ARmy Rumour SErvice

In this and the other thead a lot of tosh is being written by some people who have very little insight into their own position.

The posts seem to break down into CivKnobPop who think it's somehow 'savvy' to appear worldly wise and condemn all journos as 'scum' - without ever having met one, of course.

There are few who need to stop yelping at people with a great deal more drive and brains than they'll ever have.

Then you've got the 'all newspapers are shite and all their stories are made up - but I never read them, naturally' - well that's arrant nonsense for a start, you can't have it both ways.

Then there are the genuine served and ex posters who don't see anything odd about condemning an entire industry's worth of people on the backs of a few.

It's not as if Murdoch has blown up any wedding parties by mistake or any Sun hacks have beaten someone to death in their Wapping compound is it?

And yet blanketing the forces as baby killing murderers is seen, rightly, as ridiculous while at the same time 'all journalists are scum and liars' is deemed OK.

Kettle Pot Black Arrse

Originally Posted by FORMER_FYRDMAN

Read my post more carefully - my point is that they are covering it because such is the scale of the abuse and the outrage that they cannot credibly ignore it. This was clearly common knowledge within the industry for quite a while - how long was this story doing the rounds before it went mainstream? How long did it take for the Guardian to decide to run with it? How long was the Guardian ploughing a lonely furrow before the others joined in? How much investigative reporting are the massed ranks of reptiles actually doing now or are they simply reporting what's being fed to them and trying to load as much onto News International as they can get away with?

So to get this right.

All journalists should have been reporting these issues before they knew about it.

Journalists are guilty of not reporting an issue that was brought to public attention by the Grauniad journos.

And what makes you angry is that the only information you are being given through journalism now - is the inquiry that is actually taking place, because journalists published something they found out about other journalists - and every news media organisation is reporting the facts.

That's amazing mate. How did you discover all these amazing revelations? Did some bloke down the pub tell you all about it?

Originally Posted by BanjoBill

So to get this right.

All journalists should have been reporting these issues before they knew about it.

Journalists are guilty of not reporting an issue that was brought to public attention by the Grauniad journos.

And what makes you angry is that the only information you are being given through journalism now - is the inquiry that is actually taking place, because journalists published something they found out about other journalists - and every news media organisation is reporting the facts.

That's amazing mate. How did you discover all these amazing revelations? Did some bloke down the pub tell you all about it?

I wish you would get it right - so far you've been deliberately obtuse and avoided answering reasonable challenges.

1. These abuses were known about within the industry long before this story broke - it can't all be blamed on Rupert Murdoch. Is your point really that no other journalists anywhere had a scooby before the Guardian broke the story, particularly given that the first arrests were made on August 8th 2006?
2. I'm not angry, I'm simply pointing out that news organisations are not acting out of enlightened self-interest but because they are having their feet held to the fire and to ignore this issue would not be credible. You are trying to dress this up as altruism - it is not. These abuses go back seven years or more, why are they only seeing the light of day now if there were fearless bands of watchdogs ever-ready to pounce? Where was the remorseless follow-up in 2006?
3. I discovered these revelations through a combination of things - you might at least acknowledge the work of Tom Watson MP - but, just as I recognise the importance of the Banking Sector to the UK, I still don't believe that it has done a good job in the last ten years and I certainly don't believe that the bankers are remotely altruistic. With some honourable exceptions, British journalism is in the same place and can be legitimately criticised. If you believe that the UK media sector is submitting to Leveson with huge enthusiasm, a happy heart and a general sense of purification and a harrowing of the soul, then you're delusional.

I'm happy to discuss specific points and questions of fact and I would be genuinely interested in your specific answers to the questions I asked. If you are what you claim to be, you should be capable of that.

I am not your mate.

Originally Posted by Micawber

In this and the other thead a lot of tosh is being written by some people who have very little insight into their own position.

The posts seem to break down into CivKnobPop who think it's somehow 'savvy' to appear worldly wise and condemn all journos as 'scum' - without ever having met one, of course.

There are few who need to stop yelping at people with a great deal more drive and brains than they'll ever have.

Then you've got the 'all newspapers are shite and all their stories are made up - but I never read them, naturally' - well that's arrant nonsense for a start, you can't have it both ways.

Then there are the genuine served and ex posters who don't see anything odd about condemning an entire industry's worth of people on the backs of a few.

It's not as if Murdoch has blown up any wedding parties by mistake or any Sun hacks have beaten someone to death in their Wapping compound is it?

And yet blanketing the forces as baby killing murderers is seen, rightly, as ridiculous while at the same time 'all journalists are scum and liars' is deemed OK.

Kettle Pot Black Arrse

Given that your Arrse track record as a media thought leader includes fearlessly claiming that News and Current Affairs is an insignificant part of the BBC's output BBC - damaging British industry I'm struggling to see the basis on which you claim any sort of authority on media affairs or feel confident of accusing others of writing tosh when you are, demonstrably, the unsurpassed master - 'kettle pot black Micawber' would have been a more accurate sign off.

Edited to change 'budget' to 'output' which was Micawber's actual claim.

Originally Posted by FORMER_FYRDMAN

More crap.......................

If I answer your post in detail, I'll just be encouraging more diatribe, crayoning, half twhit, boring crap.

I doff my cap to Marie and bow out.

Who has the monopoly on bravery these days then. I suppose if it was a female EOD tech you'd say the same, that she had some point to prove. I dont believe anyone who's ever been under incoming in their time or a dodgy contact would withold any respect for an individual who has put themselves in that position, unarmed and placing their trust in strangers, in order to tell the world what is going on in these sh**holes. Maybe the fact more women are doing this, is due to the fact that they are trusted more by the people they are with. In a country like that, to see a woman take such risks to tell the story must have gotten her large kudos and better stories as a result. She was there to tell the world that men women and children are being systematically slaughtered (Again) whilst the international community sits on its hands (Again) whilst the front page of most Scottish papers are still obsessing about the Financial dramas of a football club. She had bigger bollocks than a large proportion of people on here, and dare I say it, than many Soldiers I have met. At least she never sat in a hole whinging for Them to come and get her out. I was quite inspired by the whole thing I must admit, and I'm an utter C**t

Originally Posted by bloodgroup_o+

Who has the monopoly on bravery these days then. I suppose if it was a female EOD tech you'd say the same, that she had some point to prove. I dont believe anyone who's ever been under incoming in their time or a dodgy contact would withold any respect for an individual who has put themselves in that position, unarmed and placing their trust in strangers, in order to tell the world what is going on in these sh**holes. Maybe the fact more women are doing this, is due to the fact that they are trusted more by the people they are with. In a country like that, to see a woman take such risks to tell the story must have gotten her large kudos and better stories as a result. She was there to tell the world that men women and children are being systematically slaughtered (Again) whilst the international community sits on its hands (Again) whilst the front page of most Scottish papers are still obsessing about the Financial dramas of a football club. She had bigger bollocks than a large proportion of people on here, and dare I say it, than many Soldiers I have met. At least she never sat in a hole whinging for Them to come and get her out. I was quite inspired by the whole thing I must admit, and I'm an utter C**t

Well said Sir, I salute you.

I'm sure Miss Colvin did feel she had something to prove. And she proved that by being on the front line and reporting atrocities in a factual and passionate manner. Now that she has paid for that with her life, I note that other (mostly male) journos have dragged themselves away from the air-conditioned bars of Beirut to take up the task of reporting the outrages. But will never achieve Marie's level of dedicted professionalism.

God bless and rest easy lady.

Originally Posted by Oddbod

Have you been Ill?

Fair point, my bad - thanks for the fact-based challenge.