| We're all in it together pt2736 on 11:45 - May 23 with 1058 views | monytowbray |
| We're all in it together pt2736 on 11:43 - May 23 by JakeITFC |
I think I’ve come to the conclusion that you are one of the least self-aware people in the entire world. |
It’s an interesting way of being in denial about serving as the board’s Chief of Spin for over a decade. Particularly after going into overdrive 2 months ago.
We all saw it. |  |
|  |
| We're all in it together pt2736 on 11:46 - May 23 with 1056 views | Herbivore |
| We're all in it together pt2736 on 11:43 - May 23 by JakeITFC |
I think I’ve come to the conclusion that you are one of the least self-aware people in the entire world. |
It's actually quite staggering. But I've always said that Glassers' Book of Rules of Internet Conduct have never applied to Glassers. In that respect he's very much a Tory still. |  |
| |
| We're all in it together pt2736 on 11:49 - May 23 with 1028 views | footers |
| We're all in it together pt2736 on 11:46 - May 23 by Herbivore |
It's actually quite staggering. But I've always said that Glassers' Book of Rules of Internet Conduct have never applied to Glassers. In that respect he's very much a Tory still. |
Post As I Say, Not As I Do. The first law of gibbersposting.
But I will thank him for his 'getting your own hair cut' and 'rank James Bond films' threads. They really brought the country together in its time of need. My whole street was clapping. |  |
| |
| We're all in it together pt2736 on 11:54 - May 23 with 961 views | BlueBoots |
| We're all in it together pt2736 on 10:50 - May 23 by BlueBadger |
If they wanted that, they'd have found some 'poor' junior minister to do it to. Cummings is basically Boris' brain. |
This has been too big a f*ck-up to blame on a junior minister that one man and his dog have heard of...
Being "Boris' brain" is precisely why Cummings will be the perfect fall-guy - get him out, and when the inquest starts on the government's handling of COVID-19, he can be blamed for huge chunks of policy (prepare for "while the PM was hospitalised, DC took on extra responsibilities" etc.) It's not like he'll be ruined - they all look after their own, so he'll just be moved to a cushy job somewhere else. |  |
| |
| We're all in it together pt2736 on 11:54 - May 23 with 956 views | C_HealyIsAPleasure |
| We're all in it together pt2736 on 11:34 - May 23 by LankHenners |
Surely you can see the difference between the ones you linked and the ones in question? That they were part of the 'initial response' is neither here nor there.
You do miss the point. Sorry, not having a go but you do. You misunderstand it. Publishing something someone says without checking the veracity is not standard journalism practice. That is wrong. You are saying something wrong. The very essence of good journalistic practice is fact-checking.
If you want to continue thinking you are right and everyone else is wrong then fine. |
What is the difference? Clearly it is important whether they were part of the initial response when the implication was that the initial response was supportive of Cummings
It was literally story breaks via a Mirror journalist, and then her picking up with ‘this is what they say in response’, ‘this is what Labour say’, ‘here’s what Durham police say’, ‘here’s what SNP and Lib Dem’s say’...
The checking point isn’t really relevant here either. She wasn’t publishing the story - it was simply a here’s what a source says in response tweet, published as such. Again, journalists have published quotes in that manner since forever |  |
| |
| We're all in it together pt2736 on 11:58 - May 23 with 913 views | pointofblue |
| We're all in it together pt2736 on 11:43 - May 23 by Darth_Koont |
The ones I'm looking at are her first responses to Pippa Crerar's story. That's what kicked off the criticism.
|
I think the second tweet is fine as it’s emphasising the source. The first one is an issue because of the emphasis - moving “Source confirms” to the start of the tweet would dilute it’s factual appearance.
“Source confirms PM’s chief adviser did travel from London to County Durham during lockdown when he and his wife had Coronavirus to stay in separate building at his family’s farm. Source says not true he was spoken to by police”
Just by doing that the Tweet then backs up the original article, for the most part, instead of seemingly rebutting it. |  |
| |
| We're all in it together pt2736 on 12:00 - May 23 with 902 views | C_HealyIsAPleasure |
| We're all in it together pt2736 on 11:43 - May 23 by Darth_Koont |
The ones I'm looking at are her first responses to Pippa Crerar's story. That's what kicked off the criticism.
|
Turns out it was the latter - for some reason the second of those doesn’t show when scrolling through her feed. My mistake
I don’t think it changes the point though, they are clearly marked as coming from a Cummings/Conservative source, and were followed very quickly by the responses from elsewhere. The whole u turn idea is conspiracist nonsense | |
| |
| We're all in it together pt2736 on 12:01 - May 23 with 896 views | LankHenners |
| We're all in it together pt2736 on 11:54 - May 23 by C_HealyIsAPleasure |
What is the difference? Clearly it is important whether they were part of the initial response when the implication was that the initial response was supportive of Cummings
It was literally story breaks via a Mirror journalist, and then her picking up with ‘this is what they say in response’, ‘this is what Labour say’, ‘here’s what Durham police say’, ‘here’s what SNP and Lib Dem’s say’...
The checking point isn’t really relevant here either. She wasn’t publishing the story - it was simply a here’s what a source says in response tweet, published as such. Again, journalists have published quotes in that manner since forever |
The difference is the ones you linked were more or less fine - recounting official responses isn't a problem. Her first tweets were her going straight into bat for Cummings. That you even admitted you hadn't seen what they were makes your whole argument pointless.
"The checking point isn’t really relevant here either. She wasn’t publishing the story - it was simply a here’s what a source says in response tweet, published as such. Again, journalists have published quotes in that manner since forever"
Jesus Christ. "Checking" is the cornerstone of journalism. Yes, journalists have reported on what 'sources' have said, quite obviously (to use your classic condescending phrase), but usually after what's being said has been confirmed to a degree of reliability. Again, LK has form for doing this and being wrong, spreading a total fabrication. Therefore, context based on past actions come into play.
You are wrong on this. People aren't just saying this to pile on on someone, it's because they know what they're talking about and they (and now you) don't. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| We're all in it together pt2736 on 12:06 - May 23 with 861 views | DanTheMan |
| We're all in it together pt2736 on 11:54 - May 23 by C_HealyIsAPleasure |
What is the difference? Clearly it is important whether they were part of the initial response when the implication was that the initial response was supportive of Cummings
It was literally story breaks via a Mirror journalist, and then her picking up with ‘this is what they say in response’, ‘this is what Labour say’, ‘here’s what Durham police say’, ‘here’s what SNP and Lib Dem’s say’...
The checking point isn’t really relevant here either. She wasn’t publishing the story - it was simply a here’s what a source says in response tweet, published as such. Again, journalists have published quotes in that manner since forever |
I can see both sides of this. I think generally you and lowhouse are not wrong per se, if taken without context she is offering up what her source was telling her. There's isn't much harm in that.
What I disagree with, however, is that this is part of a regular trend now.
As noted by some other journalists, the Government was offered a chance of a rebuttal as part of the story and chose not to. Then after the story was released, suddenly a Government source appears to feed quotes out through Kuenssberg through unnamed sources. The whole unnamed sources thing, in general, rubs me the wrong way, as it just means that nobody is held accountable to what they say.
I know a few people on here are just passing this off as a lefty dog pile, but there are other people who aren't part of the "sphere" who are being critical of this. |  |
| |
| We're all in it together pt2736 on 12:06 - May 23 with 855 views | pointofblue |
| We're all in it together pt2736 on 12:01 - May 23 by LankHenners |
The difference is the ones you linked were more or less fine - recounting official responses isn't a problem. Her first tweets were her going straight into bat for Cummings. That you even admitted you hadn't seen what they were makes your whole argument pointless.
"The checking point isn’t really relevant here either. She wasn’t publishing the story - it was simply a here’s what a source says in response tweet, published as such. Again, journalists have published quotes in that manner since forever"
Jesus Christ. "Checking" is the cornerstone of journalism. Yes, journalists have reported on what 'sources' have said, quite obviously (to use your classic condescending phrase), but usually after what's being said has been confirmed to a degree of reliability. Again, LK has form for doing this and being wrong, spreading a total fabrication. Therefore, context based on past actions come into play.
You are wrong on this. People aren't just saying this to pile on on someone, it's because they know what they're talking about and they (and now you) don't. |
To be fair, every accused person has the right to respond and to have their responses known. Yes, the response can then be questioned and verified but it shouldn’t be the case of story is published - response is held back while facts are established, allowing story to progress - the ‘truth’ is confirmed. It’s more a case of ‘story published - response published - both are considered and inspected’. Laura Kuenssberg had every right to publish the response to the original report; the issue is semantically she tripped over it and made it appear as fact rather than a counter-claim. | |
| |
| We're all in it together pt2736 on 12:09 - May 23 with 829 views | Darth_Koont |
| We're all in it together pt2736 on 11:58 - May 23 by pointofblue |
I think the second tweet is fine as it’s emphasising the source. The first one is an issue because of the emphasis - moving “Source confirms” to the start of the tweet would dilute it’s factual appearance.
“Source confirms PM’s chief adviser did travel from London to County Durham during lockdown when he and his wife had Coronavirus to stay in separate building at his family’s farm. Source says not true he was spoken to by police”
Just by doing that the Tweet then backs up the original article, for the most part, instead of seemingly rebutting it. |
I think it's the content she chose to highlight which is that there was no breach, according to an unnamed source.
That's irresponsible on a couple of levels. A) She knows it's not within the guidelines and B) an unnamed source shouldn't be aided and abetted by a public service journalist to get false information out there.
For me, it's another worrying exhibition of her lack of responsibility given her job and public status. It seems appropriate to post this again: https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/british-journalists-have-become |  |
| |
| We're all in it together pt2736 on 12:09 - May 23 with 1139 views | LankHenners |
| We're all in it together pt2736 on 12:06 - May 23 by pointofblue |
To be fair, every accused person has the right to respond and to have their responses known. Yes, the response can then be questioned and verified but it shouldn’t be the case of story is published - response is held back while facts are established, allowing story to progress - the ‘truth’ is confirmed. It’s more a case of ‘story published - response published - both are considered and inspected’. Laura Kuenssberg had every right to publish the response to the original report; the issue is semantically she tripped over it and made it appear as fact rather than a counter-claim. |
Yes, and it should be reported as such. If a quote from a source is going to be reported, put it in quotes and leave it, or add context, so people can see what the deal is and make up their mind on something.
Just saying 'source says xyz etc.' makes it look like you're just putting up the source's defense for them. | |
| |
| We're all in it together pt2736 on 12:15 - May 23 with 1102 views | manchego |
| We're all in it together pt2736 on 12:09 - May 23 by Darth_Koont |
I think it's the content she chose to highlight which is that there was no breach, according to an unnamed source.
That's irresponsible on a couple of levels. A) She knows it's not within the guidelines and B) an unnamed source shouldn't be aided and abetted by a public service journalist to get false information out there.
For me, it's another worrying exhibition of her lack of responsibility given her job and public status. It seems appropriate to post this again: https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/british-journalists-have-become |
Her problem is that her 'source' was wrong on both counts.
If she had bothered to or wanted to she could have done some research.
But that doesn't seem to be her method. |  | | |
| We're all in it together pt2736 on 12:15 - May 23 with 1096 views | Darth_Koont |
| We're all in it together pt2736 on 12:00 - May 23 by C_HealyIsAPleasure |
Turns out it was the latter - for some reason the second of those doesn’t show when scrolling through her feed. My mistake
I don’t think it changes the point though, they are clearly marked as coming from a Cummings/Conservative source, and were followed very quickly by the responses from elsewhere. The whole u turn idea is conspiracist nonsense |
No conspiracy. I'm perfectly happy judging her by the who, what and how of her tweets and political commentary as this isn't a one-off.
"Why" is a whole different can of worms. | |
| |
| We're all in it together pt2736 on 12:16 - May 23 with 1092 views | pointofblue |
| We're all in it together pt2736 on 12:09 - May 23 by LankHenners |
Yes, and it should be reported as such. If a quote from a source is going to be reported, put it in quotes and leave it, or add context, so people can see what the deal is and make up their mind on something.
Just saying 'source says xyz etc.' makes it look like you're just putting up the source's defense for them. |
Not necessarily - as long as the source is emphasised I think it’s fine to start off with that then delve deeper. Tweets only have so many characters, after all. The issue with her first tweet is the reference to the source was buried which then made the word ‘confirms’ even worse as it came across as a defence rather than a simple counter-claim which she had heard. | |
| |
| We're all in it together pt2736 on 12:22 - May 23 with 1043 views | Shawsey |
Unfortunately, any public enquiry into this will be a total waste of money, as they will just conclude that it was somebody's fault, but not sure who. Boris and his band of mates should be made to pay, but alas, not going to happen. |  | | |
| We're all in it together pt2736 on 12:23 - May 23 with 1030 views | LankHenners |
| We're all in it together pt2736 on 12:16 - May 23 by pointofblue |
Not necessarily - as long as the source is emphasised I think it’s fine to start off with that then delve deeper. Tweets only have so many characters, after all. The issue with her first tweet is the reference to the source was buried which then made the word ‘confirms’ even worse as it came across as a defence rather than a simple counter-claim which she had heard. |
Possibly, though there's a case of splitting hairs. The issue is with clarity. If what's being said is an official response from a source then it has to be absolutely clear that is the case, otherwise, as you say, it looks like you're doing PR. Putting it in quote marks is the easiest solution. | |
| |
| We're all in it together pt2736 on 12:33 - May 23 with 952 views | pointofblue |
| We're all in it together pt2736 on 12:23 - May 23 by LankHenners |
Possibly, though there's a case of splitting hairs. The issue is with clarity. If what's being said is an official response from a source then it has to be absolutely clear that is the case, otherwise, as you say, it looks like you're doing PR. Putting it in quote marks is the easiest solution. |
I agree though I think all journalists are a bit loose on this, both on social media and in fully written articles. But that’s why I think having the source at the start of the tweet would have helped massively, as she did on her second tweet, as it changes both the context and emphasis. | |
| |
| We're all in it together pt2736 on 13:03 - May 23 with 878 views | GlasgowBlue |
| We're all in it together pt2736 on 22:27 - May 22 by lowhouseblue |
smearing independent journalists is never a good look.
how are you getting on with that apology? or more made up stuff you want to push? |
Apparently those two brilliant journalists Ash Sakar and Owen Jones have known about this since April 1st but didn't bother reporting on it. |  |
| |
| We're all in it together pt2736 on 13:19 - May 23 with 834 views | eireblue |
| We're all in it together pt2736 on 13:03 - May 23 by GlasgowBlue |
Apparently those two brilliant journalists Ash Sakar and Owen Jones have known about this since April 1st but didn't bother reporting on it. |
What About Terry.
Would he think contrasting what an “independent journalist” working for the national broadcaster publishes, to what different people at different organisations publications don’t publish is relevant?
Was the point of the thread, about LK reportIng the event, or reporting what other anonymous people said about the event.
I think Terry would also have something to say about that.
Terry may point out that two brilliant journalists knowing about the event, but not creating a story, may actually rather strongly make the point about the difference between a journalist and a simple reporter. If you don’t know why they didn’t report on it, then it would seem your point has no value, in possibly Terry’s opinion. |  | | |
| We're all in it together pt2736 on 13:41 - May 23 with 782 views | NewcyBlue |
| We're all in it together pt2736 on 13:03 - May 23 by GlasgowBlue |
Apparently those two brilliant journalists Ash Sakar and Owen Jones have known about this since April 1st but didn't bother reporting on it. |
They should lose their jobs if so.
The integrity of people in this whole sorry saga, and the pandemic in general, is certainly lacking. |  |
| |
| We're all in it together pt2736 on 13:44 - May 23 with 900 views | itfcjoe |
| We're all in it together pt2736 on 12:33 - May 23 by pointofblue |
I agree though I think all journalists are a bit loose on this, both on social media and in fully written articles. But that’s why I think having the source at the start of the tweet would have helped massively, as she did on her second tweet, as it changes both the context and emphasis. |
To me the biggest problem was that she rebutted another journalists story with this, not that she put the sources quotes out there but yet she felt it right to rebut a story based on them.
That's not what she should be doing |  |
| |
| We're all in it together pt2736 on 13:46 - May 23 with 892 views | itfcjoe |
| We're all in it together pt2736 on 13:41 - May 23 by NewcyBlue |
They should lose their jobs if so.
The integrity of people in this whole sorry saga, and the pandemic in general, is certainly lacking. |
It's not their story to report, there is obviously a good reason why it has taken so long to come out | |
| |
| We're all in it together pt2736 on 13:46 - May 23 with 894 views | monytowbray |
| We're all in it together pt2736 on 13:44 - May 23 by itfcjoe |
To me the biggest problem was that she rebutted another journalists story with this, not that she put the sources quotes out there but yet she felt it right to rebut a story based on them.
That's not what she should be doing |
She ran to their defence like I run for vegan tacos.
Very out of character, and her “insider” smugness bit her on the arse this time. Finally. This isn’t new behaviour for her. | |
| |
| We're all in it together pt2736 on 13:48 - May 23 with 878 views | NewcyBlue |
| We're all in it together pt2736 on 13:46 - May 23 by itfcjoe |
It's not their story to report, there is obviously a good reason why it has taken so long to come out |
I would expect journalists to have a duty to report these things.
If they have known about it since 1st April, that’s well over 6 weeks. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
