General discussion about the latest news (not search related)

[Erngath]

No Rob, it was pure sarcasm.

And you know what they say about sarcasm...........................

[stephen25000]

And you know what they say about sarcasm...........................

Oh yes I do .

However, it was directed at the person who deserved it.

IMO , of course.

[G-Unit]

No all the comments are not nasty but many of them are.
Why would I think it is nasty to hold a different opinion?
They can express their different opinion but it will not change whatever will be the final conclusion of the investigation.
Their motivation for their behaviour is beyond my ken.

Whenever they are mentioned the words 'nasty' or 'vile' crop up nevertheless, even if they are just expressing a different opinion. Other favourite words seem to be 'orchestrated' and 'campaign', suggesting group activities.

I think that reminding the media and their readers that another point of view exists is a good thing. It might concentrate the minds of those investigating if they're aware that a lot of knowledge exists about the case amongst the general population. Any solution offered will have to account for that knowledge or the 'final conclusion' will be greeted with the same hilarity that Redwood encountered with his rather pathetic narrative about 'crecheman'.

Perhaps people are frustrated by the failure of the UK media to ever report the case in a balanced way? That might motivate them to point out the facts as they see them. If the facts are wrong the media could take on the task of correcting them, of course, if they so wished.

[Alfie]

Whenever they are mentioned the words 'nasty' or 'vile' crop up nevertheless, even if they are just expressing a different opinion. Other favourite words seem to be 'orchestrated' and 'campaign', suggesting group activities.

I think that reminding the media and their readers that another point of view exists is a good thing. It might concentrate the minds of those investigating if they're aware that a lot of knowledge exists about the case amongst the general population. Any solution offered will have to account for that knowledge or the 'final conclusion' will be greeted with the same hilarity that Redwood encountered with his rather pathetic narrative about 'crecheman'.

Perhaps people are frustrated by the failure of the UK media to ever report the case in a balanced way? That might motivate them to point out the facts as they see them. If the facts are wrong the media could take on the task of correcting them, of course, if they so wished.

Define balanced. 
Furthermore, what evidence do you have that the general population has enough knowledge of the case to come to the conclusion that Redwood's narrative about crecheman was both hilarious and pathetic?

[Erngath]

Whenever they are mentioned the words 'nasty' or 'vile' crop up nevertheless, even if they are just expressing a different opinion. Other favourite words seem to be 'orchestrated' and 'campaign', suggesting group activities.

I think that reminding the media and their readers that another point of view exists is a good thing. It might concentrate the minds of those investigating if they're aware that a lot of knowledge exists about the case amongst the general population. Any solution offered will have to account for that knowledge or the 'final conclusion' will be greeted with the same hilarity that Redwood encountered with his rather pathetic narrative about 'crecheman'.

Perhaps people are frustrated by the failure of the UK media to ever report the case in a balanced way? That might motivate them to point out the facts as they see them. If the facts are wrong the media could take on the task of correcting them, of course, if they so wished.

The nasty comments are not the ones to be found in "letters to the editor" but the online newspaper comments. Many of them are vile and libellous and how they are allowed to remain is something of a mystery to me. In my opinion it is orchestrated and there is a concerted campaign by some, not all, of the detractors.
I do not know what you mean by balanced?
Surely the balance of reporting about the Mccanns has been thoroughly detrimental to them for the majority of time this case has been reported.
I sincerely hope that anything discussed//debated or reported in the media does not in any way affect the minds of those who are tasked with the investigation.

[stephen25000]

The nasty comments are not the ones to be found in "letters to the editor" but the online newspaper comments. Many of them are vile and libellous and how they are allowed to remain is something of a mystery to me. In my opinion it is orchestrated and there is a concerted campaign by some, not all, of the detractors.
I do not know what you mean by balanced?
Surely the balance of reporting about the Mccanns has been thoroughly detrimental to them for the majority of time this case has been reported.
I sincerely hope that anything discussed//debated or reported in the media does not in any way affect the minds of those who are tasked with the investigation.

..................and what about Mccann supporter attacks on others ?

Or is your view of the world merely 1-dimensional ?

[Alfie]

The nasty comments are not the ones to be found in "letters to the editor" but the online newspaper comments. Many of them are vile and libellous and how they are allowed to remain is something of a mystery to me. In my opinion it is orchestrated and there is a concerted campaign by some, not all, of the detractors.
I do not know what you mean by balanced?
Surely the balance of reporting about the Mccanns has been thoroughly detrimental to them for the majority of time this case has been reported.
I sincerely hope that anything discussed//debated or reported in the media does not in any way affect the minds of those who are tasked with the investigation.

Well exactly.  It's a preposterous notion that the Met should be worried that a few oddbods find Redwood's assessment of crecheman to be hilarious and pathetic.  I would hope that they were above such childish concerns and focussed instead entirely on the job at hand, and without feeling any pressure whatsoever to alter their focus to suit those who think they're not doing their jobs properly (an opinion formed without having access to the full picture anyway). 

[G-Unit]

The nasty comments are not the ones to be found in "letters to the editor" but the online newspaper comments. Many of them are vile and libellous and how they are allowed to remain is something of a mystery to me. In my opinion it is orchestrated and there is a concerted campaign by some, not all, of the detractors.
I do not know what you mean by balanced?
Surely the balance of reporting about the Mccanns has been thoroughly detrimental to them for the majority of time this case has been reported.
I sincerely hope that anything discussed//debated or reported in the media does not in any way affect the minds of those who are tasked with the investigation.

Balanced? According to the media the McCanns are 'innocent, cleared, brave, tormented, anguished, pained and smeared' to name but a few. Their detractors are 'cruel, trolls, evil, sick and a baying mob' (Mitchell).

[Alfie]

Balanced? According to the media the McCanns are 'innocent, cleared, brave, tormented, anguished, pained and smeared' to name but a few. Their detractors are 'cruel, trolls, evil, sick and a baying mob' (Mitchell).

How would you prefer the McCanns to be described then?  Cowardly?  Neglectful?  Shifty?  Liars?  Laughing all the way to the bank?  And the detractors?  Justice seekers?  Kind and considerate? 

[Erngath]

..................and what about Mccann supporter attacks on others ?

Or is your view of the world merely 1-dimensional ?

Supporters and detractors making nasty comments about each other do not appear in the online comments of the newspaper, AFAIK.

We are discussing the "attacks" on the parents of a misssing little girl which appear every time there is an opportunity in the online comments section.

You accuse supporters of having a "Mccann bias", or spouting the "McCann mantra" or having a "one dimensional view of the world".
The same accusation can be directed at you in your sustained efforts to decry everything McCann related.

[G-Unit]

How would you prefer the McCanns to be described then?  Cowardly?  Neglectful?  Shifty?  Liars?  Laughing all the way to the bank?  And the detractors?  Justice seekers?  Kind and considerate?

I was replying to a post which described media reports as 'detrimental to the McCanns'. Clearly they are not.

[Alfie]

I was replying to a post which described media reports as 'detrimental to the McCanns'. Clearly they are not.

I disagree.  I think the tab reports are clearly designed to put the boot in, even though they appear to be using sympathetic terms.  It would be far less detrimental to the McCanns if they didn't report the vitriolic tweets of every Karen, Jodie and Katie but by doing so they succeed in whipping up even more bile and vitriol and they know it.

[G-Unit]

I disagree.  I think the tab reports are clearly designed to put the boot in, even though they appear to be using sympathetic terms.  It would be far less detrimental to the McCanns if they didn't report the vitriolic tweets of every Karen, Jodie and Katie but by doing so they succeed in whipping up even more bile and vitriol and they know it.

So they should only print stories favourable to the McCanns and allow no comments?

[Alfie]

So they should only print stories favourable to the McCanns and allow no comments?

Did I say that? 

Perhaps they should consider only printing stories that are genuine news, not tweets from twitter trolls and opinionated shite from "shock jocks" like Hopkins.  Perhaps they should consider what it is like to be the parents of a missing child on the receiving end of the kind of comments their pretendy sympathetic non-stories engender and consider the effect on these parents, their kids and extended family.

But of course they won't, they couldn't give a stuff.  And if one of them tops themselves, or one of the kids runs away or is bullied then they will print acres of words of faux-grief about it while greedily reaping the rewards such stories bring them.

PS: I note your refusal to answer my earlier question(s) as is your prerogative of course.  Never let it be said however that I shirk from responding to yours!

[G-Unit]

Did I say that? 

Perhaps they should consider only printing stories that are genuine news, not tweets from twitter trolls and opinionated shite from "shock jocks" like Hopkins.  Perhaps they should consider what it is like to be the parents of a missing child on the receiving end of the kind of comments their pretendy sympathetic non-stories engender and consider the effect on these parents, their kids and extended family.

But of course they won't, they couldn't give a stuff.  And if one of them tops themselves, or one of the kids runs away or is bullied then they will print acres of words of faux-grief about it while greedily reaping the rewards such stories bring them.

PS: I note your refusal to answer my earlier question(s) as is your prerogative of course.  Never let it be said however that I shirk from responding to yours!

Most people with any awareness know that the media don't do responsible journalism, so no surprises there. I expect even the McCanns have worked it out by now.