Jump to content
RadgerTheBadger

Nipper Salmond

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Genuine Hibs Fan said:

So you're saying that we shouldn't be able to imply the obvious context for ourselves? 

People generally won't. The title implies that he is already guilty and the vast majority of people who skim past it will process it as such without a second thought. It's entirely deliberate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, BawWatchin said:

Actually, they took 2 of her quotes and added some of their own wording inbetween to create that title.

There's quite a difference between:

Woman 'humiliated' after Alex Salmond 'lay on her naked' (the title they used)

and

Woman claims to be 'humiliated' after Salmond allegedly 'lay on her naked' (the title they could have used)

You would think words such as "claim" and "allegedly" would be key to the context at the pre-judgement phase. Not so for the anglo media though who already have the knives out.

What's the difference? The apostrophes in the first replace the words in the second quite adequately for a headline, and the meaning isn't altered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, welshbairn said:

What's the difference? The apostrophes in the first replace the words in the second quite adequately for a headline, and the meaning isn't altered.

The first title implies that it happened. The second one uses the same quotes, but indicates that it's not definitive. The first title feeds you an assumption, the second one doesn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, BawWatchin said:

The first title implies that it happened. The second one uses the same quotes, but indicates that it's not definitive. The first title feeds you an assumption, the second one doesn't.

No. What do think the apostrophes are for? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No. What do think the apostrophes are for? 


Alt Nats are going to Alt Nat. Everybody’s biased except the ones I like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, welshbairn said:

No. What do think the apostrophes are for? 

You're missing the point entirely here. It's the context in which they use the quotes in. It's the same way in which 2 newspapers are able to spin a story in 2 very different directions, while using the same quotes. It's the context in which they use them in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[extremely begrudgingly]

I think Bawwatchin has a bit of a point about what most people take from that headline.

Not that it matters to the jury.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, BawWatchin said:

People generally won't. The title implies that he is already guilty and the vast majority of people who skim past it will process it as such without a second thought. It's entirely deliberate.

4 minutes ago, BawWatchin said:

You're missing the point entirely here. It's the context in which they use the quotes in. It's the same way in which 2 newspapers are able to spin a story in 2 very different directions, while using the same quotes. It's the context in which they use them in.

I don't think we're missing the point but I am confused by the contradiction. 

The context doesn't matter because your average Joe will read that headline and think he's guilty as sin. Simultaneously, the context of the quotes is key as it shows an attempt to spin the story?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, MixuFixit said:

[extremely begrudgingly]

I think Bawwatchin has a bit of a point about what most people take from that headline.

Not that it matters to the jury.

I think he might do too, just not the one he means to. Alt nats will read that and see it as a media stitch-up, mad yoons will read it as a sign he is guilty of sin. Those waiting to see the result can see exactly what is meant because we're not primed to be immediately furious.

It's hard to believe these views would be altered in the slightest by writing to the lowest common denominator. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Genuine Hibs Fan said:

I don't think we're missing the point but I am confused by the contradiction. 

The context doesn't matter because your average Joe will read that headline and think he's guilty as sin. Simultaneously, the context of the quotes is key as it shows an attempt to spin the story?

 

You may not think you are, but your responses clearly indicate that you are missing the point entirely.

Woman 'humiliated' after Alex Salmond 'lay on her naked' isn't indicating an allegation. It's a statement of fact before the judgement. The title already has the reader believing that it has happened. It doesn't leave any context for doubt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, MixuFixit said:

Not that it matters to the jury.

The jury are just regular people like the rest of us and they will have skimmed through media headlines like this just like the rest of us and just like the rest of us, it'll have a subscious impact on their judgement of the situation. So it absolutely matters. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BawWatchin said:

You may not think you are, but your responses clearly indicate that you are missing the point entirely.

Woman 'humiliated' after Alex Salmond 'lay on her naked' isn't indicating an allegation. It's a statement of fact before the judgement. The title already has the reader believing that it has happened. It doesn't leave any context for doubt.

I get it completely. I disagree with you. As has been explained to you many times now, the use of quotations makes it abundantly clear that it is an allegation.

A statement of fact would be - Woman humiliated after Alex Salmond lay on her naked. When a news outlet publishes this I'll be more than happy to be upset about it but I can't pretend not to be able to parse simple English because I support independence. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think he might do too, just not the one he means to. Alt nats will read that and see it as a media stitch-up, mad yoons will read it as a sign he is guilty of sin. Those waiting to see the result can see exactly what is meant because we're not primed to be immediately furious.
It's hard to believe these views would be altered in the slightest by writing to the lowest common denominator. 

Adding 'alleges' or whatever word is legally suitable would eliminate any confusion though so why not just do it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The jury are just regular people like the rest of us and they will have skimmed through media headlines like this just like the rest of us and just like the rest of us, it'll have a subscious impact on their judgement of the situation. So it absolutely matters. 

They'll be instructed not to read any of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People would be more likely to concede on BawWatchin’s point if he hadn’t suggested appointing women to a jury meant it was a feminist witch-hunt tbf.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, MixuFixit said:


They'll be instructed not to read any of it.

 

No doubt, but will they adhere to that instruction?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
No doubt, but will they adhere to that instruction?

Why wouldn't they? If found not to have it could derail the trial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, MixuFixit said:


Why wouldn't they? If found not to have it could derail the trial.

And as they're all died in the wool unionist feminists desperate to find him guilty that's the last thing they'd want

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ICTJohnboy said:

 

Can only repeat what BawWatchin said.

 

I wouldn't if I was you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...