Glitter faces firing squad

Lartrak · Post by **Lartrak** » Sun Nov 27, 2005 10:14 pm

Stormwatch wrote:
The article mentioned by Lartrak wrote:And sometimes they just don't get it at all, such as when a Japanese TV station reportedly ran "Merry Christmas, Mr. Lawrence," a disturbing film about English soldiers in a Japanese POW camp, as its festive holiday offering.
Starring none other than the "chameleon of pop", David Bowie!

And Japanese legend Takeshi Kitano, before he got half his face ripped off in an accident. Interesting movie. Not really that great... But interesting.

ace · Post by **ace** » Sun Nov 27, 2005 10:54 pm

BoneyCork wrote:
|darc| wrote:
BoneyCork wrote:
ace wrote:using "romp" as a substitute for "sex" is terrible reporting.
Well you know that romp means the same as sex, so how is it terrible reporting?
The same way that "oral sex" and "blowjob" mean the same thing but using "blowjob" in reporting would be terrible reporting.
No, it would be interesting reporting. Terrible reporting is when you produce nothing but fact after fact using standard grammar and lexis, and put no soul into it whatsoever.

come off yourself. If you thinking using the world "romp" is adding soul to anything, get out and live a little more.

And I hate to tell you, but using standard grammar is what reporters are supposed to do. This was a NEWS STORY. News stories are not supposed to have slang. In fact, it was a HARD NEWS STORY. And guess what HARD NEWS STORIES are - facts stated using standard language. Funny that.

greay · Post by **greay** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 1:33 am

I like my news to be on the avant garde. I just don't feel I'm getting the most out of my news if they don't coin a couple new words & make use of experimental sentence structures. Oh, and I like it when the stories are about the sordid personal lives of washed-up celebrities.

not just souLLy now · Post by **not just souLLy now** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 5:45 am

i like my news reports to be littered with hackneyed stereotypes in the form of buzzwords like "chav", those are great. I also particularly like the kind of columns that read something along the lines of "i'm not a racist but [lots of unsupported bigted comments blaming all of the countries problems on teachers, immigration etc.])

AgentGreen · Post by **AgentGreen** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 6:42 am

mikozero wrote:News, believe it or not, is not about emotional content and pleasing (or 'touching') the viewer/reader.

My news touches me all the time... the bad touch...

</null reply>

This is a huge problem with news: sensationalizing. Sure it gets more people reading "news", but it's fostering an environment that puts entertainment over education. I reccomend reading "Amusing Ourselves to Death" by Neil Postman, it's all about this kind of garbage.

Post by **Specially Cork** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 7:22 am

ace wrote:[
And I hate to tell you, but using standard grammar is what reporters are supposed to do. This was a NEWS STORY. News stories are not supposed to have slang. In fact, it was a HARD NEWS STORY. And guess what HARD NEWS STORIES are - facts stated using standard language. Funny that.

No. Reporters are supposed to make the news accesible to their target audience. Not everybody enjoys reading standard English. I am one of these people, I find it boring and tedious. If you want to use it, fine go and do so, but you'll only be targetting those people who want to read stuff like that. You can't say reporters are supposed to do it, because that's complete crap. Unless we've suddenly timewarped a century backwards...?

mikozero · Post by **mikozero** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 7:24 am

he is a journalism student (graduate ?) y'know

toastman · Post by **toastman** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 7:35 am

BoneyCork wrote:
ace wrote:[
And I hate to tell you, but using standard grammar is what reporters are supposed to do. This was a NEWS STORY. News stories are not supposed to have slang. In fact, it was a HARD NEWS STORY. And guess what HARD NEWS STORIES are - facts stated using standard language. Funny that.
No. Reporters are supposed to make the news accesible to their target audience. Not everybody enjoys reading standard English. I am one of these people, I find it boring and tedious. If you want to use it, fine go and do so, but you'll only be targetting those people who want to read stuff like that. You can't say reporters are supposed to do it, because that's complete crap. Unless we've suddenly timewarped a century backwards...?

I'm sorry, but you are wrong. A news story is supposed to be an objective presentation of the facts.

Post by **Specially Cork** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 7:45 am

mikozero wrote:he is a journalism student (graduate ?) y'know

I know that. But the fact that most people in the UK read newspapers like The Sun would suggest that most people dont want their news to be presented in a standard, plain slang-less fashion.

So to say you are supposed to report always using standard English is crap, because by doing so you will alienate a helluva lot of people.

I'm sorry, but you are wrong. A news story is supposed to be an objective presentation of the facts.

And lightening up the language use for a different audience doesn't stop it from being that.

ace · Post by **ace** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 7:52 am

You know what BoneyCork... you're right. You know nothing about journalism, but arguing with you is senseless becuase U R TEH OWNZ

Post by **Specially Cork** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 11:08 am

ace wrote:You know what BoneyCork... you're right. You know nothing about journalism, but arguing with you is senseless becuase U R TEH OWNZ

You're right, I do own.
And you're right I do no nothing about journalism.

What I do know though is the most popular newspapers in the UK are the ones that use the exact kind of language you are against.

So if you are supposed to write standard English, then what happens to the majority of people who don't want to read it?

I can't honestly believe that you have been taught to write in proper, standard English regardless of what you are reporting on, or who you are reporting to.

And if you have, then it doesnt take an ounce of journalism knowledge to realise that its wrong. Because there are a whole number of news programs, newspapers, news websites and actual writers themselves that are all very famous and successful, but certainly don't write like that.

Post by **Specially Cork** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 11:12 am

DOUBLE POST

Also, just a side note, its nice to see you using computery 1337-esque speak in your post. glad to see you are taking my non-standard English comments on board.

greay · Post by **greay** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 11:14 am

BoneyCork wrote:
ace wrote:[
And I hate to tell you, but using standard grammar is what reporters are supposed to do. This was a NEWS STORY. News stories are not supposed to have slang. In fact, it was a HARD NEWS STORY. And guess what HARD NEWS STORIES are - facts stated using standard language. Funny that.
No. Reporters are supposed to make the news accesible to their target audience. Not everybody enjoys reading standard English. I am one of these people, I find it boring and tedious. If you want to use it, fine go and do so, but you'll only be targetting those people who want to read stuff like that. You can't say reporters are supposed to do it, because that's complete crap. Unless we've suddenly timewarped a century backwards...?

There's another way to make a text accessible & interesting: better writing. But if that's too hard, there's always the easy way out: peppering it with liberal use of slang. Bonus points for swear words.

AgentGreen · Post by **AgentGreen** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 12:36 pm

BoneyCork wrote: What I do know though is the most popular newspapers in the UK are the ones that use the exact kind of language you are against.

Popularity does not make a good source of news.

Post by **Roofus** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 1:12 pm

AgentGreen wrote:
BoneyCork wrote: What I do know though is the most popular newspapers in the UK are the ones that use the exact kind of language you are against.
Popularity does not make a good source of news.

Just look at Fox News

ace · Post by **ace** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 9:30 pm

BoneyCork wrote: So if you are supposed to write standard English, then what happens to the majority of people who don't want to read it?

What kind of english speaking person would object to reading a story written in standard english?

BoneyCork wrote: I can't honestly believe that you have been taught to write in proper, standard English regardless of what you are reporting on, or who you are reporting to.

I never said you are supposed to use proper standard english in every case. In a NEWS STORY, you are supposed to do that. This was a HARD NEWS STORY. Hard news stories are written in standard english with pure facts. In the event this was a SOFT NEWS STORY, I wouldn't so quick to judge the use of non-standard english.

BoneyCork wrote: And if you have, then it doesnt take an ounce of journalism knowledge to realise that its wrong. Because there are a whole number of news programs, newspapers, news websites and actual writers themselves that are all very famous and successful, but certainly don't write like that.

I forgot that popularity = the correct way to do things.

BoneyCork wrote:DOUBLE POST

Also, just a side note, its nice to see you using computery 1337-esque speak in your post. glad to see you are taking my non-standard English comments on board.

It's good to see that satire isn't lost on you.

Hawq · Post by **Hawq** » Tue Nov 29, 2005 2:27 pm

Stormwatch wrote:
The article mentioned by Lartrak wrote:And sometimes they just don't get it at all, such as when a Japanese TV station reportedly ran "Merry Christmas, Mr. Lawrence," a disturbing film about English soldiers in a Japanese POW camp, as its festive holiday offering.
Starring none other than the "chameleon of pop", David Bowie!

Cant see the problem there, the BBC show it at christmas sometimes