have realised. I guess I did want it to be true. That is bad.
Stop the self incrimination SO....... I loved your quip about they may as well put a bone through her nose...that was very funny.....
New York authorities have made it known they have been " made aware" of s threat of terrorist attack around time of election.
Someone said one terrorist attack might do it for Trump ....what about a threat?
Hasn't the dearth of recent terrorist attacks been explained away by the Trump loonballs/honest, disenfranchised workingfolk as Isis wanting Hils to win? If 'something' happens they'll have a bit of explaining to do.
Jeez, this is an awful week to write my threads for Sunday in advance.
I might go for a non time sensitive piece on AV/electoral reform/House of Lords reform.
why not give us the upside of the courts decision and write how Nicola Sturgeon's strategy is in tatters and a career in pantomime is all she has left ?
Comments
http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1363800/images/n-FARAGE-MOUSTACHE-628x314.jpg
or this:
http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1382184/thumbs/o-FARAGE-570.jpg?6
This morning's hyperventilating BBC news was discussing the terrible inevitable rise in base rates, as they come off the tiny all-time low of 0.25%.
Sometimes news people really do make a mountain out of a molehill.
Not quite Hannibal Ad Portas.
I am reminded of Professor Richard Murphy who settled after he said some unwise things about Lord Ashcroft, and now seems to spend his time saying unwise things about commercial organisations rather than people.
Clinton 44 .. Trump 38
http://www.loras.edu/news/clinton-maintains-lead-wisconsin-feingold-johnson-tight-race-loras-college-poll-finds/
https://twitter.com/BelTel/status/794562158692564993
Time to delete your retweets.
Clinton 42 .. Trump 38
http://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2016/11/04/free-press-poll-donald-trump-gains-hillary-clinton-race-michigan-tightens/93287658/
Marty the Brit, about time.
If I actually clicked post on some of the stuff I write then I'd be perpetually correcting things and saying sorry. Nowadays when I'm seeing red I usually manage to stop myself before it's too late.
1. The BBC is full of soft lefties and continuity remainers, desperate to hype up anything which can be spun as evidence of impending doom, however feeble.
2. "Panic panic panic" has better entertainment value than "nothing much going on today."
3. 24 hour news is unduly influenced by the reporting of minutiae, both because such things are talked up into being more important than they actually are by commentators looking to justify their existence, and because a continuous supply of filler material is needed for broadcast schedules and websites.
Probably a combination of all three.
NEW THREAD
If so big change in policy
If you want to see minutiae hyped-up stick on Bloomberg, so much hot air about the tiniest thing.
Ah - but presumably Sinn Fein MPs will have to swear allegiance to Her Maj before they can assume their seats? Awkward!