Originally Posted by thomscn:
“Is it me, or do I sense you deeply dislike Yasmin Alibaba Brown
”
“Is it me, or do I sense you deeply dislike Yasmin Alibaba Brown
”
The Wright Stuff Discussion Thread (Part 4)
92 of 193
I'm assuming Guido Fawkes is implying that only a fully paid up member of the Liberal Multicultural Intellectual Elites Conspiracy would accuse Farage of racism and us proles wouldn't.
The point about the journo in the ITV audience last night is this Q&A was supposed to be about members of the public asking Farage and Cameron questions in order to solicit their answers. It was not for vested interests in the form of planted professional journalists to make pre-prepared statements at either of them in order to engineer more headlines for their stance.
I'm shocked that everyone can't see how wrong it was. Audiences for these shows are supposed to be vetted to screen out exactly this sort of thing. When you add that to the bias shown by Etchingham against Farage in the way that half of the show was conducted, you can only be left with the conclusion that the event was somewhat stage-managed.
I'm shocked that everyone can't see how wrong it was. Audiences for these shows are supposed to be vetted to screen out exactly this sort of thing. When you add that to the bias shown by Etchingham against Farage in the way that half of the show was conducted, you can only be left with the conclusion that the event was somewhat stage-managed.
One of the problems is it's difficult to define what exactly is a journalist these days. So it looks like she's a blogger who, from what I can see, has contributed five articles to Huffington Post in two years, so not exactly a full time job as a journalist there. The other thing to point out, is that the articles were all on the tech industry and not on (and I'm going to use an apparently offensive word here) Diversity.
I don't even know what a Diversity Advocate is, but who's to say that that bars you from being An Ordinary Member of the Public? From what I can tell, this woman is one of those modern day busybodies who are all over the internet giving their opinions on this that and the other, I don't think she's a journalist per se. It's the sort of entrepreneurial spirit that put the Great in Great Britain - to use the kind of cretinous language Farage would understand.
I don't even know what a Diversity Advocate is, but who's to say that that bars you from being An Ordinary Member of the Public? From what I can tell, this woman is one of those modern day busybodies who are all over the internet giving their opinions on this that and the other, I don't think she's a journalist per se. It's the sort of entrepreneurial spirit that put the Great in Great Britain - to use the kind of cretinous language Farage would understand.
Originally Posted by Straker:
“The point about the journo in the ITV audience last night is this Q&A was supposed to be about members of the public asking Farage and Cameron questions in order to solicit their answers. It was not for vested interests in the form of planted professional journalists to make pre-prepared statements at either of them in order to engineer more headlines for their stance.
I'm shocked that everyone can't see how wrong it was. Audiences for these shows are supposed to be vetted to screen out exactly this sort of thing. When you add that to the bias shown by Etchingham against Farage in the way that half of the show was conducted, you can only be left with the conclusion that the event was somewhat stage-managed.”
“The point about the journo in the ITV audience last night is this Q&A was supposed to be about members of the public asking Farage and Cameron questions in order to solicit their answers. It was not for vested interests in the form of planted professional journalists to make pre-prepared statements at either of them in order to engineer more headlines for their stance.
I'm shocked that everyone can't see how wrong it was. Audiences for these shows are supposed to be vetted to screen out exactly this sort of thing. When you add that to the bias shown by Etchingham against Farage in the way that half of the show was conducted, you can only be left with the conclusion that the event was somewhat stage-managed.”
It really doesn't bother me.
As long as the question gets asked I don't care who does the asking.
As for bias in the debate, just like determining who gave the better account of himself, I think that's very much in the eye of the beholder.
Vested interests with pre-prepared speeches engineering themselves some column inches is not what the event was about. She doesn't seem to lack for outlets for her stance as far as I can tell. Pretty quiet when Cameron came on wasn't she? ITV are to blame for this - Pathetically managed.
https://uk.linkedin.com/in/imriel-morgan-2113a427
https://uk.linkedin.com/in/imriel-morgan-2113a427
Originally Posted by Anya D:
“It really doesn't bother me.
As long as the question gets asked I don't card who does the asking.”
“It really doesn't bother me.
As long as the question gets asked I don't card who does the asking.”
Question? I saw someone making a statement AT Farage and then interrupting him constantly when he tried to speak. Is that what you think helps illuminate the subject?
Quote:
“As for bias in the debate, just like determining who gave the better account of himself, I think that's very much in the eye of the beholder.”
“As for bias in the debate, just like determining who gave the better account of himself, I think that's very much in the eye of the beholder.”
Farage was constantly interrupted by the audience and Etchingham not only let this happen (a dereliction of her role as moderator) but also interrupted himself and far more than she did subsequently to the Primewaffler, Cameron.
Originally Posted by Straker:
“Vested interests with pre-prepared speeches engineering themselves some column inches is not what the event was about. She doesn't seem to lack for outlets for her stance as far as I can tell. Pretty quiet when Cameron came on wasn't she? ITV are to blame for this - Pathetically managed.”
“Vested interests with pre-prepared speeches engineering themselves some column inches is not what the event was about. She doesn't seem to lack for outlets for her stance as far as I can tell. Pretty quiet when Cameron came on wasn't she? ITV are to blame for this - Pathetically managed.”
Obviously she didn't consider Cameron to have made racist comments? What do you expect her to do? Make something up?
As I said, modern day internet busybody, adept at blowing her own trumpet, but obviously full of an energetic enterprising spirit which would make her an ideal Conservative Party candidate at the next election. I'm sure Central Office have been on the blower to her this morning.
Credit to Yasmin for her views on the Glastonbury thing.
Not that Glastonbury can't do what they want, but it's just stupid.
To the male guest, no it won't be happy hippy thing. From what is outlined in the women's only space it's not about having fun. It's more like school.
Not that Glastonbury can't do what they want, but it's just stupid.
To the male guest, no it won't be happy hippy thing. From what is outlined in the women's only space it's not about having fun. It's more like school.
Originally Posted by Straker:
“Question? I saw someone making a statement AT Farage and then interrupting him constantly when he tried to speak. Is that what you think helps illuminate the subject?
Farage was constantly interrupted by the audience and Etchingham not only let this happen (a dereliction of her role as moderator) but also interrupted himself and far more than she did subsequently to the Primewaffler, Cameron.”
“Question? I saw someone making a statement AT Farage and then interrupting him constantly when he tried to speak. Is that what you think helps illuminate the subject?
Farage was constantly interrupted by the audience and Etchingham not only let this happen (a dereliction of her role as moderator) but also interrupted himself and far more than she did subsequently to the Primewaffler, Cameron.”
I saw this happen to Liam Fox when they did a similar debate about a week ago. Moderator kept jumping in after asking her question before he could even get a sentence out. There was no reason to, he wasn't evading the questions or drifting from the topic.
Originally Posted by Anya D:
“It really doesn't bother me.
As long as the question gets asked I don't care who does the asking.
As for bias in the debate, just like determining who gave the better account of himself, I think that's very much in the eye of the beholder.”
“It really doesn't bother me.
As long as the question gets asked I don't care who does the asking.
As for bias in the debate, just like determining who gave the better account of himself, I think that's very much in the eye of the beholder.”
If you aren't bothered then this would lend itself to eventually creating an environment where the questions which are asked are limited to a narrow selective framework provided by the organisers, and questions the public want answering won't even be asked.
It would be a very convenient method of shaping what they want you to think as being the important topics. Ones which are chosen for the public rather than by the public.
The problem wouldn't be that this is the format, because TV shows do this right now anyway, no the problem would be that it would be presented as being about questions asked by the public when in truth it wouldn't be at all. It would be the deceptive nature of it which would be the problem.
Originally Posted by Straker:
“The point about the journo in the ITV audience last night is this Q&A was supposed to be about members of the public asking Farage and Cameron questions in order to solicit their answers. It was not for vested interests in the form of planted professional journalists to make pre-prepared statements at either of them in order to engineer more headlines for their stance.
I'm shocked that everyone can't see how wrong it was. Audiences for these shows are supposed to be vetted to screen out exactly this sort of thing. When you add that to the bias shown by Etchingham against Farage in the way that half of the show was conducted, you can only be left with the conclusion that the event was somewhat stage-managed.”
“The point about the journo in the ITV audience last night is this Q&A was supposed to be about members of the public asking Farage and Cameron questions in order to solicit their answers. It was not for vested interests in the form of planted professional journalists to make pre-prepared statements at either of them in order to engineer more headlines for their stance.
I'm shocked that everyone can't see how wrong it was. Audiences for these shows are supposed to be vetted to screen out exactly this sort of thing. When you add that to the bias shown by Etchingham against Farage in the way that half of the show was conducted, you can only be left with the conclusion that the event was somewhat stage-managed.”
Aren't professional journalists also members of the public? Anyway apart from the known faces there are often people with specialist knowledge within audiences who will more or less ask the same questions and also have 'vested interests' or 'opinions'. Sometimes its good to have people who are just as media-savvy and who are able to challenge a politician head-on without crumpling under the glare of lights and camera.
Originally Posted by harrypalmer:
“Aren't professional journalists also members of the public? Anyway apart from the known faces there are often people with specialist knowledge within audiences who will more or less ask the same questions and also have 'vested interests' or 'opinions'. Sometimes its good to have people who are just as media-savvy and who are able to challenge a politician head-on without crumpling under the glare of lights and camera.”
“Aren't professional journalists also members of the public? Anyway apart from the known faces there are often people with specialist knowledge within audiences who will more or less ask the same questions and also have 'vested interests' or 'opinions'. Sometimes its good to have people who are just as media-savvy and who are able to challenge a politician head-on without crumpling under the glare of lights and camera.”
If somebody is a journalist then the show should be open and transparent about it. Not pretend that they're just an average joe or jane.
You can't have vested interests from journalists asking the questions without letting the public know, because they are not just working for their own self interests, they would be working on behalf of the vested interest of the media publishers they work for. Who are obviously powerful organisations in their own right.
Have people forgotten 'Cash for Questions' and why it was a dangerous affront to democracy?
Originally Posted by Idda:
“Obviously she didn't consider Cameron to have made racist comments? What do you expect her to do? Make something up?”
“Obviously she didn't consider Cameron to have made racist comments? What do you expect her to do? Make something up?”
Cameron waffled and asked himself questions and then proceeded to answer them. At this point she should've stepped in and rarely did. If you can't see that Farage was subject to constant audience/moderator interruptions where Cameron was not then we can't even agree on the basics. Even the most anti-Farage observers concede he was given short-shrift.
Quote:
“As I said, modern day internet busybody, adept at blowing her own trumpet, but obviously full of an energetic enterprising spirit which would make her an ideal Conservative Party candidate at the next election. I'm sure Central Office have been on the blower to her this morning.”
“As I said, modern day internet busybody, adept at blowing her own trumpet, but obviously full of an energetic enterprising spirit which would make her an ideal Conservative Party candidate at the next election. I'm sure Central Office have been on the blower to her this morning.”
She is more than happy to list her journalistic credits:
Quote:
“I created and established a viable growth funnel for the app through original content, brand development, and content marketing. I have created and marketed 3 infographics, 1 eBook, and over 40 published articles on our blog and other external publications including the Huffington Post. I remained fully immersed in the Tech and Startup community in London; and volunteered to be an editor and contributor to the Tech London Publication on Medium.”
“I created and established a viable growth funnel for the app through original content, brand development, and content marketing. I have created and marketed 3 infographics, 1 eBook, and over 40 published articles on our blog and other external publications including the Huffington Post. I remained fully immersed in the Tech and Startup community in London; and volunteered to be an editor and contributor to the Tech London Publication on Medium.”
Originally Posted by Alrightmate:
“If you aren't bothered then this would lend itself to eventually creating an environment where the questions which are asked are limited to a narrow selective framework provided by the organisers, and questions the public want answering won't even be asked.
It would be a very convenient method of shaping what they want you to think as being the important topics. Ones which are chosen for the public rather than by the public.
The problem wouldn't be that this is the format, because TV shows do this right now anyway, no the problem would be that it would be presented as being about questions asked by the public when in truth it wouldn't be at all. It would be the deceptive nature of it which would be the problem.”
“If you aren't bothered then this would lend itself to eventually creating an environment where the questions which are asked are limited to a narrow selective framework provided by the organisers, and questions the public want answering won't even be asked.
It would be a very convenient method of shaping what they want you to think as being the important topics. Ones which are chosen for the public rather than by the public.
The problem wouldn't be that this is the format, because TV shows do this right now anyway, no the problem would be that it would be presented as being about questions asked by the public when in truth it wouldn't be at all. It would be the deceptive nature of it which would be the problem.”
Exactly. In this instance she took up space someone else could've used to ask a question rather than make a statement from a position of bias.
Originally Posted by harrypalmer:
“Aren't professional journalists also members of the public?”
“Aren't professional journalists also members of the public?”
Do you even need to ask? In this venue, positioning itself as a forum for questions from the public, no she isn't.
Originally Posted by Alrightmate:
“If you aren't bothered then this would lend itself to eventually creating an environment where the questions which are asked are limited to a narrow selective framework provided by the organisers, and questions the public want answering won't even be asked.
It would be a very convenient method of shaping what they want you to think as being the important topics. Ones which are chosen for the public rather than by the public.
The problem wouldn't be that this is the format, because TV shows do this right now anyway, no the problem would be that it would be presented as being about questions asked by the public when in truth it wouldn't be at all. It would be the deceptive nature of it which would be the problem.”
“If you aren't bothered then this would lend itself to eventually creating an environment where the questions which are asked are limited to a narrow selective framework provided by the organisers, and questions the public want answering won't even be asked.
It would be a very convenient method of shaping what they want you to think as being the important topics. Ones which are chosen for the public rather than by the public.
The problem wouldn't be that this is the format, because TV shows do this right now anyway, no the problem would be that it would be presented as being about questions asked by the public when in truth it wouldn't be at all. It would be the deceptive nature of it which would be the problem.”
The reason I aren't bothered by it is precisely because we all already know that questions aren't taken at random. They are preselected with the aim of covering a range of topics.
The moderator has less control when they go to the audience for comment, but they can soon move the mic away if they don't like the way the comment is heading.
As for the deception of telling the viewers members of the public are posing questions when it is in fact journalists, no, I really can't get too enraged about that.
I understand the points you're making, I understand what bothers you about it.
During the course of a political campaign I think that would be once of the less bothersome lies we'd be told.
Originally Posted by Anya D:
“The reason I aren't bothered by it is precisely because we all already know that questions aren't taken at random. They are preselected with the aim of covering a range of topics.”
“The reason I aren't bothered by it is precisely because we all already know that questions aren't taken at random. They are preselected with the aim of covering a range of topics.”
Nobody thought they were random. Pre-selected by necessity but they should not be done so with the intention of giving a soap-box to journos and those with vested interests.
Quote:
“The moderator has less control when they go to the audience for comment, but they can soon move the mic away if they don't like the way the comment is heading.”
“The moderator has less control when they go to the audience for comment, but they can soon move the mic away if they don't like the way the comment is heading.”
Small studio so when you have someone ranting on as she was doing it's a little difficult to not hear them.
Quote:
“As for the deception of telling the viewers members of the public are posing questions when it is in fact journalists, no, I really can't get too enraged about that.
I understand the points you're making, I understand what bothers you about it.
During the course of a political campaign I think that would be once of the less bothersome lies we'd be told.”
“As for the deception of telling the viewers members of the public are posing questions when it is in fact journalists, no, I really can't get too enraged about that.
I understand the points you're making, I understand what bothers you about it.
During the course of a political campaign I think that would be once of the less bothersome lies we'd be told.”
So, one more lie is unimportant?
Originally Posted by Straker:
“Do you even need to ask? In this venue, positioning itself as a forum for questions from the public, no she isn't.”
“Do you even need to ask? In this venue, positioning itself as a forum for questions from the public, no she isn't.”
She isn't a journalist
Originally Posted by boksbox:
“She isn't a journalist”
“She isn't a journalist”
Quote:
“I have created and marketed 3 infographics, 1 eBook, and over 40 published articles on our blog and other external publications including the Huffington Post.”
“I have created and marketed 3 infographics, 1 eBook, and over 40 published articles on our blog and other external publications including the Huffington Post.”
Fulfils my criteria for "journalist" quite adequately.
Originally Posted by Straker:
“Fulfils my criteria for "journalist" quite adequately.”
“Fulfils my criteria for "journalist" quite adequately.”
Conveniently enough for your argument. But here's a thing, you find me anywhere on her LinkedIn page where she describes herself as a journalist?
Anyway, by reasonable objective standards, this woman is not a professional journalist. She claims to have had "over 40 published articles on our blog and other external publications including the Huffington Post", this is on LinkedIn - that's CV speak for having 35 articles published on her organization's blog and five articles published on Huffington Post - if she'd had anything published on anything bigger than her local parish council newsletter you can be sure she'd have mentioned it! Publishing 2.5 articles a year for a professional media outlet will not exactly keep the wolf from the door for yer average professional journalist, and I could set up a blog tomorrow and publish 35 articles on it, it wouldn't make me a journalist. What you could say is that she is someone who has dabbled in journalism and has had some articles published, articles covering a very specific, and rather boring, area of interest and which appear to me, and to ITV researchers I assume, to have no political content whatsoever - so why exactly should she be barred from appearing on a political debate show? Now, she might have ambitions to be a journalist, I don't know, but what she appears to be is a PR person (no wonder she let Cameron off the hook, you might think). Just looking at her CV I could definitely see her going into politics - I imagine the choice of party would be pretty arbitrary.
Secondly, this is the one that really gets me, what 'vested interests' is she supposed to be representing? Or could it be that, in this case, talk of vested interests is a load of the usual conspiratorial cobblers dreamed up by some blogger (yes) at Guido Fawkes and lapped up by people who want to believe it?
Lastly, I'm assuming that no-one believes an 'unbiased' audience drawn from Members of the General Public is actually possible?
92 of 193
