Originally Posted by Veri:
“What reason do you have for thinking "bias" was a significant factor? see bottom quote
And how was it "presented as fact"? see below; next paragraph
BB said it was a tweet, not a factual tweet. Did BB actually say it was not a factual tweet? I think they just used it and never said it was a factual tweet and hence left the housemates and viewers thinking it was factual”
I bolded the article sections in an attempt to answer your questions. My comments are in the parentheses. I may be wrong and this is just my perception on this issue.
Originally Posted by danielps2fan:
“Here is a response on twitter from the writer of the Perez Use Nadia article that sparked the all the furore.
Posted by Nick Barnes · @imnickbarnes
.@death_smiles - It appears a lot of people are focusing on that one line, in which Perez said that Nadia is likeable and would be useful in the house. However, if one took time out to read the full interview, [b]they would realise that Perez was talking about a game plan (that is his opinion)/B] in the interview and how he was going to find stories on the other housemates for the public.
Of course he had a massive (Perez may of had a game plan but we don't know. However the use of the words "massive", in a negative context, seems like a biased opinion, imo, lol) game plan before going in.
Perez mentioned a number of times how he wanted to be liked and how he wanted a career in the UK off the back of Celebrity Big Brother, so he latched (another negative words that imo reflects bias or an agenda) onto the 'likeable' character - also known as Nadia Sawalha - thinking he would sail on through, but it quickly backfired when Perez showed his true colors (obviously by this wording he doesn't like Perez so more evidence of bias imo).
You are correct, 'useful' does not mean he was going to use her, out of context, but when it is put into context (his perception, which is biased like everyone's perceptions, comes across as someone who wrote this with a preformed negative view about Perez. Maybe he has valid reasons but that doesn't mean that this writing of his is without bias. He selected parts of two article and presented a skewed view that fit with bias) with the whole interview, and you read between the lines (so he advises people to pick there own interpretation rather than taking it as face value and does this after planting his own seeds of negative spin), Perez meant her being likeable was going to be useful for him.
The interesting thing is that Perez has been in this game for a long time and he knows he cannot directly says what he means - he has to mince his words and dance around the houses. (writer's own beliefs and why should I believe him and why should I trust his interpretation since he has already shown his anti-Perez bias based on his interpretations and biases; note: we all have biases and can see or read the same events but get a different interpretation based on our own perceptions/interpretations/biases)
Throughout the interview, he was mentioning things that he thought would benefit him - a la, the stories in his fellow housemates (he gives one example and KH is doing the same thing and they will all do it when they give their interview)- and the like about Nadia was no different (no proof supplied by the writer for this example)... He was always going to use her to his advantage, (Perez never said that and this is just some random guys interpretation of some articles but it was never said in the articles) and we have seen that in the house (I haven't seen it and they genuinely seems to like each other). Perez got so angry about the tweet because he realised that he had been rumbled, (more likely rumble about misinformation getting presented as far) and after saying on Sunday's show that he had not said anything about his housemates, and swearing in his son's life I might add, he suddenly retracted that statement today and said that he had said something about Nadia and he knew which interview it had come from. He quickly tried to defend himself (so he forgot a low profile interview and since he never said he was going to use her and that phrasing was presented as fact, of course he is going to deny it since it is not accurate and taken out of context] and say it was about cooking and cleaning, which I don't believe for a minute (more bias since he started off already not believing him and then cobbled together some out of context statements from a couple articles to fit his anti-perez agenda due to his bias).
So no, it was not quote for quote "I am going to use Nadia" (so here is the real truth after all of his negative spin), and not once was it quoted in the headline either. So o don't appreciate being accused of spinning bullshit (the aforementioned verbiage already shows the "spin) when all the elements are in the article and the quotes directly printed in The Sun newspaper.
”
Unless proved otherwise with the actual Quotes then I think it is case closed and the defendant may leave the dock.
