Mr Rational Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 did you know she has a book out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 I see the entitled billionaire weirdo is at it again. Pete Wishart rightly dug up the Yooniest of yoon "journos" Stephen Daisley for yet another w**k comment. The ink had barely dried on his tweet when J K Trolling rode in to white knight Daisley. When she and her almost 8 million followers get involved, it's all over the press. Pathetic. No, Pete Wishart ridiculously suggested that a comment Stephen Daisley made about Internet political activists, comparing north and south of the border, on his personal Twitter account, was STV's official view in a creepy sort of "how dare you dissent" you should lose your job kind of way, and Rowling called it out as bullshit creepy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 did you know she has a book out? 1. It's a play 2. The most laughable thing ever is the idea that JK Rowling needs a Twitter fight with Pete fucking Wishart to sell books or tickets to a show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williemillersmoustache Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 1. It's a play 2. The most laughable thing ever is the idea that JK Rowling needs a Twitter fight with Pete fucking Wishart to sell books or tickets to a show. No the most laughable thing ever is the media paying such close attention to what an author of childrens literature has to say about politics and in particular, what one that blackmails MPs has to say about freedom of speech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fide Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 No, Pete Wishart ridiculously suggested that a comment Stephen Daisley made about Internet political activists, comparing north and south of the border, on his personal Twitter account, was STV's official view in a creepy sort of "how dare you dissent" you should lose your job kind of way, and Rowling called it out as bullshit creepy. Quick question. When did you last see Saint Rowling last have a pop at a Tory MP on Twitter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fide Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 1. It's a play 2. The most laughable thing ever is the idea that JK Rowling needs a Twitter fight with Pete fucking Wishart to sell books or tickets to a show. Also, given the amount of press she gets when she has a Twitter spat with anyone (usually someone from the SNP), I'd say it's worth it. "JK Rowling's epic zing..." "Watch as JK Rowling dishes out the ultimate smackdown..." "JK in flawless burn...." " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milton75 Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 No, Pete Wishart ridiculously suggested that a comment Stephen Daisley made about Internet political activists, comparing north and south of the border, on his personal Twitter account, was STV's official view in a creepy sort of "how dare you dissent" you should lose your job kind of way, and Rowling called it out as bullshit creepy. Is that what he did, Ad Lib? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invergowrie arab Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 Is that what he did, Ad Lib? No it's not what he did. He simply asked if the tweet was the view of the author or the broadcaster. It's a legitimate question as the line between Daisleys personal twitter and his position within STV is often blurry. As is the distinction between STVs broadcast and online content. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invergowrie arab Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 The most laughable thing ever is the idea that JK Rowling needs a Twitter fight with Pete fucking Wishart to sell books or tickets to a show. Straight from the Jamie Ross playbook. Take something wacko idea from the fringes and represent repeatedly as if it is a mainstream or representative view of the nationalist side. See his obsession with Clerkin. The only pity is that people still feed him this ammunition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milton75 Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 No it's not what he did. He simply asked if the tweet was the view of the author or the broadcaster. It's a legitimate question as the line between Daisleys personal twitter and his position within STV is often blurry. As is the distinction between STVs broadcast and online content. So Ad Lib was at best distorting the facts? Interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invergowrie arab Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 Well I suppose it is *literally* his personal account so if today we are playing "a Martian came down from space and read the tweet" then there is no case to answer. I do wonder if his employer is wondering what he is doing hanging about holyrood live tweeting FMQs in a personal capacity when he should be at his work as the digital politics editor though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlion Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 So Ad Lib was at best distorting the facts? Interesting. The benefit of the doubt and scrutiny of language and context is something he only seems to apply to tweeters who are against Scottish independence. Curious, that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 No it's not what he did. He simply asked if the tweet was the view of the author or the broadcaster. It's a legitimate question as the line between Daisleys personal twitter and his position within STV is often blurry. As is the distinction between STVs broadcast and online content. He was demonstrably trying to get Daisley reprimanded for expressing a personal view. It *is* his personal account. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 Well I suppose it is *literally* his personal account so if today we are playing "a Martian came down from space and read the tweet" then there is no case to answer. I do wonder if his employer is wondering what he is doing hanging about holyrood live tweeting FMQs in a personal capacity when he should be at his work as the digital politics editor though? I suspect they couldn't give a shite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invergowrie arab Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 He was demonstrably trying to get Daisley reprimanded for expressing a personal view. It *is* his personal account. Of course it is. The fact it is a verified account, stating his job title as digital politics editor with STV, with a link to the STV website, where he spends all day every day tweeting about Scottish politics could lead the reasonable person to wonder if his tweets represent the STV editorial line. People like you and I utterly immersed in the exciting world of Scottish politics know that is not the case but the man on the Marhyill omnibus might make that error. It was correct of Pete to seek clarification. A public service you might say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 Of course it is. The fact it is a verified account, stating his job title as digital politics editor with STV, with a link to the STV website, where he spends all day every day tweeting about Scottish politics could lead the reasonable person to wonder if his tweets represent the STV editorial line. People like you and I utterly immersed in the exciting world of Scottish politics know that is not the case but the man on the Marhyill omnibus might make that error. It was correct of Pete to seek clarification. A public service you might say. No people have links to their work accounts on their personal accounts all the time. The only public service Pete Wishart could ever do is resign and let a more competent alternative SNP politician assume his seat at Westminster. He is a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fide Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 I suspect they couldn't give a shite. You clearly do. Why shouldn't they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invergowrie arab Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 No people have links to their work accounts on their personal accounts all the time. The only public service Pete Wishart could ever do is resign and let a more competent alternative SNP politician assume his seat at Westminster. He is a joke. I'm working on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AMMjag Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 Cybernats have ruined Harry Potter http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2016/03/23/jk_rowling_s_twitter_feed_is_ruining_everything_i_love_about_jk_rowling.html Good piece. I wouldn't put it past her reopening the Harry Potter franchise purely to elaborate on some cheap 'Death Eaters = Cybernats' allegory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Rational Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 1. It's a play 2. The most laughable thing ever is the idea that JK Rowling needs a Twitter fight with Pete fucking Wishart to sell books or tickets to a show. She's got a book called the cursed child or something, was in the window of Waterstones where I saw it. Of course she doesn't need the publicity, it's just a coincidence that there's a flare up when she has a book/play or whatever out. Every fucking time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.