Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

Exactly where is the informational value and direct relation to the case that you seem to hold in such esteem of all this ??

A reporter has over a year ago *joined* TJMK over a year ago.
You did notice that too that after he joined, he had absolutely Zero (Mexican, Brazilian, 'nada') other activity.
He apparently from your info has not even visited the site again.

Ever cross your mind that per chance he simply *joined* to have full access to the most reliable source of information about the subject of his articles ?

BTW
Is not your dramatic disclosure the same type of 'cyber stalking' that is so often vociferously condemned here as a tool of the dreaded (but constantly read and referenced for reliable info).. 'hate group, PMF.

Umm no: It's indicative of the fact that a journalist who's supposed to be taking a disinterested and balanced view of this case (and the media/blog circus surrounding it) has got rather too close to a highly partisan website which is somewhat partial to disseminating biased and misleading information.

Can you see the important difference? (I'm guessing from your last post that you can't, in which case I guess I can't help you further on this one).

 

[quadraginta]

Umm no: It's indicative of the fact that a journalist who's supposed to be taking a disinterested and balanced view of this case (and the media/blog circus surrounding it) has got rather too close to a highly partisan website which is somewhat partial to disseminating biased and misleading information.

Can you see the important difference? (I'm guessing from your last post that you can't, in which case I guess I can't help you further on this one).

You joined PMF, didn't you?

 

[RoseMontague]

Umm no: It's indicative of the fact that a journalist who's supposed to be taking a disinterested and balanced view of this case (and the media/blog circus surrounding it) has got rather too close to a highly partisan website which is somewhat partial to disseminating biased and misleading information.

Can you see the important difference? (I'm guessing from your last post that you can't, in which case I guess I can't help you further on this one).

I would have thought PMF would be a better choice with more information but that is just me. A lot of reporters and bloggers that we are getting our news from seem to have an opinion on this thing, it almost seems unavoidable. These articles do seem to at least present both sides and appear to me to be fairly accurate and I can't say that about many of the other articles written about this case.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

information

You joined PMF, didn't you?

Quadraginta,
PMF has valuable information, and I can see the point of joining (for one thing it allows you to PM the members even if you do not comment publicly). I am unaware that TJfMK has a similar stock of information, such as the Massei translation.

 

[LondonJohn]

I would have thought PMF would be a better choice with more information but that is just me. A lot of reporters and bloggers that we are getting our news from seem to have an opinion on this thing, it almost seems unavoidable. These articles do seem to at least present both sides and appear to me to be fairly accurate and I can't say that about many of the other articles written about this case.

I'd agree that the articles themselves are fairly neutral reportage, with pretty much no opinion or editorial stance. However, I still think it's strange (and inappropriate) that a journalist would become a member of this site.

 

[pilot padron]

Umm no: It's indicative of the fact that a journalist who's supposed to be taking a disinterested and balanced view of this case (and the media/blog circus surrounding it) has got rather too close to a highly partisan website

Can you see the important difference? (I'm guessing from your last post that you can't, in which case I guess I can't help you further on this one).

No I cannot see any iota of 'important difference' in a reporter joining a website over a year ago to gather reliable information for his articles, and never posting or even showing any subsequent activity there at all... for a year.

But I did see one item of interest.
You are now admitting that the two sources "from on high" here, Sfarzo and Dempsey who definitely are not journalists, therefore need not worry about maintaining 'disinterested' views or getting too close to a 'partisan website.

Yes, Vogt and Nadeau are journalists, therefore held to much higher standards compared to mere Bloggers Sfarzo and Dempsey.
That indeed is a difference I do see.

BTW:
Your last statement contains the erroneous conclusion that what you said previously was any help at all.

I'd agree that the articles themselves are fairly neutral reportage, with pretty much no opinion or editorial stance. However, I still think it's strange (and inappropriate) that a journalist would become a member of this site.

Never but never concede any iota of error even when a very vulnerable fallacious argument is shown have no credible foundation.

We have another 50,000++ posts to go here

 

[quadraginta]

Quadraginta,
PMF has valuable information, and I can see the point of joining (for one thing it allows you to PM the members even if you do not comment publicly). I am unaware that TJfMK has a similar stock of information, such as the Massei translation.

Neither did PMF, when LJ joined there.

If we're going to go with the 'guilt by association' metric I see no reason to play favorites.

 

[RoseMontague]

No I cannot see any iota of 'important difference' in a reporter joining a website over a year ago to gather reliable information for his articles, and never posting or even showing any subsequent activity there at all... for a year.

But I did see one item of interest.
You are now admitting that the two sources "from on high" here, Sfarzo and Dempsey who definitely are not journalists, therefore need not worry about maintaining 'disinterested' views or getting too close to a 'partisan website.

Yes, Vogt and Nadeau are journalists, therefore held to much higher standards compared to mere Bloggers Sfarzo and Dempsey.
That indeed is a difference I do see.

BTW:
Your last statement contains the erroneous conclusion that what you said previously was any help at all.



Never but never concede any iota of error even when a very vulnerable fallacious argument is shown have no credible foundation.

We have another 50,000++ posts to go here

Do you think someone on the side of guilt will give us a decent argument for guilt by then? BTW, I have already started working on a post for next year's Groundhog Day. Do you think the case will still be going by then?

 

[LondonJohn]

Neither did PMF, when LJ joined there.

If we're going to go with the 'guilt by association' metric I see no reason to play favorites.

I don't report on this case for the BBC. Nor do I need to join TJMK to read its content (and nor would Julian Joyce). I joined PMF because I believed at that point that it was the only online forum dealing with the Kercher case, and I had some questions that I wanted answered.

I soon realised that a) I wasn't getting straight answers, b) I was being attacked and accused of being some sort of PR plant, and c) that there was actually a rational forum with a thread devoted to this case, where people are allowed to debate freely and civilly. That would be here.

 

[LondonJohn]

Do you think someone on the side of guilt will give us a decent argument for guilt by then? BTW, I have already started working on a post for next year's Groundhog Day. Do you think the case will still be going by then?

Hehehehe. I'll eat my hat (specifically, a somewhat ludicrous golf trilby that I bought while under the influence of alcohol) if this case is still ongoing in February of next year.

ETA: I'll also eat the same hat if anyone on the side of guilt ever gives a decent, coherent argument for guilt that fits the evidence as we now know it.....

 

[LondonJohn]

No I cannot see any iota of 'important difference' in a reporter joining a website over a year ago to gather reliable information for his articles, and never posting or even showing any subsequent activity there at all... for a year.

But I did see one item of interest.
You are now admitting that the two sources "from on high" here, Sfarzo and Dempsey who definitely are not journalists, therefore need not worry about maintaining 'disinterested' views or getting too close to a 'partisan website.

Yes, Vogt and Nadeau are journalists, therefore held to much higher standards compared to mere Bloggers Sfarzo and Dempsey.
That indeed is a difference I do see.

BTW:
Your last statement contains the erroneous conclusion that what you said previously was any help at all.



Never but never concede any iota of error even when a very vulnerable fallacious argument is shown have no credible foundation.

We have another 50,000++ posts to go here

Sfarzo and Dempsey have taken an editorial stance on this matter, as is their prerogative. Just as Quennell and Ganong have taken an editorial stance in the other direction, as is also their prerogative.

However, it's the job of a publicly-funded news-gathering organisation such as the BBC to present stories without any form of editorial slant. The BBC in particular takes stringent measures to try to ensure that all its reporting is fair, balanced and free from editorial opinionating of any kind.

And that's the difference. Again, I'm sorry if you can't understand this. Perhaps a short Stint reading the BBC charter might be helpful to your understanding though:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/about/how_we_govern/charter_and_agreement/

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Sfarzo and Dempsey have taken an editorial stance on this matter, as is their prerogative. Just as Quennell and Ganong have taken an editorial stance in the other direction, as is also their prerogative.

However, it's the job of a publicly-funded news-gathering organisation such as the BBC to present stories without any form of editorial slant. The BBC in particular takes stringent measures to try to ensure that all its reporting is fair, balanced and free from editorial opinionating of any kind.

And that's the difference. Again, I'm sorry if you can't understand this. Perhaps a short Stint reading the BBC charter might be helpful to your understanding though:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/about/how_we_govern/charter_and_agreement/

Please do contact the BBC trust and let us know what their response is to whatever it is you complain about with regards Mr Joyce, if no joy with the BCC maybe you could report Mr Joyce to the Press Complaints Commission.

 

[LondonJohn]

Please do contact the BBC trust and let us know what their response is to whatever it is you complain about with regards Mr Joyce, if no joy with the BCC maybe you could report Mr Joyce to the Press Complaints Commission.

He doesn't write for the press: the BBC is not subject to the PCC code of conduct.

I put the bit about contacting the BBC Trust somewhat whimsically: I'm not in the habit of taking this sort of direct action anyhow, plus it's way, way down their list of priorities. That doesn't, however, detract from the fact that it's strange (and to my mind unethical) for a BBC journalist writing online about this case to have gained membership of a partisan website.

Any news on what time you think Meredith died on November 1st 2007, by the way?

 

[quadraginta]

I don't report on this case for the BBC. Nor do I need to join TJMK to read its content (and nor would Julian Joyce). I joined PMF because I believed at that point that it was the only online forum dealing with the Kercher case, and I had some questions that I wanted answered.

I soon realised that a) I wasn't getting straight answers, b) I was being attacked and accused of being some sort of PR plant, and c) that there was actually a rational forum with a thread devoted to this case, where people are allowed to debate freely and civilly. That would be here.

I see.

It's quite alright to insinuate that someone else's neutrality is suspect ... even cast aspersions on their professionalism simply because they acquired a log-in to a site whose POV you disagree with, but of course everything is completely different in your own case.

Why am I not surprised.

 

[LondonJohn]

I see.

It's quite alright to insinuate that someone else's neutrality is suspect ... even cast aspersions on their professionalism simply because they acquired a log-in to a site whose POV you disagree with, but of course everything is completely different in your own case.

Why am I not surprised.

Why do you think he signed up to TJMK? What informational edge did he gain by doing so?

 

[LondonJohn]

Man, I'm looking forward to JREF poster SomeAlibi coming to debate the case here, and explaining just how the recent examination of Curatolo and the alleged developments in the DNA re-testing are going to play for the prosecution in this case.

And while he's here, he can maybe also explain why anything Steve Moore says is so very critically important in deciding whether Knox or Sollecito get acquitted on appeal. Perhaps he knows something we don't - maybe Moore will be appearing for the defence in the appeal?

Gawd but it's a bad month for those who believe the convictions are safe

 

[quadraginta]

Why do you think he signed up to TJMK? What informational edge did he gain by doing so?

Damned if I know. Do you?

If you don't then your insinuations are merely that. Content free, unfounded character assassination and a disparagement of someone's professional integrity simply to further your side of an argument on the internet.

You yourself have been accused of registering with web forums for ulterior motives. I recall your indignation quite well. How many different standards do you employ? Is it one for you and one for everybody else, or only you and people who say something you don't agree with?

 

[CoulsdonUK]

He doesn't write for the press: the BBC is not subject to the PCC code of conduct.

I put the bit about contacting the BBC Trust somewhat whimsically: I'm not in the habit of taking this sort of direct action anyhow, plus it's way, way down their list of priorities. That doesn't, however, detract from the fact that it's strange (and to my mind unethical) for a BBC journalist writing online about this case to have gained membership of a partisan website.

Any news on what time you think Meredith died on November 1st 2007, by the way?

I am not under the illusion that anything I can say will have any impact on the proceedings taking place in Perugia (it’s not about me!), as I have said before and in particular with TOD I want see if it is even raised in the “appeal”. Meredith’s murder isn’t for me at least about how well I can debate or argue the case with you or others it is about the appeal (judicial process) which many of you who support Raffaele and Amanda have been saying is a new trial! I have this feeling of déjà vu from the actual trial; having followed Candace Dempsey’s blog on SeattlePI I found that 90% of what was raised there was never discussed in the trial.

What will most of Raffaele and Amanda’s supporters do if TOD or Meredith’s bra clasp isn’t discussed to level of detail you debate here?

By the way is Mr Joyce actually employed by the BBC or is he like so many journalists these days “freelance”? Does Nick Pisa work for Sky News, Telegraph or Daily Mail I don’t know do you? Is Candace employed by SeattlePI?; if so what about her recent appearance in the recent debate event in Seattle?

I like that phrase from Frank “people see the Moon but look at their finger” or something like that.

 

[LondonJohn]

Damned if I know. Do you?

If you don't then your insinuations are merely that. Content free, unfounded character assassination and a disparagement of someone's professional integrity simply to further your side of an argument on the internet.

You yourself have been accused of registering with web forums for ulterior motives. I recall your indignation quite well. How many different standards do you employ? Is it one for you and one for everybody else, or only you and people who say something you don't agree with?

You've really got your teeth into this one, haven't you. I'm seeing a pattern developing.

I am suggesting that it is strange and potentially improper for a BBC journalist writing reports on this case to have registered as a member with a partisan website. That is all.

I have not suggested that he had or has "ulterior motives". And yes, in my case the "super sleuths" laughably decided that I was some sort of spy/plant, which is a totally different case of affairs.

Anyway, here's an analogy (deliberately writ large so you might actually understand it): what would you say if one of the hosts of the next US Presidential TV debates (let's suppose the host was Bob Smith of XYZ News) was found to be a member of - say - the Republican Party? Would that be OK, particularly if he did not disclose it at the start of the debate? And can you see how that might be different from someone commenting on the forthcoming election, who had stated his own democratic viewpoint (and who might even be a self-professed member of the Democratic Party)?

 

[pilot padron]

Why do you think he signed up to TJMK? What informational edge did he gain by doing so?

Oh; Puh...Leeze

You want us to list the benefits of membership to an Internet Forum (rather than just let it stand and admit your argument has no basis in fact????

With cognizance of why this thread goes on forever, here is a reply that is probably pretty much self evident to everyone else here.

For openers, membership allows him to contact directly and quickly via PM any of the member authors of the various informational articles appearing daily.
This is a huge advantage in case the he desires more information or permission to quote.
Need I enumerate the rather elementary benefit that this membership privilege connotes.... *for a Journalist*.

Forgive my skepticism at your sincerity in asking this.
These benefits seem so very well known to everyone I know who posts anywhere.

Speaking of who you know; surely you are cognizant of the fact that you cannot even look at a URL a poster puts on Brucie's IIP unless you are a member; much less access files, etc.

Again:

What are benefits of being a Forum member for a Journalist ??
Especially a member of the most authoritative and popular site about the case ??

Shades of the 5+ page 'Nara is Nuts' circular complete waste of cyberspace