Posts by Steve Parks
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
"Afterwards, we discussed our plans for moidering Mother..."
Now I know why she changed the spelling.
-
For the record, I've won awards for news, feature and column writing, and blogging. I've also been a radio interviewer for years and now I host a TV discussion show. I do have a bit of a range.
Yeah, I know, that's what I mean by it not being one or other, journalism or opinion. There's room for a range of types of journalism, some more opinion-orientated than others. I just don't see what Rob's point was with that 'it should be acknowledged' comment.
-
My point wasn't in the least bit tenuous, Russell.
FTR, he didn’t say it was tenuous, he said it was “fairly tendentious”. But tenuous also works.
-
If there was a bank robbery, and the culprits were never caught, Brickley would spend the rest of his life referring to it as an "alleged bank robbery".
If his tv was stolen, and the police never charged anyone, he would always refer to "the time my tv was allegedly stolen".
maybe what russell does isn't journalism, its opinion piece, and if so it should be acknowledged as such.
It doesn't ahve to be either/or; journalism includes opinion pieces. I would have thought it rather obvious that Russell's Hard News comments are opinion pieces.
-
Ditto. OTOH, calling the alleged shooter a murderer(as opposed to an alleged murderer) would be prejudging the outcome of the trial.
So why would the same thing not apply to calling the act a murder before that has been decided?Because there's a difference between saying a particular individual is guilty of an act, and saying the act has occurred.
(Sorry Rich, couldn't resist.)
-
It's all very well to blame the tabloids for the Susan Boyle backlash, but could it also have been due to the fact that, well, her voice was nice but it wasn't outstanding?
Well, that could have a lot to do with her not winning, I suppose, but that's not a backlash. The backlash referred to here seems to me to be more than just that she didn't come first. But then I could be wrong as I haven't been following it closely, as I don't really give a toss.
-
Where was that idea put forward?
In the blog:"The murder of Dr George Tiller in Kansas yesterday can only be regarded as American domestic terrorism.... The suspect arrested has ties to right-wing extremist groups."
You haven't answered the question: where was the idea put forward "that such acts define all pro-lifers or all right wingers." (My emphasis.)
Russell simply observed that Tiller had ties to right wing extremist groups, not that all right wing groups, or all anti-abortion groups, are extremists of the sort Tiller is.
-
You don't really mean in any context, surely?
She couldn't. Otherwise she would be anti abortion.That was Steve Withers I was responding to, but anyway...
Steve was careful to refer to "unambiguously human". Whether a fetus is unambiguously human is part of the abortion debate. So no, he is not necessarily anti abortion.I had in mind things like self-defense, maybe combat situations...
-
I am happy that you wish to distance yourself from the idea that such acts define all pro-lifers or all right wingers.
Where was that idea put forward?
-
...killing someone who is unambiguously human muct be wrong in any context - including capital punishment.......or we simply return to the debate about excuses.
You don't really mean in any context, surely?