Richard Littlejohn

Nix

Nix

Nix

Soldato
Joined
26 Dec 2005
Posts
19,841
What a massive sagging bumhole this guy has once again proven himself to be.

I know it's the Daily Fail - and as such, nothing but right-wing bile in all its glory - but it still surprises me just how vitriolic their 'journalism' tries to be. I suppose it is their niche after all.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...suicide-bomber-Why-Luton-training-ground.html

Sadly, some of the views expressed in the above 'article' aren't too disimilar from those described by some members on these very forums. What concerns me is that Mr Littlejohn is obviously pandering to the bigoted masses who lap this journalism up and succeeding as he's made a career for himself.

His attack on Jody McIntyre is nothing short of pathetic. McIntyre has every right to action his democratic voice, wheelchair or not. A man suffering from his condition should not have to "[Keep] a safe distance." It's a straw-man argument. The key issue here is that he wouldn't have expected - nor should he have - to be man-handled and harmed the way he was. Indeed, how does one judge a safe-distance? He wasn't vandalisng property or throwing objects at the police, nor was he on the 'front-line'. Where is this safe-distance then? Half a mile down the road away from all crowds and incidently pointless? At home? He's either part of the protest or he's not. Protests work because there are many, not because there are few.
 
Last edited:
Good grief that article reads like it was written in the style of a food critic, instead of restaraunts its an opinion on current affairs.

To add my opinion of the content in a similar fashion: Very bad taste.
 
So basically if it works and they make money then it is correct, even if it is nonsense (which it is)..

People who like stories like that and buy the paper, well that's one way, the other way is people hating it and posting about it, giving people the idea to buy the paper to see what the fuss is about, and also through advertising on their website.
 
Ahleckz said:
I thought better of you Nix, I really did.
Click to expand...

Right, let me get this straight. Because I made a thread deploring the journalistic practices of Mr Littlejohn and his attack on McIntyre, that by association means I agree with McIntyre? That's certainly a non-sequitur if I've ever seen one.

Although he's clearly an idealist - even if his ideals are different to mine - to me, McIntyre - as a political voice - seems to be somewhat of an anarchist if not, certainly anti-establishment. Now, does that seriously not surprise you if you take into contemplation the basic psychological mechanisms the man will have through the nature of being in his predicament? He's clearly angry, frustrated and going through his politically 'enlightened' phase of growing up. He feels that there is a problem with the world around him and he's setting out to change it. They're his ideals but he's morally entitled to voice and action them as a sentient individual within a democratic society.

The issue here however, isn't about McIntyre as a political entity. Regarding how he was treated: there is simply no need to resort to that level of force for someone unable to resist and in a wheelchair. It's completely disproportionate, but let's save this for the other thread.

The real issue here is regarding the hyperbolic journalistic norms and skewed reporting of internal politics in this country as of late. It's business-as-usual for journalists to give the impression of 'balanced' reporting even when it's not. It is however, not in the media's remit - something which I feel the crass papers such as the Daily Fail are beginning to display more often - to produce profit-driven acerbic attacks simply so they can live up to type. It's sacrificing the journalistic function between state and media for its ideological leanings to please the baying mob. It's somewhat inevitable to happen within the capitalist market, but true media should be above that.

Media/journalism is not about pandering to the masses and behaving like some ideological demagogue - the masses are afterall, stupid - it's about providing a service and educating those masses. Littlejohn is not a journalist, he's an egotistical bigot. This is what concerns me; how practice and function have been skewed and bitter agenda-driven individuals have been given a voice of supposed authority. It's not an issue to me personally, as I recognise the above for what it is. The issue is that there are individuals out there who will buy into this due to it being the wolf in sheep's clothing it is.
 
Last edited:
Nix said:
The real issue here is regarding the hyperbolic journalistic norms and skewed reporting of internal politics in this country as of late. It's business-as-usual for journalists to give the impression of 'balanced' reporting even when it's not. It is however, not in the media's remit - something which I feel the crass papers such as the Daily Fail are beginning to display more often - to produce profit-driven acerbic attacks simply so they can live up to type. It's sacrificing the journalistic function between state and media for its ideological leanings to please the baying mob. It's somewhat inevitable to happen within the capitalist market, but true media should be above that.

Media/journalism is not about pandering to the masses and behaving like some ideological demagogue - the masses are afterall, stupid - it's about providing a service and educating those masses. Littlejohn is not a journalist, he's an egotistical bigot. This is what concerns me; how practice and function have been skewed and bitter agenda-driven individuals have been given a voice of supposed authority. It's not an issue to me personally, as I recognise the above for what it is. The issue is that there are individuals out there who will buy into this due to it being the wolf in sheep's clothing it is.
Click to expand...

So what is your proposed solution? Silence Littlejohn? Put some set of rules around what can and cannot be expressed?
 
Castiel said:
The chap is a bit of a tool himself.

http://jodymcintyre.wordpress.com/
Click to expand...

A bit? I have sympathy for anyone who is disabled and they should obviously have equal rights but his train of thinking is borderline ridiculous at times and at others damn right outrageous! When will people accept there is not some bottomless pit full of money to cater for everyones needs:(.
 
RDM said:
So what is your proposed solution? Silence Littlejohn? Put some set of rules around what can and cannot be expressed?
Click to expand...

He shouldn't be working for an institution which acts in the interest of balanced education and reporting of current events at all. That is of course, ideally speaking.

It seems very much that we've developed a subset of papers and faux-journalism in this country. The Daily Mail falls into this subset. If the paper were to carry on in such a guise, I would really rather they stop pretending to be something they're not. I can't argue with the market-forces and the inevitable evolution of this faux-journalism, but one could quite happily argue that as they are the very papers which the 'uneducated' masses read over the serious 'true' papers, they have a more important function to perform in society. If we're to have opinion-driven nonsense, then put the individuals such as Littlejohn into places where his bile is less damaging and likely to fall where it isn't needed; put it where people who will think critically can dismiss it for the biased crap it really is. Or alternately, shoot the man out of a cannon; either works for me.
 
Nix said:
He shouldn't be working for an institution which acts in the interest of balanced education and reporting of current events at all. That is of course, ideally speaking.
Click to expand...

He isn't, he works for the Mail instead. :)

Nix said:
It seems very much that we've developed a subset of papers and faux-journalism in this country. The Daily Mail falls into this subset. If the paper were to carry on in such a guise, I would really rather they stop pretending to be something they're not. I can't argue with the market-forces and the inevitable evolution of this faux-journalism, but one could quite happily argue that as they are the very papers which the 'uneducated' masses read over the serious 'true' papers, they have a more important function to perform in society. If we're to have opinion-driven nonsense, then put the individuals such as Littlejohn into places where his bile is less damaging and likely to fall where it isn't needed; put it where people who will think critically can dismiss it for the biased crap it really is. Or alternately, shoot the man out of a cannon; either works for me.
Click to expand...

I think having him doing what he is doing is the lesser of two evils if the alternative is more government control for our newspapers.
 
Forde said:
Why? I just had a quick look at the front page but couldn't see anything like that. Quotes?
Click to expand...

No, read it yourself. It's a completely different picture from the one which he attempts to portray on the now-infamous BBC interview.

He's an utter, utter tool. Read his blog and let us know what you think.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom