Messages 1 2 3
|
| Re: UK Times article
by simon1287 on 15 January 2006 12:16am |
| |
Maybe we should scrutinise the press more often.
I bet that this journalist who has written this article about Michael drives around the streets of the city in a 4WD, goes on long haul holidays and doesn't give a damn about the effect on the environment. |
| |
| Re: UK Times article
by kazzzz on 15 January 2006 12:18am |
| |
| Hmmm there's an interesting project..shall I google him? ;) |
| |
| Re: UK Times article
by sighthound on 15 January 2006 12:19am |
| |
| Go, kazzzz! |
| |
| Re: UK Times article
by simon1287 on 15 January 2006 12:29am |
| |
OK! I'm not suggesting a pro-Michael campaign with banners showing Michael at work and DVD-throwing competitions to see who can hit the journalists neck.
Oh hell, I hope that doesn't happen now! ;-p
On a more serious note, my previous comment was just regarding the fact that people shouldn't practice what they cannot prove they do not preach.
Michael always makes it a rule of each series that the actual route for the series will be travelled by surface transport (In particular by train) unless unavoidable circumstances arise.
Has this journalist done anything to show his/her committment to environmental policies other than one article that launches an unpopualar attack upon a very popular person? |
| |
| Re: UK Times article
by jesskmck on 15 January 2006 1:06am |
| |
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4612556.stm
Thankfully, we are not the only ones supporting Michael on this issue. The director of Transport 2000 speaks out against that stupid Times reporter. |
| |
| Re: UK Times article
by suzulu on 15 January 2006 1:16am |
| |
| I don't know how these reporters do it! This one just wanted to cause a sensation, I suppose, never mind about truth. |
| |
| Re: UK Times article
by jaime on 15 January 2006 2:17am |
| |
| I don't get it, I mean it's not like MP travels on a private jet to everywhere right? |
| |
| Re: UK Times article
by tucsonmike on 15 January 2006 4:50am |
| |
I've now read the three articles. I am going to start out with a story about when I worked as a librarian and a reporter badly misquoted me.
I later learned many reporters are given a title basically and they then write the article around it. Bottom line. I was so angry with this reporter, we had to be separated at a July 4th event. I thought he was going to cost me my job.
I am telling you this and why? To show, that many reporters have already decided on the story they want. This Mr. Webster wanted to tell a story his way. Just reading the BBC story about the environmental group makes you realize the Times story was a fabrication. I suggest Mr. Palin respond to the story, but not to this reporter. The response needs to be public, loud and clear. (The public speaker in me is already working on the response).
I have not googled Mr. Webster yet. That will come. You know certain things were outrageous. Mr. Palin putting out 24 tons of pollution? As though he is flying his own 767, for goodness sake.
Mankind has all these devices. The trick is to work on the pollution problem, not go backwards.
If Mr. Palin's reponse is true about his travels encouraging people to stay home, that would be the one thing I would disagree with. British tourism says more people are trying exotic places. This is good. We are getting closer together, and for our survival, we need to. We need to speak with one another and know each other. (Never thought I would say something like this).
For us, his fans to respond it just looks as though we are hangers on. This Mr. Webster has an ax to grind. Let Mr. Palin refute Websters article. While this Webster is at it, using another Websters Dictionary might not be such a bad idea!
|
| |
| Re: UK Times article
by Ellerd on 15 January 2006 5:28am |
| |
| Where's the criticism of the super-rich celebrities and sportspeople who board their private jets just to fly to the corner store for a pint of milk? (that's perhaps a little exaggeration, but you get the gist.) |
| |
Messages 1 2 3
|
