25 Feb 06
Originally posted by bbarrI didn't say I wouldn't be offended; I said I wouldn't be _particularly_ offended. Most of my colleagues would feel the same way. Offence is warranted, but how much offence? I doubt all that much. The fact the reporter was Jewish obviously changes things somewhat - if he hadn't been, I doubt it would have been a story. I'm sure Livingstone has said worse to others.
Well, if you are not offended by direct attacks on your professional and moral integrity, nor by being likened to a murderous thug, kudos to you! The only possible response to a question like "how much more offended should I be by X" is to point out aspects of X that are mean, or callous, or whatever. If somebody that you empathized with told you that they t ...[text shortened]... ld you reject their complaint as being unwarranted? Could you understand their point of view?
I would suggest a lot of the outrage is based on a lazy reading of the words and an assumption that Livingstone said something anti-Semitic.
25 Feb 06
2 edits
Well, here's the transcript of the exchange:
After Finegold had announced himself as a Standard journalist, Mr Livingstone said: "How awful for you. Have you thought of having treatment?"
Mr Livingstone repeated his question and then asked: "What did you do before? Were you a German war criminal?"
Finegold told the mayor that he was Jewish and therefore found the remark offensive, before asking again how the event had gone.
Mr Livingstone replied: "Arr right, well you might be [Jewish], but actually you are just like a concentration camp guard, you are just doing it because you are paid to, aren't you?"
Finegold: "Great, I have you on record for that. So, how was tonight?"
Mr Livingstone: "It's nothing to do with you because your paper is a load of scumbags and reactionary bigots."
Finegold: "I'm a journalist and I'm doing my job. I'm only asking for a comment."
Mr Livingstone: "Well work for a paper that doesn't have a record of supporting fascism."
25 Feb 06
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrAt the risk of alienating the pirate, it not meaningful to ask: "How offended was that person entitled to feel by those words said in that context?"
That question is nonsensical. It's not a though offensiveness is an intrinsic property some words possess.
25 Feb 06
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrHMMMM, reading the full exchange it appears that Mr. Livingstone was attacking the paper, not Finegold.Politicans over here constantly attack reporters for working at media outlets they consider too liberal or conservative; what's the big deal?
Well, here's the transcript of the exchange:
After Finegold had announced himself as a Standard journalist, Mr Livingstone said: "How awful for you. Have you thought of having treatment?"
Mr Livingstone repeated his question and then asked: "What did you do before? Were you a German war criminal?"
Finegold told the mayor that he was Jewish and there : "Well work for a paper that doesn't have a record of supporting fascism."
EDIT: Of course, no matter what he said I wouldn't support an unelected group removing him from office for it.
25 Feb 06
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderQuite. He was accusing the journalist of acting like a concentration camp guard by taking money for doing something he knew was wrong. The analogy was:
HMMMM, reading the full exchange it appears that Mr. Livingstone was attacking the paper, not Finegold.Politicans over here constantly attack reporters for working at media outlets they consider too liberal or conservative; what's the big deal?
Bad guy - Nazi leadership - Evening Standard
Willing pawn - Concentration camp guard - Finegold
Still a bit offensive, though.
25 Feb 06
Originally posted by dottewellWhy not both? Anyway, it doesn't sound like he was trying to wind Livingstone up, it sounds like he was just trying to get a comment on the event. If he was trying to wind up Livingstone, then why would he have said originally that he was Jewish and took offense to the comment about being a German war criminal? I read the "Great, I have you on record..." as similar to "I heard you the first time...".
The reaction of a deeply offended man or a good hack with an eye for a story?
And certainly not in any way trying to wind Livingstone up to say something even more stupid...
25 Feb 06
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrYou have to respect a man who will call a paper a "load of scumbags and reactionary bigots" to a reporter who works for it though.
Why not both? Anyway, it doesn't sound like he was trying to wind Livingstone up, it sounds like he was just trying to get a comment on the event. If he was trying to wind up Livingstone, then why would he have said originally that he was Jewish and took offense to the comment about being a German war criminal? I read the "Great, I have you on record..." as similar to "I heard you the first time...".
25 Feb 06
Originally posted by bbarrYes, all that might be true. But, based on experience, my attitude towards journalists is even more cynical than my attitude towards everyone else.
Why not both? Anyway, it doesn't sound like he was trying to wind Livingstone up, it sounds like he was just trying to get a comment on the event. If he was trying to wind up Livingstone, then why would he have said originally that he was Jewish and took offense to the comment about being a German war criminal? I read the "Great, I have you on record..." as similar to "I heard you the first time...".
25 Feb 06
Originally posted by no1marauderIf he's attacking Finegold for working at the Standard, then he's still attacking Finegold. He's still accusing Finegold of having no professional or moral integrity, and of being like a nazi. The fact that Livingstone despises the Standard may provide an explanation for the attack, but it doesn't justify it, and Finegold could certainly be excused for not thinking "Well, since one reason he's insulting me is that I work for the Standard, it would be silly to take offense at being called a nazi."
HMMMM, reading the full exchange it appears that Mr. Livingstone was attacking the paper, not Finegold.Politicans over here constantly attack reporters for working at media outlets they consider too liberal or conservative; what's the big deal?
EDIT: Of course, no matter what he said I wouldn't support an unelected group removing him from office for it.
25 Feb 06
Originally posted by bbarrTrue enough. It still seems like a tempest in a teapot, though. Aren't politicians expected to attack members of the press and vice versa? Isn't Finegold being particulary thin-skinned as dottewell suggests?
If he's attacking Finegold for working at the Standard, then he's still attacking Finegold. He's still accusing Finegold of having no professional or moral integrity, and of being like a nazi. The fact that Livingstone despises the Standard may provide an explanation for the attack, but it doesn't justify it, and Finegold could certainly be excused for not t ...[text shortened]... that I work for the Standard, it would be silly to take offense at being called a nazi."
25 Feb 06
Originally posted by no1marauderIt's hard to tell whether he's bein thin-skinned, but I normally don't expect this sort of reaction from a reporter. Then again, calling a Jew a nazi...
True enough. It still seems like a tempest in a teapot, though. Aren't politicians expected to attack members of the press and vice versa? Isn't Finegold being particulary thin-skinned as dottewell suggests?
Who knows? I'm still burned out on this issue from the Forum Wars.