Clarkson blames fracas on cancer ** Don Edit - No he doesn't **

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think if he was going to "use" this news he would have done it at the time, he is a public figure but he kept it to himself until after the incident was dealt with. He is just telling the story now people want to hear and I'm sure the book he releases will do the same.

He already has public support, 1,000,000 signatures is a lot in the time they were collected.
 
Xordium said:
When you mention something like this you mention for a reason help or sympathy etc. You see it with people on here. He needed no help so all we have left is sympathy. Call me cynical if you want but I can't help but think he realises he really messed up and is seeking redemption from the public.
Click to expand...



But why not mention it at the time.
 
Feek said:
I've edited the incredibly misleading thread title.

It should have been "Jeremy Clarkson recalls cancer scare before Top Gear 'fracas'"
Click to expand...

Well unless it was breaking the rules, it wasn't down to you to do so unless requested by the OP. Mods have their jobs, but editing other people's threads on a whim isn't one of them, no matter how popular or accurate the edit might be.

People are grown up enough to judge for themselves and the OP had already been judged on it pretty comprehensively!
 
Voicon said:
I think if he was going to "use" this news he would have done it at the time, he is a public figure but he kept it to himself until after the incident was dealt with. He is just telling the story now people want to hear and I'm sure the book he releases will do the same.

He already has public support, 1,000,000 signatures is a lot in the time they were collected.
Click to expand...

Look at the hundreds of thousands of signatures for Leveson and nothing changed. It means squat.
 
Dimple said:
Well no they're not because the majority were calling for Clarksons head except for posters like Fox who actually reads.
Click to expand...

Actually there is a very good argument that he is not blaming it on specifically cancer but his reaction to it. Poor reaction that it is so this is not quite cut and dry and you are making out. I don't think the OP should be altered. Shall we alter all the OPs that don't pander to the mods preferences. Therefore the OP title was fair enough imo.

If something was slanderous I could understand but there is a very good argument that I believe that he has in effect used this event to mitigate his actions. The I am sorry I am wrong but I was going through this is an excuse. Otherwise it wouldn't have been mentioned. He put forth the mitigating circumstances and is leaving all to eager body of people then to take that and run with it.

Tefal said:
But why not mention it at the time.
Click to expand...

Because you always let things simmer down before seeking a return of popular support - standard PR management.
 
Mods change misleading titles all the time. Don't see the issue.

And if he wanted sympathy, he would mention all the other issues he was having at that time as well.
 
Why even cynical old me thinks if he was going through that then I can see how he would snap. I know I've snapped before when life has thrown such hurdles in my way. I guess we all have. That's perfectly understandable even if not excusable as he himself pointed out. Therefore, job done.

So why exactly did he mention it then. Funny how people will get shouted down on this forum for anonymously spilling their guts about their woes but when Clarkson does it personally to the whole world there is no issue. He is a public person sure but some things are best left private eh? Unless of course you have a motive for doing so.

So why mention it? Did he want to keep his loyal fans informed? Is he raising awareness of what he went through to help others? Has his experience been placed into the context of greater realisation and some charity drive. None of those have occurred. So why exactly did he do this?
 
Glaucus said:
Mods change misleading titles all the time. Don't see the issue.
Click to expand...

I've never noticed thread titles being changed based on personal opinion, only for rule breaks or to correct / add information at the request of the OP.

But even if what you say is true and mods change thread titles on a whim 'all the time', the question is - should they? They are effectively beat bobbies, not editors-in-chief.

In this case it was just a populist move from Feek.
 
Participant said:
I've never noticed thread titles being changed based on personal opinion, only for rule breaks or to correct / add information at the request of the OP.

But even if what you say is true and mods change thread titles on a whim 'all the time', the question is - should they? They are effectively beat bobbies, not editors-in-chief.

In this case it was just a populist move from Feek.
Click to expand...

Like I said earlier, the title was taken directly from the linked article from the Sunday Telegraph, but I later changed that to a much better one from the BBC, if I could have edited the title myself I would have done so.
 
Cosimo said:
Can't stop the urge in being in the public eye al the time.
Click to expand...

or a contractual obligation to write the column hes employed to every Sunday?

have we really reached the point its a shock a journalist is writing for a newspaper?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom