ARGUS COMMENT: MotoGP deal is great news for Gwent

First published in News by

BRILLIANT. That's the only word that truly sums up the announcement that MotoGP's British grand prix will be based in Ebbw Vale when the Circuit of Wales racetrack is built.

The planned site at Rassau has been controversial and some naysayers have repeatedly suggested it will never happen.

The MotoGP - motorcycling's blue riband event - deal should put an end to such sniping.

The Circuit of Wales has won the right to stage the British MotoGP for five years from next year, with the option of another five years after 2019.

The track will not be built in time for next year's event but Circuit of Wales bosses will have the say on where it is staged before Ebbw Vale becomes its new home from 2016.

This newspaper has been a long-standing supporter of the Circuit of Wales concept.

It has the potential to breathe new economic life into Ebbw Vale and Blaenau Gwent as a whole - areas that have suffered for decades following the collapse of the heavy industries that sustained generations of workers.

Everyone involved with the Circuit of Wales deserves credit for pulling off this coup, beating off competition from many well-established tracks in England.

All concentration now must be on getting the track built so it is fully operational in time for 2016.

Comments (37)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:42am Thu 14 Aug 14

landyman3030 says...

Fine. If it is financially viable as a business build it.
How much public money in any form is going towards this project though?
How much money is the Racetrack paying MotoGP for the privilege of staging this event?
Why have the construction costs increased by £35, 000,000 before they have even broken ground?
This is a one week event that has been removed from Donnington Racetrack. What happens to the remainder? What happens when Donnington bid more in five years?
Answers on a postcard please to SWA or similar so we normal paying public can see if its another waste of our money similar to the other WAG projects that cost us tens of millions of pounds.
Fine. If it is financially viable as a business build it. How much public money in any form is going towards this project though? How much money is the Racetrack paying MotoGP for the privilege of staging this event? Why have the construction costs increased by £35, 000,000 before they have even broken ground? This is a one week event that has been removed from Donnington Racetrack. What happens to the remainder? What happens when Donnington bid more in five years? Answers on a postcard please to SWA or similar so we normal paying public can see if its another waste of our money similar to the other WAG projects that cost us tens of millions of pounds. landyman3030
  • Score: 4

10:36am Thu 14 Aug 14

Paxman's Army says...

No Argus. We're not letting you off with this one. It's not that we're completely against this thing being built. But when you write that CoW is "welcomed by Blaenau Gwent" simply it isn't factual. There are tons of opposition to this. . .against the possible noise, the environmental cost, and lack of surrounding infrastructure. Why are you making this news sound like an advertisment? I don't mind the Argus holding an opinion. . but jeez louise. . .this sounds like you are in on the sliminess of the whole operation. It isn't journalism. Has the WG allocated the funds for this? Is it a definite go-ahead? How are they going to race in 2016 when people can't even build a Morrison's that fast and not a shovelful of dirt's been lifted. How much public moolah is going to be used for this? Have the environmental concerns been answered? Is everyone on board? Answer these things before printing article after article praising this.
No Argus. We're not letting you off with this one. It's not that we're completely against this thing being built. But when you write that CoW is "welcomed by Blaenau Gwent" simply it isn't factual. There are tons of opposition to this. . .against the possible noise, the environmental cost, and lack of surrounding infrastructure. Why are you making this news sound like an advertisment? I don't mind the Argus holding an opinion. . but jeez louise. . .this sounds like you are in on the sliminess of the whole operation. It isn't journalism. Has the WG allocated the funds for this? Is it a definite go-ahead? How are they going to race in 2016 when people can't even build a Morrison's that fast and not a shovelful of dirt's been lifted. How much public moolah is going to be used for this? Have the environmental concerns been answered? Is everyone on board? Answer these things before printing article after article praising this. Paxman's Army
  • Score: -1

10:59am Thu 14 Aug 14

Kevin Ward - Editor says...

Paxman's Army
It's an opinion piece. Yours is different to ours and that's absolutely fine.
But if you are going to criticise something I've written, at least be factual.
Nowhere in the piece above do the words 'welcomed by Blaenau Gwent' appear.
I should also point out that we have published many articles about the opposition to the Circuit of Wales.
Paxman's Army It's an opinion piece. Yours is different to ours and that's absolutely fine. But if you are going to criticise something I've written, at least be factual. Nowhere in the piece above do the words 'welcomed by Blaenau Gwent' appear. I should also point out that we have published many articles about the opposition to the Circuit of Wales. Kevin Ward - Editor
  • Score: 10

11:00am Thu 14 Aug 14

Kevin Ward - Editor says...

landyman3030
To clarify, the British MotoGP is moving from Silverstone.
landyman3030 To clarify, the British MotoGP is moving from Silverstone. Kevin Ward - Editor
  • Score: 3

11:21am Thu 14 Aug 14

DavidMclean says...

landyman3030 wrote:
Fine. If it is financially viable as a business build it.
How much public money in any form is going towards this project though?
How much money is the Racetrack paying MotoGP for the privilege of staging this event?
Why have the construction costs increased by £35, 000,000 before they have even broken ground?
This is a one week event that has been removed from Donnington Racetrack. What happens to the remainder? What happens when Donnington bid more in five years?
Answers on a postcard please to SWA or similar so we normal paying public can see if its another waste of our money similar to the other WAG projects that cost us tens of millions of pounds.
I suppose those questions need to be balanced against other questions such as; how much revenue will it generate for the area? How many jobs will be created and supported?

An investment is always worthwhile if the long term benefits are there.
[quote][p][bold]landyman3030[/bold] wrote: Fine. If it is financially viable as a business build it. How much public money in any form is going towards this project though? How much money is the Racetrack paying MotoGP for the privilege of staging this event? Why have the construction costs increased by £35, 000,000 before they have even broken ground? This is a one week event that has been removed from Donnington Racetrack. What happens to the remainder? What happens when Donnington bid more in five years? Answers on a postcard please to SWA or similar so we normal paying public can see if its another waste of our money similar to the other WAG projects that cost us tens of millions of pounds.[/p][/quote]I suppose those questions need to be balanced against other questions such as; how much revenue will it generate for the area? How many jobs will be created and supported? An investment is always worthwhile if the long term benefits are there. DavidMclean
  • Score: 8

11:30am Thu 14 Aug 14

mkaibear1 says...

I find it odd that there is a lobby who are campaigning firstly to delay construction as much as possible and secondly complaining that it won't be built in time.

Surely if you're worried about it not being built in time you shouldn't be campaigning to delay it, and if you're worried about it not being done right you shouldn't be complaining that it won't be built in time (and in effect wanting it to be done more quickly).

Very strange.

I have yet to see a convincing case for the CoW race track. I do recognise that you have to speculate to accumulate and that as an infrastructure project it's an investment (and it's reasonable to both try to secure deals before completion and build without guaranteed deals in place) but I remain unsure about the economics of a race track up the Valleys.
I find it odd that there is a lobby who are campaigning firstly to delay construction as much as possible and secondly complaining that it won't be built in time. Surely if you're worried about it not being built in time you shouldn't be campaigning to delay it, and if you're worried about it not being done right you shouldn't be complaining that it won't be built in time (and in effect wanting it to be done more quickly). Very strange. I have yet to see a convincing case for the CoW race track. I do recognise that you have to speculate to accumulate and that as an infrastructure project it's an investment (and it's reasonable to both try to secure deals before completion and build without guaranteed deals in place) but I remain unsure about the economics of a race track up the Valleys. mkaibear1
  • Score: 2

11:31am Thu 14 Aug 14

Paxman's Army says...

Kevin Ward - Editor wrote:
Paxman's Army
It's an opinion piece. Yours is different to ours and that's absolutely fine.
But if you are going to criticise something I've written, at least be factual.
Nowhere in the piece above do the words 'welcomed by Blaenau Gwent' appear.
I should also point out that we have published many articles about the opposition to the Circuit of Wales.
Nope Kevin. . I still won't let you off. Yesterday the Argus printed this remarkable headline:

British MotoGP deal for Circuit of Wales welcomed in Blaenau Gwent

Which suggests it is welcome with open arms by the people there. Sorry but that ain't completely true. . now is it?

The Argus has now run three stories, including yours, over two days, giving this news all the journalistic quality of a T-Mobile advert. Sure you've run articles. . BEFORE this. But you haven't included a drop of that opposition in any of these recent stories. Why? You and the Argus need to answer questions before printing off these sort of things. You are journalists first and foremost. So report the story.
[quote][p][bold]Kevin Ward - Editor[/bold] wrote: Paxman's Army It's an opinion piece. Yours is different to ours and that's absolutely fine. But if you are going to criticise something I've written, at least be factual. Nowhere in the piece above do the words 'welcomed by Blaenau Gwent' appear. I should also point out that we have published many articles about the opposition to the Circuit of Wales.[/p][/quote]Nope Kevin. . I still won't let you off. Yesterday the Argus printed this remarkable headline: British MotoGP deal for Circuit of Wales welcomed in Blaenau Gwent Which suggests it is welcome with open arms by the people there. Sorry but that ain't completely true. . now is it? The Argus has now run three stories, including yours, over two days, giving this news all the journalistic quality of a T-Mobile advert. Sure you've run articles. . BEFORE this. But you haven't included a drop of that opposition in any of these recent stories. Why? You and the Argus need to answer questions before printing off these sort of things. You are journalists first and foremost. So report the story. Paxman's Army
  • Score: -4

11:36am Thu 14 Aug 14

Kevin Ward - Editor says...

Paxman's Army
Ah, so you're criticism wasn't of the piece you were commenting on? How odd.
We've been 'reporting the story' for many, many months and will continue to do so.
The headline you query does not suggest what you claim. The trick is to read the headline and the story that accompanies it.
Thanks for the advice on how to be a journalist.
Paxman's Army Ah, so you're criticism wasn't of the piece you were commenting on? How odd. We've been 'reporting the story' for many, many months and will continue to do so. The headline you query does not suggest what you claim. The trick is to read the headline and the story that accompanies it. Thanks for the advice on how to be a journalist. Kevin Ward - Editor
  • Score: 8

11:37am Thu 14 Aug 14

KarloMarko says...

"Public inquiry into Circuit of Wales plans.....A public inquiry will be held in June, to consider plans for a £280m racing track in Blaenau Gwent. The Planning Inspectorate says the planning inquiry will start on 24 June, with its inspector writing a recommendation over whether the development should go ahead." - ITV 4/2014. So, has the PI report been published? If not, isn't this boosterism just a bit premature. Or is that the point, to create public momentum. I am not against it but haven't we had more than enough in S.Wales of over hyped projects that grab the public cash, demand more because "once committed", survive a few years and then exit? When do we learn to apply some hard sceptism.
"Public inquiry into Circuit of Wales plans.....A public inquiry will be held in June, to consider plans for a £280m racing track in Blaenau Gwent. The Planning Inspectorate says the planning inquiry will start on 24 June, with its inspector writing a recommendation over whether the development should go ahead." - ITV 4/2014. So, has the PI report been published? If not, isn't this boosterism just a bit premature. Or is that the point, to create public momentum. I am not against it but haven't we had more than enough in S.Wales of over hyped projects that grab the public cash, demand more because "once committed", survive a few years and then exit? When do we learn to apply some hard sceptism. KarloMarko
  • Score: 3

11:43am Thu 14 Aug 14

mkaibear1 says...

Paxman's Army wrote:
Kevin Ward - Editor wrote:
Paxman's Army
It's an opinion piece. Yours is different to ours and that's absolutely fine.
But if you are going to criticise something I've written, at least be factual.
Nowhere in the piece above do the words 'welcomed by Blaenau Gwent' appear.
I should also point out that we have published many articles about the opposition to the Circuit of Wales.
Nope Kevin. . I still won't let you off. Yesterday the Argus printed this remarkable headline:

British MotoGP deal for Circuit of Wales welcomed in Blaenau Gwent

Which suggests it is welcome with open arms by the people there. Sorry but that ain't completely true. . now is it?

The Argus has now run three stories, including yours, over two days, giving this news all the journalistic quality of a T-Mobile advert. Sure you've run articles. . BEFORE this. But you haven't included a drop of that opposition in any of these recent stories. Why? You and the Argus need to answer questions before printing off these sort of things. You are journalists first and foremost. So report the story.
>British MotoGP deal for Circuit of Wales welcomed in Blaenau Gwent

>Which suggests it is welcome (sic) with open arms by the people there

What? No it doesn't - all it suggests is that some in Blaenau Gwent are pleased that the deal has been done. It makes no claims as to numbers, level of support, level of reservations - just that some people in BG welcome it. Which they do.

>You are journalists first and foremost. So report the story

Journalists are not required to report a story in a solely anodyne way. There is no mandate to make sure that a story doesn't run until you have quotes from all sides and put across every possible position - if there were you would never be able to put a story out.

The Argus makes its op-ed pieces clear and it makes its factual journalism clear, that's all they need to do. Yes, the stories have been positive, that's because this is a positive development for the race track. They have run many stories covering the negative aspects, for example on 28/06/2013, 13/08/2013, 31/07/2013, 14/08/2013, 9/01/2014 - and that's just from a quick google.
[quote][p][bold]Paxman's Army[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kevin Ward - Editor[/bold] wrote: Paxman's Army It's an opinion piece. Yours is different to ours and that's absolutely fine. But if you are going to criticise something I've written, at least be factual. Nowhere in the piece above do the words 'welcomed by Blaenau Gwent' appear. I should also point out that we have published many articles about the opposition to the Circuit of Wales.[/p][/quote]Nope Kevin. . I still won't let you off. Yesterday the Argus printed this remarkable headline: British MotoGP deal for Circuit of Wales welcomed in Blaenau Gwent Which suggests it is welcome with open arms by the people there. Sorry but that ain't completely true. . now is it? The Argus has now run three stories, including yours, over two days, giving this news all the journalistic quality of a T-Mobile advert. Sure you've run articles. . BEFORE this. But you haven't included a drop of that opposition in any of these recent stories. Why? You and the Argus need to answer questions before printing off these sort of things. You are journalists first and foremost. So report the story.[/p][/quote]>British MotoGP deal for Circuit of Wales welcomed in Blaenau Gwent >Which suggests it is welcome (sic) with open arms by the people there What? No it doesn't - all it suggests is that some in Blaenau Gwent are pleased that the deal has been done. It makes no claims as to numbers, level of support, level of reservations - just that some people in BG welcome it. Which they do. >You are journalists first and foremost. So report the story Journalists are not required to report a story in a solely anodyne way. There is no mandate to make sure that a story doesn't run until you have quotes from all sides and put across every possible position - if there were you would never be able to put a story out. The Argus makes its op-ed pieces clear and it makes its factual journalism clear, that's all they need to do. Yes, the stories have been positive, that's because this is a positive development for the race track. They have run many stories covering the negative aspects, for example on 28/06/2013, 13/08/2013, 31/07/2013, 14/08/2013, 9/01/2014 - and that's just from a quick google. mkaibear1
  • Score: 6

11:46am Thu 14 Aug 14

Paxman's Army says...

Kevin Ward - Editor wrote:
Paxman's Army
Ah, so you're criticism wasn't of the piece you were commenting on? How odd.
We've been 'reporting the story' for many, many months and will continue to do so.
The headline you query does not suggest what you claim. The trick is to read the headline and the story that accompanies it.
Thanks for the advice on how to be a journalist.
If you read the comment Kevin. . it was indeed directed at the Argus initially. Nice try. And yes, as someone with over 25 years of journalism experience in New York and Minnesota, who has edited publications, hosted talkshows and news programs . . both in print and television. . ..I will tell you how to do your job. The Argus shouldn't be printing articles like this without asking the hard questions. . .certainly not with these recent developments.

But since you want me to do your job for you. . here are some nice questions.

1) Do you or anyone in the Argus have any personal or financial gain from printing these recent articles from the parties mentioned in them?

2) Do you consider the lack of hard journalism when printing these stories over the last two days to be ethical?

3) Are you going to be getting to the bottom of this, and asking the "hard questions" people have raised here in the days to come?
[quote][p][bold]Kevin Ward - Editor[/bold] wrote: Paxman's Army Ah, so you're criticism wasn't of the piece you were commenting on? How odd. We've been 'reporting the story' for many, many months and will continue to do so. The headline you query does not suggest what you claim. The trick is to read the headline and the story that accompanies it. Thanks for the advice on how to be a journalist.[/p][/quote]If you read the comment Kevin. . it was indeed directed at the Argus initially. Nice try. And yes, as someone with over 25 years of journalism experience in New York and Minnesota, who has edited publications, hosted talkshows and news programs . . both in print and television. . ..I will tell you how to do your job. The Argus shouldn't be printing articles like this without asking the hard questions. . .certainly not with these recent developments. But since you want me to do your job for you. . here are some nice questions. 1) Do you or anyone in the Argus have any personal or financial gain from printing these recent articles from the parties mentioned in them? 2) Do you consider the lack of hard journalism when printing these stories over the last two days to be ethical? 3) Are you going to be getting to the bottom of this, and asking the "hard questions" people have raised here in the days to come? Paxman's Army
  • Score: -5

11:52am Thu 14 Aug 14

mkaibear1 says...

Paxman's Army wrote:
Kevin Ward - Editor wrote:
Paxman's Army
Ah, so you're criticism wasn't of the piece you were commenting on? How odd.
We've been 'reporting the story' for many, many months and will continue to do so.
The headline you query does not suggest what you claim. The trick is to read the headline and the story that accompanies it.
Thanks for the advice on how to be a journalist.
If you read the comment Kevin. . it was indeed directed at the Argus initially. Nice try. And yes, as someone with over 25 years of journalism experience in New York and Minnesota, who has edited publications, hosted talkshows and news programs . . both in print and television. . ..I will tell you how to do your job. The Argus shouldn't be printing articles like this without asking the hard questions. . .certainly not with these recent developments.

But since you want me to do your job for you. . here are some nice questions.

1) Do you or anyone in the Argus have any personal or financial gain from printing these recent articles from the parties mentioned in them?

2) Do you consider the lack of hard journalism when printing these stories over the last two days to be ethical?

3) Are you going to be getting to the bottom of this, and asking the "hard questions" people have raised here in the days to come?
What an odd assertion.

Isn't the point of journalism to accurately report what's going on, not necessarily to make value judgements?

Are you claiming that in your 25 years of journalism you never published any article with any positive comment which wasn't followed up by a negative comment? You never once allowed any news story to stand which didn't have both positive and negative aspects, never allowed anything to go to the press or screen without a balanced viewpoint?
[quote][p][bold]Paxman's Army[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kevin Ward - Editor[/bold] wrote: Paxman's Army Ah, so you're criticism wasn't of the piece you were commenting on? How odd. We've been 'reporting the story' for many, many months and will continue to do so. The headline you query does not suggest what you claim. The trick is to read the headline and the story that accompanies it. Thanks for the advice on how to be a journalist.[/p][/quote]If you read the comment Kevin. . it was indeed directed at the Argus initially. Nice try. And yes, as someone with over 25 years of journalism experience in New York and Minnesota, who has edited publications, hosted talkshows and news programs . . both in print and television. . ..I will tell you how to do your job. The Argus shouldn't be printing articles like this without asking the hard questions. . .certainly not with these recent developments. But since you want me to do your job for you. . here are some nice questions. 1) Do you or anyone in the Argus have any personal or financial gain from printing these recent articles from the parties mentioned in them? 2) Do you consider the lack of hard journalism when printing these stories over the last two days to be ethical? 3) Are you going to be getting to the bottom of this, and asking the "hard questions" people have raised here in the days to come?[/p][/quote]What an odd assertion. Isn't the point of journalism to accurately report what's going on, not necessarily to make value judgements? Are you claiming that in your 25 years of journalism you never published any article with any positive comment which wasn't followed up by a negative comment? You never once allowed any news story to stand which didn't have both positive and negative aspects, never allowed anything to go to the press or screen without a balanced viewpoint? mkaibear1
  • Score: 4

11:58am Thu 14 Aug 14

Paxman's Army says...

mkaibear1 wrote:
Paxman's Army wrote:
Kevin Ward - Editor wrote:
Paxman's Army
Ah, so you're criticism wasn't of the piece you were commenting on? How odd.
We've been 'reporting the story' for many, many months and will continue to do so.
The headline you query does not suggest what you claim. The trick is to read the headline and the story that accompanies it.
Thanks for the advice on how to be a journalist.
If you read the comment Kevin. . it was indeed directed at the Argus initially. Nice try. And yes, as someone with over 25 years of journalism experience in New York and Minnesota, who has edited publications, hosted talkshows and news programs . . both in print and television. . ..I will tell you how to do your job. The Argus shouldn't be printing articles like this without asking the hard questions. . .certainly not with these recent developments.

But since you want me to do your job for you. . here are some nice questions.

1) Do you or anyone in the Argus have any personal or financial gain from printing these recent articles from the parties mentioned in them?

2) Do you consider the lack of hard journalism when printing these stories over the last two days to be ethical?

3) Are you going to be getting to the bottom of this, and asking the "hard questions" people have raised here in the days to come?
What an odd assertion.

Isn't the point of journalism to accurately report what's going on, not necessarily to make value judgements?

Are you claiming that in your 25 years of journalism you never published any article with any positive comment which wasn't followed up by a negative comment? You never once allowed any news story to stand which didn't have both positive and negative aspects, never allowed anything to go to the press or screen without a balanced viewpoint?
No Kevin. I never EVER printed Press Releases at face value. Never.

There were TWO articles on this yesterday in the Argus. . . TWO. And then your opinion. All of it glowing about this. Nary a word of opposition. Sorry. . you've GOT to have more journalistic ethics.

Kevin. . look. . .I'm not writing to get you angry. I'm saying there MUST be balance. Sure the Argus has printed things before. . but that was long ago and these are recent developments. . important developments. . and demand deeper questions. The Argus simply can't just print this as a feelgood thing.
[quote][p][bold]mkaibear1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Paxman's Army[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kevin Ward - Editor[/bold] wrote: Paxman's Army Ah, so you're criticism wasn't of the piece you were commenting on? How odd. We've been 'reporting the story' for many, many months and will continue to do so. The headline you query does not suggest what you claim. The trick is to read the headline and the story that accompanies it. Thanks for the advice on how to be a journalist.[/p][/quote]If you read the comment Kevin. . it was indeed directed at the Argus initially. Nice try. And yes, as someone with over 25 years of journalism experience in New York and Minnesota, who has edited publications, hosted talkshows and news programs . . both in print and television. . ..I will tell you how to do your job. The Argus shouldn't be printing articles like this without asking the hard questions. . .certainly not with these recent developments. But since you want me to do your job for you. . here are some nice questions. 1) Do you or anyone in the Argus have any personal or financial gain from printing these recent articles from the parties mentioned in them? 2) Do you consider the lack of hard journalism when printing these stories over the last two days to be ethical? 3) Are you going to be getting to the bottom of this, and asking the "hard questions" people have raised here in the days to come?[/p][/quote]What an odd assertion. Isn't the point of journalism to accurately report what's going on, not necessarily to make value judgements? Are you claiming that in your 25 years of journalism you never published any article with any positive comment which wasn't followed up by a negative comment? You never once allowed any news story to stand which didn't have both positive and negative aspects, never allowed anything to go to the press or screen without a balanced viewpoint?[/p][/quote]No Kevin. I never EVER printed Press Releases at face value. Never. There were TWO articles on this yesterday in the Argus. . . TWO. And then your opinion. All of it glowing about this. Nary a word of opposition. Sorry. . you've GOT to have more journalistic ethics. Kevin. . look. . .I'm not writing to get you angry. I'm saying there MUST be balance. Sure the Argus has printed things before. . but that was long ago and these are recent developments. . important developments. . and demand deeper questions. The Argus simply can't just print this as a feelgood thing. Paxman's Army
  • Score: -5

12:01pm Thu 14 Aug 14

mkaibear1 says...

Paxman's Army wrote:
Kevin Ward - Editor wrote:
Paxman's Army
Ah, so you're criticism wasn't of the piece you were commenting on? How odd.
We've been 'reporting the story' for many, many months and will continue to do so.
The headline you query does not suggest what you claim. The trick is to read the headline and the story that accompanies it.
Thanks for the advice on how to be a journalist.
If you read the comment Kevin. . it was indeed directed at the Argus initially. Nice try. And yes, as someone with over 25 years of journalism experience in New York and Minnesota, who has edited publications, hosted talkshows and news programs . . both in print and television. . ..I will tell you how to do your job. The Argus shouldn't be printing articles like this without asking the hard questions. . .certainly not with these recent developments.

But since you want me to do your job for you. . here are some nice questions.

1) Do you or anyone in the Argus have any personal or financial gain from printing these recent articles from the parties mentioned in them?

2) Do you consider the lack of hard journalism when printing these stories over the last two days to be ethical?

3) Are you going to be getting to the bottom of this, and asking the "hard questions" people have raised here in the days to come?
In addition, whilst I don't like criticising other people's grammar or spelling, if you're claiming to be a professional journalist shouldn't you know how to:

a) Use an ellipsis (three full stops, not two or four, and should be used at the end of a sentence not as a replacement for a comma as you appear to be using it)
b) Start a sentence (clue: don't use an And)
c) Start a list

It seems odd to me that a professional writer of English would be unable to understand this basic grammar. Where did you do your journalist training, again?
[quote][p][bold]Paxman's Army[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kevin Ward - Editor[/bold] wrote: Paxman's Army Ah, so you're criticism wasn't of the piece you were commenting on? How odd. We've been 'reporting the story' for many, many months and will continue to do so. The headline you query does not suggest what you claim. The trick is to read the headline and the story that accompanies it. Thanks for the advice on how to be a journalist.[/p][/quote]If you read the comment Kevin. . it was indeed directed at the Argus initially. Nice try. And yes, as someone with over 25 years of journalism experience in New York and Minnesota, who has edited publications, hosted talkshows and news programs . . both in print and television. . ..I will tell you how to do your job. The Argus shouldn't be printing articles like this without asking the hard questions. . .certainly not with these recent developments. But since you want me to do your job for you. . here are some nice questions. 1) Do you or anyone in the Argus have any personal or financial gain from printing these recent articles from the parties mentioned in them? 2) Do you consider the lack of hard journalism when printing these stories over the last two days to be ethical? 3) Are you going to be getting to the bottom of this, and asking the "hard questions" people have raised here in the days to come?[/p][/quote]In addition, whilst I don't like criticising other people's grammar or spelling, if you're claiming to be a professional journalist shouldn't you know how to: a) Use an ellipsis (three full stops, not two or four, and should be used at the end of a sentence not as a replacement for a comma as you appear to be using it) b) Start a sentence (clue: don't use an And) c) Start a list It seems odd to me that a professional writer of English would be unable to understand this basic grammar. Where did you do your journalist training, again? mkaibear1
  • Score: 3

12:03pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Paxman's Army says...

MKA. You're adorable.
MKA. You're adorable. Paxman's Army
  • Score: -4

12:07pm Thu 14 Aug 14

KarloMarko says...

Paxman's Army wrote:
MKA. You're adorable.
Great!
[quote][p][bold]Paxman's Army[/bold] wrote: MKA. You're adorable.[/p][/quote]Great! KarloMarko
  • Score: 4

12:10pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Kevin Ward - Editor says...

Paxman's Army
You're answering comments that you seem to think I've left.
Paxman's Army You're answering comments that you seem to think I've left. Kevin Ward - Editor
  • Score: 7

12:11pm Thu 14 Aug 14

mkaibear1 says...

Paxman's Army wrote:
mkaibear1 wrote:
Paxman's Army wrote:
Kevin Ward - Editor wrote:
Paxman's Army
Ah, so you're criticism wasn't of the piece you were commenting on? How odd.
We've been 'reporting the story' for many, many months and will continue to do so.
The headline you query does not suggest what you claim. The trick is to read the headline and the story that accompanies it.
Thanks for the advice on how to be a journalist.
If you read the comment Kevin. . it was indeed directed at the Argus initially. Nice try. And yes, as someone with over 25 years of journalism experience in New York and Minnesota, who has edited publications, hosted talkshows and news programs . . both in print and television. . ..I will tell you how to do your job. The Argus shouldn't be printing articles like this without asking the hard questions. . .certainly not with these recent developments.

But since you want me to do your job for you. . here are some nice questions.

1) Do you or anyone in the Argus have any personal or financial gain from printing these recent articles from the parties mentioned in them?

2) Do you consider the lack of hard journalism when printing these stories over the last two days to be ethical?

3) Are you going to be getting to the bottom of this, and asking the "hard questions" people have raised here in the days to come?
What an odd assertion.

Isn't the point of journalism to accurately report what's going on, not necessarily to make value judgements?

Are you claiming that in your 25 years of journalism you never published any article with any positive comment which wasn't followed up by a negative comment? You never once allowed any news story to stand which didn't have both positive and negative aspects, never allowed anything to go to the press or screen without a balanced viewpoint?
No Kevin. I never EVER printed Press Releases at face value. Never.

There were TWO articles on this yesterday in the Argus. . . TWO. And then your opinion. All of it glowing about this. Nary a word of opposition. Sorry. . you've GOT to have more journalistic ethics.

Kevin. . look. . .I'm not writing to get you angry. I'm saying there MUST be balance. Sure the Argus has printed things before. . but that was long ago and these are recent developments. . important developments. . and demand deeper questions. The Argus simply can't just print this as a feelgood thing.
I'm not Kevin, think you misread my name.

Are you suggesting that no article should ever be published unless it has comments on it from both sides? I'm very sceptical of that idea. No reputable organisation which relies on publishing news in a timely fashion is able to hold stories back because the other side of the news story hasn't given a comment. If that were the case then if it were an unfavourable news story you could stop its publication by delaying your comment.

>Nary a word of opposition

There doesn't need to be opposition in every article, or even in every group of related articles. The Argus has reported on the opposition repeatedly (google it!), it has reported on the cons and on the pros and has an editorial bias towards this as a good idea - that's fine, that's reasonable, and they are *open* and *honest* about their editorial bias (allowing you to take the news as you find it).
[quote][p][bold]Paxman's Army[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mkaibear1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Paxman's Army[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kevin Ward - Editor[/bold] wrote: Paxman's Army Ah, so you're criticism wasn't of the piece you were commenting on? How odd. We've been 'reporting the story' for many, many months and will continue to do so. The headline you query does not suggest what you claim. The trick is to read the headline and the story that accompanies it. Thanks for the advice on how to be a journalist.[/p][/quote]If you read the comment Kevin. . it was indeed directed at the Argus initially. Nice try. And yes, as someone with over 25 years of journalism experience in New York and Minnesota, who has edited publications, hosted talkshows and news programs . . both in print and television. . ..I will tell you how to do your job. The Argus shouldn't be printing articles like this without asking the hard questions. . .certainly not with these recent developments. But since you want me to do your job for you. . here are some nice questions. 1) Do you or anyone in the Argus have any personal or financial gain from printing these recent articles from the parties mentioned in them? 2) Do you consider the lack of hard journalism when printing these stories over the last two days to be ethical? 3) Are you going to be getting to the bottom of this, and asking the "hard questions" people have raised here in the days to come?[/p][/quote]What an odd assertion. Isn't the point of journalism to accurately report what's going on, not necessarily to make value judgements? Are you claiming that in your 25 years of journalism you never published any article with any positive comment which wasn't followed up by a negative comment? You never once allowed any news story to stand which didn't have both positive and negative aspects, never allowed anything to go to the press or screen without a balanced viewpoint?[/p][/quote]No Kevin. I never EVER printed Press Releases at face value. Never. There were TWO articles on this yesterday in the Argus. . . TWO. And then your opinion. All of it glowing about this. Nary a word of opposition. Sorry. . you've GOT to have more journalistic ethics. Kevin. . look. . .I'm not writing to get you angry. I'm saying there MUST be balance. Sure the Argus has printed things before. . but that was long ago and these are recent developments. . important developments. . and demand deeper questions. The Argus simply can't just print this as a feelgood thing.[/p][/quote]I'm not Kevin, think you misread my name. Are you suggesting that no article should ever be published unless it has comments on it from both sides? I'm very sceptical of that idea. No reputable organisation which relies on publishing news in a timely fashion is able to hold stories back because the other side of the news story hasn't given a comment. If that were the case then if it were an unfavourable news story you could stop its publication by delaying your comment. >Nary a word of opposition There doesn't need to be opposition in every article, or even in every group of related articles. The Argus has reported on the opposition repeatedly (google it!), it has reported on the cons and on the pros and has an editorial bias towards this as a good idea - that's fine, that's reasonable, and they are *open* and *honest* about their editorial bias (allowing you to take the news as you find it). mkaibear1
  • Score: 3

12:13pm Thu 14 Aug 14

mkaibear1 says...

Paxman's Army wrote:
MKA. You're adorable.
Thank you!

Are you going to answer my question?
[quote][p][bold]Paxman's Army[/bold] wrote: MKA. You're adorable.[/p][/quote]Thank you! Are you going to answer my question? mkaibear1
  • Score: 5

12:19pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Paxman's Army says...

That's true. There doesn't have to be opposition in every article. But when it comes to stories like this. . hard news stories that involve a lot of people. . .with many opinions. . .then questions MUST be raised before going to press with them. Again, these are recent developments that made the story topical once more. Because of that, a journalist should include a voices reacting to those recent developments. It's what news is all about. I'm saying the Argus didn't do it's job well. I would have made some calls. . to three or four people who have opinions. . pro and con about the CoW . . and asked their opinion about these recent developments. It only takes ten minutes and gives the story depth and richer accuracy. I'm hoping the Argus will revist this story. . and ask these very hard questions.
That's true. There doesn't have to be opposition in every article. But when it comes to stories like this. . hard news stories that involve a lot of people. . .with many opinions. . .then questions MUST be raised before going to press with them. Again, these are recent developments that made the story topical once more. Because of that, a journalist should include a voices reacting to those recent developments. It's what news is all about. I'm saying the Argus didn't do it's job well. I would have made some calls. . to three or four people who have opinions. . pro and con about the CoW . . and asked their opinion about these recent developments. It only takes ten minutes and gives the story depth and richer accuracy. I'm hoping the Argus will revist this story. . and ask these very hard questions. Paxman's Army
  • Score: -2

12:21pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Paxman's Army says...

MKA. . . why bother? I could mention that this is a "comments" site. . and not covered by rules of style. I could mention that "And" is accepted as a way to start sentences. I could tell you whatever. . but you wouldn't care, would you? You are still adorable though. Coochie coo.
MKA. . . why bother? I could mention that this is a "comments" site. . and not covered by rules of style. I could mention that "And" is accepted as a way to start sentences. I could tell you whatever. . but you wouldn't care, would you? You are still adorable though. Coochie coo. Paxman's Army
  • Score: -1

12:32pm Thu 14 Aug 14

mkaibear1 says...

Paxman's Army wrote:
That's true. There doesn't have to be opposition in every article. But when it comes to stories like this. . hard news stories that involve a lot of people. . .with many opinions. . .then questions MUST be raised before going to press with them. Again, these are recent developments that made the story topical once more. Because of that, a journalist should include a voices reacting to those recent developments. It's what news is all about. I'm saying the Argus didn't do it's job well. I would have made some calls. . to three or four people who have opinions. . pro and con about the CoW . . and asked their opinion about these recent developments. It only takes ten minutes and gives the story depth and richer accuracy. I'm hoping the Argus will revist this story. . and ask these very hard questions.
On each and every story? You need to look at news as an aggregate not each story as an individual. The Argus has a good balance of pros and cons in their news on this even without doing what you are suggesting.

When did you retire from doing journalism? I suspect you were working primarily on an old press news-cycle not an internet news-cycle?

>It only takes ten minutes

It doesn't only take ten minutes, you might only spend ten minutes on the phone (but I doubt it) but even *I* know there's the writing up of the conversation, the working out which quotes to use, the "making sure you put everyone's point across properly" as if you don't then you can ruin the chance of them ever wanting to be interviewed again. It takes a lot longer than that.
[quote][p][bold]Paxman's Army[/bold] wrote: That's true. There doesn't have to be opposition in every article. But when it comes to stories like this. . hard news stories that involve a lot of people. . .with many opinions. . .then questions MUST be raised before going to press with them. Again, these are recent developments that made the story topical once more. Because of that, a journalist should include a voices reacting to those recent developments. It's what news is all about. I'm saying the Argus didn't do it's job well. I would have made some calls. . to three or four people who have opinions. . pro and con about the CoW . . and asked their opinion about these recent developments. It only takes ten minutes and gives the story depth and richer accuracy. I'm hoping the Argus will revist this story. . and ask these very hard questions.[/p][/quote]On each and every story? You need to look at news as an aggregate not each story as an individual. The Argus has a good balance of pros and cons in their news on this even without doing what you are suggesting. When did you retire from doing journalism? I suspect you were working primarily on an old press news-cycle not an internet news-cycle? >It only takes ten minutes It doesn't only take ten minutes, you might only spend ten minutes on the phone (but I doubt it) but even *I* know there's the writing up of the conversation, the working out which quotes to use, the "making sure you put everyone's point across properly" as if you don't then you can ruin the chance of them ever wanting to be interviewed again. It takes a lot longer than that. mkaibear1
  • Score: 2

12:36pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Paxman's Army says...

MKA. Retire?

Hardly.
MKA. Retire? Hardly. Paxman's Army
  • Score: -3

12:38pm Thu 14 Aug 14

mkaibear1 says...

Paxman's Army wrote:
MKA. . . why bother? I could mention that this is a "comments" site. . and not covered by rules of style. I could mention that "And" is accepted as a way to start sentences. I could tell you whatever. . but you wouldn't care, would you? You are still adorable though. Coochie coo.
Why bother? Because proper English is important and if you were a journalist you would understand that.

Not covered by rules of style? It's covered by the rules of English grammar, though - I don't care about style but grammar is grammar.

"And" is broadly a stylistic issue so I'll concede that point (although if you've spent 25 years in journalism the earliest you'd've learnt your grammar would've been about 1980, when it was still unacceptable to use conjunctions at the start of a sentence), however the ellipsis and starting a list are not, they are grammatical.

>You are still adorable though. Coochie coo.

I note you're still refusing to provide any actual information which does rather give the lie to your claims of 25 years journalistic experience.
[quote][p][bold]Paxman's Army[/bold] wrote: MKA. . . why bother? I could mention that this is a "comments" site. . and not covered by rules of style. I could mention that "And" is accepted as a way to start sentences. I could tell you whatever. . but you wouldn't care, would you? You are still adorable though. Coochie coo.[/p][/quote]Why bother? Because proper English is important and if you were a journalist you would understand that. Not covered by rules of style? It's covered by the rules of English grammar, though - I don't care about style but grammar is grammar. "And" is broadly a stylistic issue so I'll concede that point (although if you've spent 25 years in journalism the earliest you'd've learnt your grammar would've been about 1980, when it was still unacceptable to use conjunctions at the start of a sentence), however the ellipsis and starting a list are not, they are grammatical. >You are still adorable though. Coochie coo. I note you're still refusing to provide any actual information which does rather give the lie to your claims of 25 years journalistic experience. mkaibear1
  • Score: 4

12:40pm Thu 14 Aug 14

mkaibear1 says...

Paxman's Army wrote:
MKA. Retire?

Hardly.
So, still refusing to provide actual factual answers...

Not doing your arguments any favours here. If you're going to claim that the Argus is failing on their Journalistic Integrity then surely your own integrity should be impeccable?
[quote][p][bold]Paxman's Army[/bold] wrote: MKA. Retire? Hardly.[/p][/quote]So, still refusing to provide actual factual answers... Not doing your arguments any favours here. If you're going to claim that the Argus is failing on their Journalistic Integrity then surely your own integrity should be impeccable? mkaibear1
  • Score: 2

12:44pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Paxman's Army says...

MKA. Ya gots me sweetiecakes. I'm actually a shelver at Lidl's. Which is a good thing because they have a better salary.
MKA. Ya gots me sweetiecakes. I'm actually a shelver at Lidl's. Which is a good thing because they have a better salary. Paxman's Army
  • Score: -5

12:49pm Thu 14 Aug 14

mkaibear1 says...

Paxman's Army wrote:
MKA. Ya gots me sweetiecakes. I'm actually a shelver at Lidl's. Which is a good thing because they have a better salary.
So, just trolling as usual. Figures.
[quote][p][bold]Paxman's Army[/bold] wrote: MKA. Ya gots me sweetiecakes. I'm actually a shelver at Lidl's. Which is a good thing because they have a better salary.[/p][/quote]So, just trolling as usual. Figures. mkaibear1
  • Score: 4

4:21pm Thu 14 Aug 14

landyman3030 says...

Kevin Ward - Editor wrote:
landyman3030
To clarify, the British MotoGP is moving from Silverstone.
I apologise profusely. They mentioned Donnington on Radio Wales yesterday. My mistake.
It is correct though i believe that it is only Silverstone and Donnington who are able to hold this event ( or maybe they are the only ones willing to bid ). So by the Welsh Racetrack own admission they will look to outsource the race in 2015 to one of these two. At a cost no doubt. But to whom and how much. Smoke and mirrors SWA.
[quote][p][bold]Kevin Ward - Editor[/bold] wrote: landyman3030 To clarify, the British MotoGP is moving from Silverstone.[/p][/quote]I apologise profusely. They mentioned Donnington on Radio Wales yesterday. My mistake. It is correct though i believe that it is only Silverstone and Donnington who are able to hold this event ( or maybe they are the only ones willing to bid ). So by the Welsh Racetrack own admission they will look to outsource the race in 2015 to one of these two. At a cost no doubt. But to whom and how much. Smoke and mirrors SWA. landyman3030
  • Score: 3

4:30pm Thu 14 Aug 14

mkaibear1 says...

landyman3030 wrote:
Kevin Ward - Editor wrote:
landyman3030
To clarify, the British MotoGP is moving from Silverstone.
I apologise profusely. They mentioned Donnington on Radio Wales yesterday. My mistake.
It is correct though i believe that it is only Silverstone and Donnington who are able to hold this event ( or maybe they are the only ones willing to bid ). So by the Welsh Racetrack own admission they will look to outsource the race in 2015 to one of these two. At a cost no doubt. But to whom and how much. Smoke and mirrors SWA.
They are in a rather unenviable position, though, aren't they?

Without a racetrack they can't book events. Without events they can't build a racetrack. If you follow that through to its (illogical) conclusion no-one would ever build anything because no-one would ever book anything!
[quote][p][bold]landyman3030[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kevin Ward - Editor[/bold] wrote: landyman3030 To clarify, the British MotoGP is moving from Silverstone.[/p][/quote]I apologise profusely. They mentioned Donnington on Radio Wales yesterday. My mistake. It is correct though i believe that it is only Silverstone and Donnington who are able to hold this event ( or maybe they are the only ones willing to bid ). So by the Welsh Racetrack own admission they will look to outsource the race in 2015 to one of these two. At a cost no doubt. But to whom and how much. Smoke and mirrors SWA.[/p][/quote]They are in a rather unenviable position, though, aren't they? Without a racetrack they can't book events. Without events they can't build a racetrack. If you follow that through to its (illogical) conclusion no-one would ever build anything because no-one would ever book anything! mkaibear1
  • Score: 2

9:56pm Thu 14 Aug 14

landyman3030 says...

Maybe with all the confusion the SWA could confirm for its readers exactly how much public money is going into this scheme.
Maybe with all the confusion the SWA could confirm for its readers exactly how much public money is going into this scheme. landyman3030
  • Score: 1

10:56pm Thu 14 Aug 14

mkaibear1 says...

landyman3030 wrote:
Maybe with all the confusion the SWA could confirm for its readers exactly how much public money is going into this scheme.
It would be nice, yes. I mean, fundamentally I have no problem with public sector investment in an infrastructure project, but it seems odd not to be at least informed of the figures we're looking at.

For reference, an F1 quality circuit of 4 miles in Europe is estimated to cost £100m.
[quote][p][bold]landyman3030[/bold] wrote: Maybe with all the confusion the SWA could confirm for its readers exactly how much public money is going into this scheme.[/p][/quote]It would be nice, yes. I mean, fundamentally I have no problem with public sector investment in an infrastructure project, but it seems odd not to be at least informed of the figures we're looking at. For reference, an F1 quality circuit of 4 miles in Europe is estimated to cost £100m. mkaibear1
  • Score: 1

11:28am Fri 15 Aug 14

Cymru Am Beth says...

mkaibear1 wrote:
Paxman's Army wrote:
That's true. There doesn't have to be opposition in every article. But when it comes to stories like this. . hard news stories that involve a lot of people. . .with many opinions. . .then questions MUST be raised before going to press with them. Again, these are recent developments that made the story topical once more. Because of that, a journalist should include a voices reacting to those recent developments. It's what news is all about. I'm saying the Argus didn't do it's job well. I would have made some calls. . to three or four people who have opinions. . pro and con about the CoW . . and asked their opinion about these recent developments. It only takes ten minutes and gives the story depth and richer accuracy. I'm hoping the Argus will revist this story. . and ask these very hard questions.
On each and every story? You need to look at news as an aggregate not each story as an individual. The Argus has a good balance of pros and cons in their news on this even without doing what you are suggesting.

When did you retire from doing journalism? I suspect you were working primarily on an old press news-cycle not an internet news-cycle?

>It only takes ten minutes

It doesn't only take ten minutes, you might only spend ten minutes on the phone (but I doubt it) but even *I* know there's the writing up of the conversation, the working out which quotes to use, the "making sure you put everyone's point across properly" as if you don't then you can ruin the chance of them ever wanting to be interviewed again. It takes a lot longer than that.
Can I just correct you?
It is THEIR ever wanting not them.
[quote][p][bold]mkaibear1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Paxman's Army[/bold] wrote: That's true. There doesn't have to be opposition in every article. But when it comes to stories like this. . hard news stories that involve a lot of people. . .with many opinions. . .then questions MUST be raised before going to press with them. Again, these are recent developments that made the story topical once more. Because of that, a journalist should include a voices reacting to those recent developments. It's what news is all about. I'm saying the Argus didn't do it's job well. I would have made some calls. . to three or four people who have opinions. . pro and con about the CoW . . and asked their opinion about these recent developments. It only takes ten minutes and gives the story depth and richer accuracy. I'm hoping the Argus will revist this story. . and ask these very hard questions.[/p][/quote]On each and every story? You need to look at news as an aggregate not each story as an individual. The Argus has a good balance of pros and cons in their news on this even without doing what you are suggesting. When did you retire from doing journalism? I suspect you were working primarily on an old press news-cycle not an internet news-cycle? >It only takes ten minutes It doesn't only take ten minutes, you might only spend ten minutes on the phone (but I doubt it) but even *I* know there's the writing up of the conversation, the working out which quotes to use, the "making sure you put everyone's point across properly" as if you don't then you can ruin the chance of them ever wanting to be interviewed again. It takes a lot longer than that.[/p][/quote]Can I just correct you? It is THEIR ever wanting not them. Cymru Am Beth
  • Score: 0

11:40am Fri 15 Aug 14

mkaibear1 says...

>Can I just correct you?

Always! It would be hypocritical of me to dish it out without being willing to take it!

>It is THEIR ever wanting not them

Why? My statement is grammatically sound if a little inelegant (in retrospect I would rewrite as "you risk ruining any chance of a future interview with them" or something like that).

Writing out the two sentences;

"You can ruin the chance of them ever wanting to be interviewed again"
"You can ruin the chance of their ever wanting to be interviewed again"

...I still think "them" is a grammatically correct choice of words in this sentence. Can you explain your reasoning? Always happy to learn :)
>Can I just correct you? Always! It would be hypocritical of me to dish it out without being willing to take it! >It is THEIR ever wanting not them Why? My statement is grammatically sound if a little inelegant (in retrospect I would rewrite as "you risk ruining any chance of a future interview with them" or something like that). Writing out the two sentences; "You can ruin the chance of them ever wanting to be interviewed again" "You can ruin the chance of their ever wanting to be interviewed again" ...I still think "them" is a grammatically correct choice of words in this sentence. Can you explain your reasoning? Always happy to learn :) mkaibear1
  • Score: 0

6:21pm Fri 15 Aug 14

Paxman's Army says...

MKA calm down. . all you do is want to fight. Just relax Poopsykins. Life is good.
MKA calm down. . all you do is want to fight. Just relax Poopsykins. Life is good. Paxman's Army
  • Score: 0

6:38pm Fri 15 Aug 14

rover100rich says...

the isle of man tt figures i found for 2009 indicated that 19million was pumped into the economy by 30k visitors each staying average 6 days , the average crowd for a moto gp is 115k , a worldwide audience in 2011 of 233 million,is it a case of "if you build it ,they will come" , and if they could do me a personal favour and build a drag strip alongside it that would be great.
the isle of man tt figures i found for 2009 indicated that 19million was pumped into the economy by 30k visitors each staying average 6 days , the average crowd for a moto gp is 115k , a worldwide audience in 2011 of 233 million,is it a case of "if you build it ,they will come" , and if they could do me a personal favour and build a drag strip alongside it that would be great. rover100rich
  • Score: 1

6:59pm Fri 15 Aug 14

mkaibear1 says...

Paxman's Army wrote:
MKA calm down. . all you do is want to fight. Just relax Poopsykins. Life is good.
So, responding politely is "wanting to fight"?

Come on, PA. Your trolling attempts are usually much better than that.
[quote][p][bold]Paxman's Army[/bold] wrote: MKA calm down. . all you do is want to fight. Just relax Poopsykins. Life is good.[/p][/quote]So, responding politely is "wanting to fight"? Come on, PA. Your trolling attempts are usually much better than that. mkaibear1
  • Score: 1

10:03am Sat 16 Aug 14

maggiesian says...

Kevin Ward - Editor wrote:
Paxman's Army
Ah, so you're criticism wasn't of the piece you were commenting on? How odd.
We've been 'reporting the story' for many, many months and will continue to do so.
The headline you query does not suggest what you claim. The trick is to read the headline and the story that accompanies it.
Thanks for the advice on how to be a journalist.
your criticism not you're criticism
[quote][p][bold]Kevin Ward - Editor[/bold] wrote: Paxman's Army Ah, so you're criticism wasn't of the piece you were commenting on? How odd. We've been 'reporting the story' for many, many months and will continue to do so. The headline you query does not suggest what you claim. The trick is to read the headline and the story that accompanies it. Thanks for the advice on how to be a journalist.[/p][/quote]your criticism not you're criticism maggiesian
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree