|
|
Post by vania on Jan 14, 2009 16:23:50 GMT
So I can have bloody and arse but not thingy and spoon?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2009 16:24:42 GMT
You tryin to get 50?
No
|
|
dwad
New Member
Posts: 1,146 
|
Post by dwad on Jan 14, 2009 16:31:28 GMT
Well not really 'personal opinion' unless you believe that European anti-semetism, based on the belief that the Jews are responsible for the death of Christ is a myth... It may have been entertainment but you seem to be implying that it is not possible to present history in an entertaining manner which, let's be honest, is tosh. Personal opinion is a direct quote from the C4 website on the programme and whilst it is perfectly possible to present history objectively and entertainingly, if objectivity was a priority you would not get a Jew to present a one-off programme on anti-semitism. Whether he is biased or not there is a clear conflict of interest. |
|
|
|
Post by minge tightly on Jan 14, 2009 16:49:04 GMT
'Ah fair enough Minge (are you a bit like Omni in you reverse snobbery?)'
Haha no not really Vania, but i've detested Howard 'Bearded Cnut' Jacobson ever since (And i'm sure i've mentioned this previously) seeing him on Newsnight Review years ago talking about the Paul Gascoigne documentary (When Gazz was at Rangers) and in all seriousness saying, 'I found it fascinating to see how someone without a degree lived'
Absolute cnut
|
|
|
|
Post by vania on Jan 14, 2009 17:08:49 GMT
Dwad a quote from a site does not compare to actually watching it.
And the whole concept of historic European anti-semetism arising from the old blood libel is historical fact, not 'personal opinion'. I also don't get why you've dimissed the presenter thinking that his religious background would prevent him from being objective.
|
|
|
|
Post by vania on Jan 14, 2009 17:09:42 GMT
Yep sounds like s supremely cuntish comment to make. Luckily he didn't come across quite so twatty on the show.
|
|
dwad
New Member
Posts: 1,146
|
Post by dwad on Jan 14, 2009 17:17:32 GMT
And the whole concept of historic European anti-semetism arising from the old blood libel is historical fact, not 'personal opinion'. I also don't get why you've dimissed the presenter thinking that his religious background would prevent him from being objective. I don't doubt that it's not fact, I'm just pointing out that the very purpose of the series is to present a personal view on fact, not to present facts straight. It will have a slant and what grates me on these programmes and is being nicely shown here is that this is rarely acknowledged by the programme itself and swallowed whole by the viewer. I've also not said that his background necessarily stops him being objective. What I am saying is that he comes to the conclusion that you would expect of a non-objective person and that if objectivity was important to the programme makers (over entertainment) they would not leave themselves open to that charge. |
|
|
|
Post by vania on Jan 14, 2009 18:20:08 GMT
And the whole concept of historic European anti-semetism arising from the old blood libel is historical fact, not 'personal opinion'. I also don't get why you've dimissed the presenter thinking that his religious background would prevent him from being objective. I don't doubt that it's not fact, I'm just pointing out that the very purpose of the series is to present a personal view on fact, not to present facts straight. It will have a slant and what grates me on these programmes and is being nicely shown here is that this is rarely acknowledged by the programme itself and swallowed whole by the viewer. I've also not said that his background necessarily stops him being objective. What I am saying is that he comes to the conclusion that you would expect of a non-objective person and that if objectivity was important to the programme makers (over entertainment) they would not leave themselves open to that charge. How on earth do you have a 'personal slanted view' invoking facts? What are you talking about 'swallowed whole by the viewer' when you aren't even disputing the subject manner. And how on earth can you comment on the conclusion you suppose he came to when you openly admit you haven't watched the programme?! |
|
dwad
New Member
Posts: 1,146
|
Post by dwad on Jan 15, 2009 10:11:26 GMT
How on earth do you have a 'personal slanted view' invoking facts? What are you talking about 'swallowed whole by the viewer' when you aren't even disputing the subject manner. Very easily, you invoke various facts to build a case. It's how columns work or differing political viewpoints or anything else. They are all working with the same facts but draw different conclusions. I'm saying you swallowed it whole as the programme maker themselves call it a "personal view" but you are calling it factual. All personal views, well most, are based on fact but it doesn't make the personal view right. |
|
