Matthew Le God Posted 25 November, 2009 Share Posted 25 November, 2009 I'm sure we all knew this anyway but... Are they not aware that Wikipedia can be written by anyone and to use them in an article is incredibly poor journalism? You may as well link to anything as a source or pluck facts out of the air. Which I guess they do. http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/district/southampton/4629545.Could_it_be_coming_home_to_St_Mary_s_/ The paragraph in question is 7th on the page St Mary’s would have to be extended to 40-45,000 seats (apparently the stadium was built to allow expansion to around 50,000), which I’m sorry to say is well above what we’d need for anything but a handful of Saints games, should we get back to the Premier League, so the financial cost may just put the dampeners on it straight away. They link in this paragraph where they got the information from and it is an uncited Wikipedia page. Anyone in the world could have written or edited that! If they get that piece of information from wikipedia where are they getting the rest of their "facts" from? Why trust anything they say? (I'm sure you don't) I know it is a minor issue but surely professional journalists shouldn't be doing this and researching with legitimate sources rather than Wikipedia. I'm sure this practice isn't confined to this article either and is widespread. I don't know why I expect more from journalists as we are all aware of lazy journalism, but at least they should take some pride in their job. Many would love to be paid to cover Saints for the local paper. Dan Keirns shame on you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedAndWhite91 Posted 25 November, 2009 Share Posted 25 November, 2009 Last week in the Echo after the Norwich game they had a nightmare with captions under pictures. One picture showed Trotman, but the caption said it was Waigo. Another picture showed Lallana shooting, surrounded by two Norwich defenders, yet the caption claimed it was Grant Holt having a shot or something similar. Very lazy journalism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moon monkey Posted 25 November, 2009 Share Posted 25 November, 2009 It isn't surprising really, Journalism in this country is awful. Their idea of research is asking their colleague across the room, so using wikipedia is probably normal. And when you see a quote from 'a close friend' or 'on looker' it means 'someone we have made up to make the story a little more real' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecuk268 Posted 25 November, 2009 Share Posted 25 November, 2009 There's a bit in todays about a pensioner who's had a bit of trouble with yobs in Lordshill. Apparently, he's lived in his house for 75 years. I seem to remember Lordshill being built in the late sixties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Shearer Posted 25 November, 2009 Share Posted 25 November, 2009 I'm sure we all knew this anyway but... Are they not aware that Wikipedia can be written by anyone and to use them in an article is incredibly poor journalism? You may as well link to anything as a source or pluck facts out of the air. Which I guess they do. http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/district/southampton/4629545.Could_it_be_coming_home_to_St_Mary_s_/ The paragraph in question is 7th on the page They link in this paragraph where they got the information from and it is an uncited Wikipedia page. Anyone in the world could have written or edited that! If they get that piece of information from wikipedia where are they getting the rest of their "facts" from? Why trust anything they say? (I'm sure you don't) I know it is a minor issue but surely professional journalists shouldn't be doing this and researching with legitimate sources rather than Wikipedia. I'm sure this practice isn't confined to this article either and is widespread. I don't know why I expect more from journalists as we are all aware of lazy journalism, but at least they should take some pride in their job. Many would love to be paid to cover Saints for the local paper. Dan Keirns shame on you! I've highlighted a typo for you. :cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VectisSaint Posted 25 November, 2009 Share Posted 25 November, 2009 I'm sure we all knew this anyway but... Are they not aware that Wikipedia can be written by anyone and to use them in an article is incredibly poor journalism? You may as well link to anything as a source or pluck facts out of the air. Which I guess they do. http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/district/southampton/4629545.Could_it_be_coming_home_to_St_Mary_s_/ The paragraph in question is 7th on the page They link in this paragraph where they got the information from and it is an uncited Wikipedia page. Anyone in the world could have written or edited that! If they get that piece of information from wikipedia where are they getting the rest of their "facts" from? Why trust anything they say? (I'm sure you don't) If you read the article again it says "apparently the stadium was built to allow expansion to around 50,000)" The word apparently should give you the clue that it is not being stated as a fact. I don't see anywhere where he states this is a fact, and does at least provide the source of his "information". As I understand it, what he states is also true, I remember this was discussed at great length some years back when apparently we were in the Premier League (I checked this in Wikipedia) LOL I bought a national Sunday paper last weekend, I don't think it contained any facts. I do recall it referred to Saints as "relegation threatened" and thought that was amusing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 25 November, 2009 Author Share Posted 25 November, 2009 If you read the article again it says "apparently the stadium was built to allow expansion to around 50,000)" The word apparently should give you the clue that it is not being stated as a fact. I don't see anywhere where he states this is a fact, and does at least provide the source of his "information". As I understand it, what he states is also true, I remember this was discussed at great length some years back when apparently we were in the Premier League (I checked this in Wikipedia) LOL I bought a national Sunday paper last weekend, I don't think it contained any facts. I do recall it referred to Saints as "relegation threatened" and thought that was amusing. The use of the word apparently is beside the point. Journalists shouldn't be getting information from Wikipedia. He could quite easily find out what the ground can be expanded to by contacting the club or council. He is paid to be a journalist, not a 15 year old using Wikipedia for his GCSE coursework. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisobee Posted 26 November, 2009 Share Posted 26 November, 2009 There's a bit in todays about a pensioner who's had a bit of trouble with yobs in Lordshill. Apparently, he's lived in his house for 75 years. I seem to remember Lordshill being built in the late sixties. I do believe you are correct though maybe it was built around this poor guys house ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 26 November, 2009 Share Posted 26 November, 2009 The use of the word apparently is beside the point. Journalists shouldn't be getting information from Wikipedia. He could quite easily find out what the ground can be expanded to by contacting the club or council. He is paid to be a journalist, not a 15 year old using Wikipedia for his GCSE coursework. Get over yourself. The article you've linked to is an opinion/comment piece about why (in that reporters opinion) we should get involved in the World Cup. It's not "news". We all know SMS can be expanded, which is the point he makes. He could have done it without the link to Wikipedia but no harm in it being there. I don't see anyone claiming that article is an in-depth history of St Mary's Stadium. Are you challenging the central fact that SMS can be expanded? The up-arse pompousity on this forum beggars belief sometimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 26 November, 2009 Share Posted 26 November, 2009 The use of the word apparently is beside the point. Journalists shouldn't be getting information from Wikipedia. He could quite easily find out what the ground can be expanded to by contacting the club or council. He is paid to be a journalist, not a 15 year old using Wikipedia for his GCSE coursework. Just like people shouldn't be getting their "facts" from a fictional computer game, you mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastleighSoulBoy Posted 26 November, 2009 Share Posted 26 November, 2009 I'm sure we all knew this anyway but... Are they not aware that Wikipedia can be written by anyone and to use them in an article is incredibly poor journalism? You may as well link to anything as a source or pluck facts out of the air. Which I guess they do. http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/district/southampton/4629545.Could_it_be_coming_home_to_St_Mary_s_/ The paragraph in question is 7th on the page They link in this paragraph where they got the information from and it is an uncited Wikipedia page. Anyone in the world could have written or edited that! If they get that piece of information from wikipedia where are they getting the rest of their "facts" from? Why trust anything they say? (I'm sure you don't) I know it is a minor issue but surely professional journalists shouldn't be doing this and researching with legitimate sources rather than Wikipedia. I'm sure this practice isn't confined to this article either and is widespread. I don't know why I expect more from journalists as we are all aware of lazy journalism, but at least they should take some pride in their job. Many would love to be paid to cover Saints for the local paper. Dan Keirns shame on you! During the 'heady days' (the last two close seasons) the echo would often use this forum for their 'facts'. Which was commented upon at the time. Let's face it, we've seen some rather 'factual' facts stated on here at times! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lordswoodsaints Posted 26 November, 2009 Share Posted 26 November, 2009 There's a bit in todays about a pensioner who's had a bit of trouble with yobs in Lordshill. Apparently, he's lived in his house for 75 years. I seem to remember Lordshill being built in the late sixties. the majority of it was built in the 70's but for some reason people think that every surrounding area of lordshill is lordshill. I believe the man in question actually lives in Lancaster road which we used to call the boundry but perhaps is more likely to be maybush. I,as you can probably guess live in Lordswood,it has always been called Lordswood for as long as I can remember and as long as my grandparents can remember but for some reason the echo always say lordshill when printing a story. In the 70's when lordshill and Lordswood was being developed the developers decided to call the whole project the 'lordshill estate' so perhaps the confusion comes from that. Basically anything the sainsburys side of the tanners brook river is lordshill,the other side is Lordswood.Funnily enough estate agents do the opposite of the echo and tend to push the boundaries of lordswood into lordshill for obvious reasons. Geography lesson over.:-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny Posted 26 November, 2009 Share Posted 26 November, 2009 (edited) I wrote that Echo article - as pointed out it is a comment piece - and the 'facts' actually came from Andrew Cowen circa 2003. Coincidently enough, I also wrote that part of the Wikipedia article, sometime around 2006-2007 - you can check this in the edit history of the Wiki article. The information was never given a reference on Wiki as I couldn't find a reputable online source. However, seeing as I was in the room when Cowen gave the facts, I felt they were likely to be accurate. Edited 26 November, 2009 by Danny A bit more clarification Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastleighSoulBoy Posted 26 November, 2009 Share Posted 26 November, 2009 I wrote that article- as pointed out it is a comment piece - and the 'facts' actually came from Andrew Cowen circa 2003. Coincidently enough, I also wrote that part of the Wikipedia article, sometime around 2006-2007 - you can check this in the edit history of the Wiki article. The information was never given a reference on Wiki as I couldn't find a reputable online source. However, seeing as I was in the room when Cowen gave the facts, I felt they were likely to be accurate. I don't think the OP was making a criticism of you? More that it is a poor practice to cite a socially interactive web site as fact when we all know that anyone with a little nous can get into it and make anything appear as fact. It does tend to cloud the veracity of good work done by others such as your good self. Which is a shame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny Posted 26 November, 2009 Share Posted 26 November, 2009 I don't think the OP was making a criticism of you? More that it is a poor practice to cite a socially interactive web site as fact when we all know that anyone with a little nous can get into it and make anything appear as fact. It does tend to cloud the veracity of good work done by others such as your good self. Which is a shame. Sorry, ESB, I may not have made myself clear - I'm Dan Kerins, the Echo journalist. I wrote both the article in the Echo and have edited the Wikipedia article in the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
INFLUENCED.COM Posted 26 November, 2009 Share Posted 26 November, 2009 I'm Dan Kerins, the Echo journalist. I wrote both the article in the Echo and have edited the Wikipedia article in the past. How do you feel about the claim 'facts' from this forum have been used in the past in articles ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny Posted 26 November, 2009 Share Posted 26 November, 2009 (edited) How do you feel about the claim 'facts' from this forum have been used in the past in articles ? Well it's never happened to me before, and I know for a fact that many reporters feel exasperated by such claims. I don't have time to go into a huge debate now, but with football clubs, information gets out and people find out. In the past they would mention them to a couple of mates in the pub but now they put them online. Seeing as the paper isn't instant, people assume the paper has copied the story from elsewhere - which isn't true at all. But, I can understand why people think that. Other times, something may appear online (on a forum such as this for example) which we are also aware of, but we can't just print and be damned unfortunately - media law means we have to stand things up, which takes time, whereas at the moment forums seem to have a bit more leeway than we do. Edited 26 November, 2009 by Danny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lordswoodsaints Posted 26 November, 2009 Share Posted 26 November, 2009 The echo used to be a good local paper reporting local news that was factual,now it is just a very very poor copy of the national red tops complete with 'sensational' headlines and sh!t stirring stories. I used to buy it everyday but now due to lazy amateur journalism,I do exactly what I do with the red tops.......I don't buy or read them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Draino76 Posted 26 November, 2009 Share Posted 26 November, 2009 Apparently they say Google is 'white bread for the mind.' Well I imagine Wikipedia is more like a sausage and egg macmuffin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuengirola Saint Posted 26 November, 2009 Share Posted 26 November, 2009 There's a bit in todays about a pensioner who's had a bit of trouble with yobs in Lordshill. Apparently, he's lived in his house for 75 years. I seem to remember Lordshill being built in the late sixties. The part he lives in was built in the 1920's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4737_carlin Posted 26 November, 2009 Share Posted 26 November, 2009 The Echo has been proven to be anti-saints fan in recent years and thus i wonder why people even refer/read it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisobee Posted 26 November, 2009 Share Posted 26 November, 2009 During the 'heady days' (the last two close seasons) the echo would often use this forum for their 'facts'. Which was commented upon at the time. Let's face it, we've seen some rather 'factual' facts stated on here at times! I'm sure you'll agree Andy it's a fact there's an old boy in LORDSWOOD gives the yobs ( and everyone else) a hard time !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baj Posted 26 November, 2009 Share Posted 26 November, 2009 The Echo has been proven to be anti-saints fan in recent years and thus i wonder why people even refer/read it. Come on, matt, that's a bit harsh... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisobee Posted 26 November, 2009 Share Posted 26 November, 2009 Though I don't read the Echo often now I no longer live locally one thing I have not noticed when I do read it is an anti-saints undertone, a matter of perception I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VectisSaint Posted 26 November, 2009 Share Posted 26 November, 2009 The use of the word apparently is beside the point. Journalists shouldn't be getting information from Wikipedia. He could quite easily find out what the ground can be expanded to by contacting the club or council. He is paid to be a journalist, not a 15 year old using Wikipedia for his GCSE coursework. No, the word apparently is not beside the point, it is the point. As danny himself has come back and said, the fact is he was present when Cowan provided this information and is the author of Wiki. I doubt actually that Danny is paid "to be a journalist", he is paid to provide interesting articles in his newspaper that help to sell the said paper. And anyway whoever told you that a journalist is only interested in substantiated facts. have you actually ever read a red top national newspaper, one thing you will discover that it is difficult to find any facts in them whatsoever. There are a lot of stupid things in this world, but having a go at a local newspaper reporter for making use of available resources to make an interesting story is just plain silly. Especially when the content of the report is allegedly factually correct, as in this case. We live in the UK in the 21st century, get over your pedantry and try to enjoy life a little. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilko Posted 26 November, 2009 Share Posted 26 November, 2009 Bitter internet warriors in slagging off journalists shocker! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackFrost Posted 26 November, 2009 Share Posted 26 November, 2009 I remember that time recently when a national paper did an obituary on some film director or someone and a guy had edited his wikipedia page for a laugh and said this recently deceased bloke had written the S Club 7 hit 'Don't stop movin'. The national papaer swallowed it whole and printed it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david in sweden Posted 26 November, 2009 Share Posted 26 November, 2009 I'm sure we all knew this anyway but... Are they not aware that Wikipedia can be written by anyone and to use them in an article is incredibly poor journalism? You may as well link to anything as a source or pluck facts out of the air. Which I guess they do. http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/district/southampton/4629545.Could_it_be_coming_home_to_St_Mary_s_/ The paragraph in question is 7th on the page They link in this paragraph where they got the information from and it is an uncited Wikipedia page. Anyone in the world could have written or edited that! If they get that piece of information from wikipedia where are they getting the rest of their "facts" from? Why trust anything they say? (I'm sure you don't) I know it is a minor issue but surely professional journalists shouldn't be doing this and researching with legitimate sources rather than Wikipedia. I'm sure this practice isn't confined to this article either and is widespread. I don't know why I expect more from journalists as we are all aware of lazy journalism, but at least they should take some pride in their job. Many would love to be paid to cover Saints for the local paper. Dan Keirns shame on you! Whilst I agree with you about shoddy jounalism (just as bad in Sweden where they can make a mountain out of a molehill) I might also query the statement which said ...SMS would have to be extended to accomodate 40-45 K fans.? I WONDER ! Remembering back to prev. World Cups when some of the " less-atttractive" fixtures were often played at arenas where 25-30K was the max.gate. IF.. we were to be selected as one of those grounds I doubt whether a game (say) between N.Korea v. New Zealand would being in 30K+ ? Of course by 2018, we may well be back in the Premiership and a 45-50K arena would be highly profitable (as I'm sure ML would realise) but purely for the puposes of half-a dozen WC games in the qualifying rounds ..I doubt it ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 26 November, 2009 Author Share Posted 26 November, 2009 Whilst I agree with you about shoddy jounalism (just as bad in Sweden where they can make a mountain out of a molehill) I might also query the statement which said ...SMS would have to be extended to accomodate 40-45 K fans.? I WONDER ! Remembering back to prev. World Cups when some of the " less-atttractive" fixtures were often played at arenas where 25-30K was the max.gate. IF.. we were to be selected as one of those grounds I doubt whether a game (say) between N.Korea v. New Zealand would being in 30K+ ? Of course by 2018, we may well be back in the Premiership and a 45-50K arena would be highly profitable (as I'm sure ML would realise) but purely for the puposes of half-a dozen WC games in the qualifying rounds ..I doubt it ! FIFA dictates that all World Cup stadia have to be of a size upwards of 40k (45k to allow for press and segregation) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan The Flames Posted 26 November, 2009 Share Posted 26 November, 2009 The 40,000 is Fifa's rules, but I agree there is no need to be so strict on the matter and its a rule Fifa will let go if its suits them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 26 November, 2009 Share Posted 26 November, 2009 Is the Echo going to run a "Kerins Outs Himself Online" story tomorrow I wonder ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 26 November, 2009 Share Posted 26 November, 2009 The 40,000 is Fifa's rules, but I agree there is no need to be so strict on the matter and its a rule Fifa will let go if its suits them. Which they won't, because there's no shortage of stadia or bidders. It's also pretty short notice for Southampton to put a bid in... by the end of today... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 26 November, 2009 Author Share Posted 26 November, 2009 I wrote that Echo article - as pointed out it is a comment piece - and the 'facts' actually came from Andrew Cowen circa 2003. Coincidently enough, I also wrote that part of the Wikipedia article, sometime around 2006-2007 - you can check this in the edit history of the Wiki article. The information was never given a reference on Wiki as I couldn't find a reputable online source. However, seeing as I was in the room when Cowen gave the facts, I felt they were likely to be accurate. If it is a direct quote from Andrew Cowan why use the word "apparently", you were in the room so he either said it or didn't so quote him on it if he did? As the Echo has had a number of stories about a World Cup bid over the last few months and it is on the Front Page of the paper today why not contact the architects and council to find out what the club had it plan from the original designs. I did a university research project on the stadium and its impacts and I know exactly what the architects had in mind for future development of the stadium as I contacted them and asked them. It was very quick and easy to do and may provide the Echo with some information to write an article on "The future expansion of St Mary's". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintDonkey Posted 26 November, 2009 Share Posted 26 November, 2009 If it is a direct quote from Andrew Cowan why use the word "apparently", you were in the room so he either said it or didn't so quote him on it if he did? Well would you trust the word of any one so closely associated with Rupert Lowe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny Posted 26 November, 2009 Share Posted 26 November, 2009 If it is a direct quote from Andrew Cowan why use the word "apparently", you were in the room so he either said it or didn't so quote him on it if he did? As the Echo has had a number of stories about a World Cup bid over the last few months and it is on the Front Page of the paper today why not contact the architects and council to find out what the club had it plan from the original designs. I did a university research project on the stadium and its impacts and I know exactly what the architects had in mind for future development of the stadium as I contacted them and asked them. It was very quick and easy to do and may provide the Echo with some information to write an article on "The future expansion of St Mary's". I didn't quote him on it because it doesn't matter. The issue is whether or not it can be done - not how it will be done or who said it. I included the Wikipedia link as it might have contained information that people reading the article might find interesting. I thought this might be a useful addition to the article. Perhaps I was wrong, I don't know. I'm sorry of you don't like it, but that's your right. In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with that article - as pointed out, it is purely my opinion on whether Southampton should be considered for a World Cup bid, and I don't pretend it is anything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 26 November, 2009 Share Posted 26 November, 2009 (edited) If it is a direct quote from Andrew Cowan why use the word "apparently", you were in the room so he either said it or didn't so quote him on it if he did? As the Echo has had a number of stories about a World Cup bid over the last few months and it is on the Front Page of the paper today why not contact the architects and council to find out what the club had it plan from the original designs. I did a university research project on the stadium and its impacts and I know exactly what the architects had in mind for future development of the stadium as I contacted them and asked them. It was very quick and easy to do and may provide the Echo with some information to write an article on "The future expansion of St Mary's". Ohh, get her. It's like Bernstein and Woodward on the case. I didn't quote him on it because it doesn't matter. The issue is whether or not it can be done - not how it will be done or who said it. I included the Wikipedia link as it might have contained information that people reading the article might find interesting. I thought this might be a useful addition to the article. Perhaps I was wrong, I don't know. I'm sorry of you don't like it, but that's your right. In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with that article - as pointed out, it is purely my opinion on whether Southampton should be considered for a World Cup bid, and I don't pretend it is anything else. Bitter pedantic internet dweeb versus experienced, knowledgable paid Journalist writing a nice opinion piece about why our city should host world cup matches. And completely factually correct as far as I can see as our pet truth-warrior has yet to find anything that is actually wrong with it. One lives a simulated life pretending he knows about footballers for a living for some computer game. One talks to footballers, managers, chairman for real, every day, living it. I know whose side I'm on. Great article Danny. Spot on and thanks for banging the drum. But too late I fear....? Edited 26 November, 2009 by CB Fry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 26 November, 2009 Share Posted 26 November, 2009 Lol. You do make me laugh CB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sotonjoe Posted 26 November, 2009 Share Posted 26 November, 2009 Bitter pedantic internet dweeb versus experienced, knowledgable paid Journalist writing a nice opinion piece about why our city should host world cup matches. And completely factually correct as far as I can see as our pet truth-warrior has yet to find anything that is actually wrong with it. One lives a simulated life pretending he knows about footballers for a living for some computer game. One talks to footballers, managers, chairman for real, every day, living it. I know whose side I'm on. And most of us here would side with you there I think. Time for the OP to bow out of this one graciously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 26 November, 2009 Author Share Posted 26 November, 2009 Dan's story made the front page today yet has nothing from the club that backs it up. Deadline has past it seems and Dan offers nothing to substantiate that it is anything but that for any Southampton bid. No dates are given when the councillor made those quotes and as it is deadline day today it seems this is just the Echo trying to sell papers on a pointless article with no evidence of any substance. Of course I'd like to be wrong as I'd love the World Cup to come to the city. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deano6 Posted 26 November, 2009 Share Posted 26 November, 2009 Hi Dan, I have no beef with your story, but you should sack your spell-checker! City’s must also have a good transport links, a sufficient number of hotel rooms, a suitable training facility and plenty of space for fan fests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 26 November, 2009 Share Posted 26 November, 2009 matt le god you are an idiot about this...full stop.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny Posted 26 November, 2009 Share Posted 26 November, 2009 Hi Dan, I have no beef with your story, but you should sack your spell-checker! Fair point! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 26 November, 2009 Share Posted 26 November, 2009 Fair point! Hey Dan, seems a certain headmaster isnt very happy with your reporting, judging by a letter i'm reading Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 26 November, 2009 Share Posted 26 November, 2009 Dan's story made the front page today yet has nothing from the club that backs it up. Deadline has past it seems and Dan offers nothing to substantiate that it is anything but that for any Southampton bid. No dates are given when the councillor made those quotes and as it is deadline day today it seems this is just the Echo trying to sell papers on a pointless article with no evidence of any substance. Of course I'd like to be wrong as I'd love the World Cup to come to the city. Pedantry 18 Persistence 19 :axe: 18 :mad: 20 Technique 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Wayman Posted 26 November, 2009 Share Posted 26 November, 2009 Yeah! Typical Echo. Why make things up when somebody else has already done it for you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sotonjoe Posted 27 November, 2009 Share Posted 27 November, 2009 matt le god you are an idiot about this...full stop.. you'll be telling us you write the submarine's newsletter next. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VectisSaint Posted 27 November, 2009 Share Posted 27 November, 2009 it seems this is just the Echo trying to sell papers Newspaper in "trying to sell papers" scandal, shock, horror. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 27 November, 2009 Author Share Posted 27 November, 2009 Newspaper in "trying to sell papers" scandal, shock, horror. Taking quote out of context, scandal, shock, horror. Selling papers with unsubstantiated stories is not good journalism even if every newspaper seems to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forever a red and white Posted 27 November, 2009 Share Posted 27 November, 2009 The echo used to be a good local paper reporting local news that was factual,now it is just a very very poor copy of the national red tops complete with 'sensational' headlines and sh!t stirring stories. I used to buy it everyday but now due to lazy amateur journalism,I do exactly what I do with the red tops.......I don't buy or read them. unfortunatley the desperation to sell papers grows when trying to compete with the internet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Somewhere In Northam Posted 27 November, 2009 Share Posted 27 November, 2009 (edited) Bitter internet warriors in slagging off journalists shocker! laff this entire thread cracks me up Edited 27 November, 2009 by Somewhere In Northam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now