Journalism and cycling

greenspurs

tomasrojo wrote: »

It's a response to something DirkVoodo said.



You have limited experience of how conversations work, maybe.

No, i dont have limited experience, But if people in dublin think every thread is an outlet for a description of their locality, they are wrong.
Its supposed to be about "Journalism and Cycling" ... not "My Local School Layout" ,

http://www.cyclingnews.com/about/
A very good website for all Cycling news/reviews etc.

DirkVoodoo

Journalism is a reflection of society, I think commenting on societal norms helps us understand exactly why Newstalk and Paul Williams get away with so much.

Drink driving is frowned upon (mostly). If Paul had said that he was going to have a couple of pints after work and get into his car to see what happens, he'd probably have been sacked.

The fact that a lot of Newstalk's base are listening while stuck in traffic and most likely seeing bikes whizz past them is why he can get away with saying these ridiculous comments. Because everyone is sitting there and thinking "god Paul, I'd love to do the same!". If he talked about assaulting some young girls who touched his car, very few people would feel the same way.

I admit I did go off on one or two slight tangents...but so what? Conversations are organic.

HivemindXX

Arsehole who fantasises on air about murdering vulnerable people because they touch his car is forced to back down and tells pitifully obvious lie about how people are just misunderstanding what he meant.

By which I mean of course that Paul Williams has clarified his comment.

He should have claimed it was a joke then accused everyone who complained of being dry **** with no sense of humour. That's what works for Clarkson.

tomasrojo

I have to say I'm still no clear what he actually had in mind (apart from hate-swarm ratings and burnishing his tough-guy persona). Has someone grabbed his wing mirror lately? Is this a thing now?

DirkVoodoo

Funny you mention Clarkson, I remember when his assault occurred the number of people in his corner was staggering. It's almost as if because he is a complete --expletive--, people kind of expect this anti-social behaviour from him and aren't really shocked by it.

Jeremy punched someone? Oh, sure that's just Jeremy being Jeremy.

Audiences want a shocking presenter, they allow the behaviour, so when they say or do something that would normally warrant a punishment, they get away with it.

I'm glad that the people didn't stand for it this time and complained en masse, not just a couple of cyclists.

I doubt it will force him to moderate his behaviour, he probably thinks that the line is there and he can keep nudging it as often as he likes and maybe take a quick step over it again in a few months when this has died down. It's not like he can rely on his journalistic credentials, he needs the shock and awe, pretty much the only trick he has.

tomasrojo

Yeah, punching an employee for not being able to get you your preferred dinner should be quite hard to defend. Apparently not!

DirkVoodoo

tomasrojo wrote: »

Yeah, punching an employee for not being able to get you your preferred dinner should be quite hard to defend. Apparently not!

No, if anything it's extremely profitable...he's gone from £1 million a year to a reported £10 million a year with Amazon.

When I go back to work I'm going to punch someone who doesn't serve me my lunch, see what happens.

EDIT: In fact, I can't see how anyone who behaves like this when it's expected has actually been punished: Jeremy Clarkson, Jonathan Ross/Russell Brand, James Martin (he only got snubbed for top gear, so maybe he wasn't extreme enough!), Richard Keys/Andy Gray, Paul Williams.

It seems that even if you get sacked, the "exposure" as a celebrity a**hole just gets you a bigger contract somewhere else.

tomasrojo

In the case of Jonathan Ross, his career was quite badly affected by the incident. He does still do pretty well, but his chat show is nowhere near as prestigious as the one he had before. Brand's career in Hollywood was taking off at that time anyway, and hosting his Radio 2 show was becoming too difficult with all the time he was spending in the States, so I think he gave up the show without too many misgivings.

He does a very similar show on Sundays now, on Radio X, again with Matt Morgan and Mr. Gee. Like the old Radio 2 show, it's pretty good. Brand is a lot better when he has colleagues constantly undermining his pomposity.

magicbastarder

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

They are obviously healthy kids as they are either in rugby gear or carrying various tennis rackets or hockey sticks.

I find it absolutely bonkers that they don't get to enjoy the simplicity of riding to school or the freedom of being able to cycle where they like.

to be fair, the cycle to school i would have done when i was a kid - 1988 to 1993 - is a lot busier now. and i'd say it's the same for most kids.

Weepsie

What did James Martin do?

CramCycle

Weepsie wrote: »

What did James Martin do?

He claimed to have skimmed some cyclists and caused a crash intentionally or something.

tomasrojo

There was this:

in a review of the Tesla electric car this Sunday, he went further, gleefully describing how he had utilised the speedy and silent approach of his test vehicle to sneak up on a pack of weekend cyclists, honk his horn and drive them off the road. "The look of sheer terror as they tottered into the hedge was the best thing I've ever seen in my rear-view mirror," he wrote.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/green-living-blog/2009/sep/15/james-martin-cyclists

DirkVoodoo

Which is a shame because I always liked him on Saturday kitchen...he was really trying to mimic Clarkson in his motoring column.

Message to James: you can like cars and be respected for your knowledge of them without having to act like a complete buffoon.

tomasrojo

I like this bit:

Tesla, which loaned Martin the car, wasn't happy either. "In this case, we're not even using it [linking to the review from our site]. It is really odd. I have to sadly admit this is not the first time a journalist in the UK has brought up this issue of wheatgrass-eating hippies riding bikes. [But] this is definitely the most extreme version of it," Rachel Konrad, Tesla's communications manager, told the FredCast cycling podcast.

"Yes, it's very noticeable that your journalists have a weird obsession with people who ride bikes."

tomasrojo

The incident may have been entirely made up. It might be like Jon Ronson's youthful journalistic faux pas, where he wrote, with regard to The Frog Chorus, that Chapman assassinated the wrong Beatle. Linda McCartney got in touch with him to say that she didn't appreciate light-hearted references to the murder of either her husband or his close friend, and Ronson tried never again to make the mistake of forgetting that he was writing about actual people.

Chuchote

tomasrojo wrote: »

I like this bit:

("I have to sadly admit this is not the first time a journalist in the UK has brought up this issue of wheatgrass-eating hippies riding bikes.")

"Yes, it's very noticeable that your journalists have a weird obsession with people who ride bikes."

Eww, bit of an own goal there from Tesla - wouldn't their preferred market be wheatgrass-eating hippies?

magicbastarder

i assumed they were parodying his attitude, rather than using the term in seriousness.

AndrewJRenko

Chuchote wrote: »

Eww, bit of an own goal there from Tesla - wouldn't their preferred market be wheatgrass-eating hippies?

Not to worry - Tesla have come to love bikes and cyclists, as they've finally realised that electric cars take up the same road/parking space as petrol cars;

http://www.bicycling.com/culture/tesla-is-paying-employees-to-commute-by-bike

NeedMoreGears

I couldn't manage the eloquence of robynmorton above so I went a with "re paul Williams cycling: As a direct result of this man's rant, I won't be listening any more"

John_Rambo

NeedMoreGears wrote: »

I couldn't manage the eloquence of robynmorton above so I went a with "re paul Williams cycling: As a direct result of this man's rant, I won't be listening any more"

Same here. Half arsed apology that started with "I know I offended a few fundamentalists" two days after the Manchester bombing tells us where he's coming from and what he thinks. I did a bit of freelancing in the Sunday World and he's no angel in the road. Very reliant on his friends in uniform to keep himself on the road.

tomasrojo

John_Rambo wrote: »

Same here. Half arsed apology that started with "I know I offended a few fundamentalists"

If he literally said that, that's not an apology at all. It's even worse than the usual non-apology of "I'm sorry if you were offended".

(Funny that the man fondly pondering attacking another human being with a multi-tonne vehicle is calling others "fundamentalists".)

RobFowl

PW is a Dick
He is an absolute Dick
That is all

John_Rambo

Actually, it wasn't an apology, it was an explanation, or an pathetic excuse for an explanation.

On Monday he said;

“If a cyclist came up and started pulling my mirror on my car then me and the cyclist are going to have a serious crash, and he won’t have to be worrying about banging into my car a second time, let me tell you that. You have been warned.”


"You have been warned'. Pretty clear message from Williams there. He'll crash in to you.



Then, on Wednesday he tells us by a "crash" he meant he'd call the Gardai and have the cyclist done for criminal damage?

He's so used to talking with disdain about the people he writes and talks about he thinks he can talk about everyone in that vain.

Have a listen to his mumbling excuses here. Last quarter.

http://www.newstalk.com/listen_back/5/36267/24th_May_2017_-_Newstalk_Breakfast_Part_1/

Chuchote

Speaking as a fundamentalist :P death threats definitely offend me.

robyntmorton

While I was at the gym today I received an email from Eric Moylan, the Editor of Newstalk Breakfast

In it, he says

Dear Robyn,

Your email and comment has been logged and noted. All feedback and comment to the show is important and informs the decision making process on the programme.

In relation to your complaint, the comments in which you refer were made in the course of a discussion after an item on cycle safety and what needs to be done to reduce the number of fatalities on our roads. This took place on Monday 22nd May.

The presenters, Shane Coleman and Paul Williams, gave differing viewpoints on both the behavior of drivers and of cyclists. As you will have heard, Shane Coleman was defending cyclists and highlighting the poor behavior of some motorists. Paul Williams offered a differing view. Combined the presenters conducted a balanced discussion.

During the course of this discussion, language was used by Paul Williams which some interpreted as condoning violence between road users. This was not the intention of the piece or the presenter. A clarification was planned to be made on Tuesday May 23th but given the terror attack in Manchester, it was not appropriate on this date. At the next available opportunity, at approximately 7.50am on Wednesday May 24th, Paul Williams clarified his comments and unequivocally stated that he does not condone violence towards cyclists or among any users of the road and stated that his use of language was unfortunate.

The programme strives to achieve balance in relation to all matters, including this one. Both presenters regularly cycle and have stated this on many occasions. Certain points have been made in relation to the behavior and actions of motorists, cyclists, pedestrians and all road users. On occasion our presenters have disagreed but there has always been balance to the discussion.

I felt obliged to reply...

Thnk you for your email concerning these comments and my complaint.

I will be honest. I still have an issue with this.

I am sure you will agree with me that Paul Williams is a noted journalist, who has been doing his job for some time. To be a journalist of that calibre, you have to understand how to use language effectively and clearly, in order to avoid what you are saying in an article being misinterpreted as something that is not being said.

How any person listening to Newstalk Breakfast on Monday could have interpreted "me and the cyclist are going to have a serious crash and he won’t have to worry about banging into my car a second time I tell you." as "I will call the guards and have the cyclist charged with criminal damage" is entirely beyond me.

I can only contend that Paul Williams, cyclist or not (and as a cyclist I have learned very quickly to be very considerate of other cyclists when I am driving) entirely meant what was said on Monday, and that the "clarification" presented on Thursday's show, was a case of being told that he had to say something to get the fundamentalists off his back.

I therefore feel I have no choice but to further this complaint to the BAI.

tomasrojo

Combined the presenters conducted a balanced discussion.

One said that he intended to seriously hurt cyclists who touch his car; the other was taken aback. What more balance could you ask for?

magicbastarder

it's like calling a war a balanced affair as there are opposing sides in combat.

tomasrojo

In all seriousness, what has balance got to do with it anyway? This isn't really a problem of lack of balance. You can't get away with hate speech by having a co-presenter who thinks your opinions are weird.

Weepsie

Paul Williams may be a noted journalist, but he is not, nor ever has been a journalist of any decent calibre.

robyntmorton

Weepsie wrote: »

Paul Williams may be a noted journalist, but he is not, nor ever has been a journalist of any decent calibre.

Point taken, but I never said what calibre he is, just that he is of "that calibre" :pac: