Raw Dykes Posted 21 April 2012 Posted 21 April 2012 Raw Dykes admitted he hated seenitall with a passion, he said "Seenitall isn't my favourite poster". Oi! You broke the rules, Babs! Only the things I actually said can go in quotation marks. Even journalists have some integrity! Well I'm baffled as to why he seems to think it is only the away form that let us down despite some baffling home results , Bristol city , milwall ect. In fact I'm baffled beyond belief that he is still the manager when he comes out and say's he's " baffled " Both those games were before NP returned, and as already has been discussed at length, "baffled" is the word the journalist used, and not Pearson.
seenitall Posted 21 April 2012 Posted 21 April 2012 Bless you all - God forbid anyone says anything detrimental about 'sexy'Nige
Raw Dykes Posted 21 April 2012 Posted 21 April 2012 It's called reported speech, as a trainee journalist myself you use it to when the actual quote where he says that would not work as a direct quote. You do not make up what they have said you paraphrase or pick out the key points of what they said. It's the best way of introducing a direct quote and setting the tone for wat the next quote will say. Just because a direct quote does not say that, it does not mean that he did not say it. Exactly! Let me play journalist, "It's called reported speech, as a trainee journalist myself you use it to when the actual quote where he says that would not work as a direct quote. You do not make up what they have said you paraphrase or pick out the key points of what they said. It's the best way of introducing a direct quote and setting the tone for wat the next quote will say.", said wakeyfox01. wakeyfox01 said journalists are free to sum up what he interviewee said how they see fit. wakeyfox01 said the journalist can edit the interview and exaggerate the interviewees actual words as long as they don't go over the top and that only the things actually said go in quotation marks. wakeyfox01 said the journalist is allowed to twist words to make an article more interesting as long as it's not presented as a direct quote. "Just because a direct quote does not say that, it does not mean that he did not say it.", said wakeyfox01. wakeyfox01 said journalists can get away with murder, because many readers are too stupid to work out the difference between actual quotes, and words the journalist used to sell newspapers. wakeyfox01 said journalists are free to put a certain number of words into someone's mouth, as long as they don't break too many rules or make the article sound too far fetched.
flowwolf Posted 21 April 2012 Posted 21 April 2012 Ok forget the word baffled that is just a diversion , it still does not take away the fact that he is admitting he does not know what he is doing , by that I mean he can't understand why we are crap and keep losing . Sorry but isn't that why he is being paid a fortune ? to MANAGE .
Trav Le Bleu Posted 21 April 2012 Posted 21 April 2012 To be fair to NP, he doesn't say anywhere in that article that he is 'baffled.' Nope, that's the Mockery trying to rustle up sales from a nothing story.
seenitall Posted 21 April 2012 Posted 21 April 2012 Hardly supportive though is it (even if he didn't say it) they could have said something like - Nige has plenty of ideas how to turn things around for next year and is raring to go - not that he is 'baffled'! It is up there with buffoon, clueless, unimaginative, lacks inspiration and can't be arsed - For a successful (sic) manager, he hasn't learnt much about media and his portrayal in the press has he - one hopes he learns more quickly from his (many) football goofs
flowwolf Posted 21 April 2012 Posted 21 April 2012 Nope, that's the Mockery trying to rustle up sales from a nothing story. About a nothing season and a nothing manager.
Guest Posted 21 April 2012 Posted 21 April 2012 Baffled wasn't the first verb to come into my mind when I considered our away form.
wurmer Posted 21 April 2012 Posted 21 April 2012 Oi! You broke the rules, Babs! Only the things I actually said can go in quotation marks. Even journalists have some integrity! Both those games were before NP returned, and as already has been discussed at length, "baffled" is the word the journalist used, and not Pearson. You were there then were you? OK.
Raw Dykes Posted 21 April 2012 Posted 21 April 2012 You were there then were you? OK. Don't condescend me. Have you read the rest of the thread? I don't need to have been there! Why do you need to have been there to know that baffled is a word the journalist used, and not Pearson. It's obvious! Do you know what quotation marks are, and why they are used? In case you don't, they are used to indicate what was actually said by the interviewee. The journalist is obliged to use them in order to indicate to the reader the difference between what was actually said in the interview, and the words used by the journalist to summarise what was actually said. There are boundaries, but the journalist does have some leeway to exaggerate or bend the gist of the words used in the interview in order to spice up the content and sell more newspapers. It's the journalist's job to make each article as interesting as possible, obviously without straying anywhere near to libel or slander, in order to avoid a legal battle. The journalist also wants to keep his reputation intact, so wants to avoid putting so many words in the interviewee's mouth that the article becomes too far fetched. So how do I know that Pearson did not say baffled? Because it's not in quotation marks. That line was by far the most interesting part of the article, and it's not in quotation marks. It's in the words of the journalist, and not the interviewee. Imagine you had conducted that interview, and the interviewee had said, "I'm baffled. Fvcked if I know." Are you seriously going to let that gold nugget slip through your fingers? Are you actually telling me you'd risk the reader suspecting that those words were made up by you, and not said in the interview you had led, when in actual fact your interviewee had given you that gem? You had no reason whatsoever to not quote it directly, and every reason imaginable to put it in quotation marks, and you're considering presenting it as your own conjecture instead? Maybe Nigel did say "I'm baffled" to the journalist, but if he did, then writing the article like he did means that journalist has to be a fvcking windowlicking, mouthbreathing retard who should be congratulated for dressing himself and remembering how to breathe every day.
Captain... Posted 22 April 2012 Posted 22 April 2012 It's called reported speech, as a trainee journalist myself you use it to when the actual quote where he says that would not work as a direct quote. You do not make up what they have said you paraphrase or pick out the key points of what they said. It's the best way of introducing a direct quote and setting the tone for wat the next quote will say. Just because a direct quote does not say that, it does not mean that he did not say it. That is the technicality that is being argued, to paraphrase: par·a·phrase /ˈpærəˌfreɪz/ Show IPA noun, verb, par·a·phrased, par·a·phras·ing. noun 1. a restatement of a text or passage giving the meaning in another form, as for clearness; rewording. 2. the act or process of restating or rewording. So did he say the word "baffle" there is no evidence of it, but that doesn't mean he didn't say it, what it does mean is that the reporter interpretted Pearson's comments as meaning he is baffled by it. Now whether that is a reporter trying to get a story out of a typical tight lipped interview with NP, such as "Beckford has played his last game for Leicester", or Pearson genuinely not having a clue why we are on an unbeaten run at home yet losing to piss poor teams away form home, I will leave you to decide, but I think I already know how some of you will see it.
seenitall Posted 22 April 2012 Posted 22 April 2012 Well he clearly is baffled by it or he would have done something to stop it happening - so really its a moot point - if the man had anything about him he would come out with something inspiring and the journalists wouldn't have to put their own spin on things (if that's what they did)
wellyfox Posted 22 April 2012 Posted 22 April 2012 I don't see what the context it is written in matters clearly people believe he said it. Such a damning comment could contribute to his dismissal so if he never said it then he will be seeking a full appology from them on monday morning. If he has not already demanded it. The comment wether he used it or not makes him look clueless. If he sits back and takes a comment like that then he deserves whatever he gets from it. IMO
unreachable Posted 22 April 2012 Posted 22 April 2012 I despise journalists who do not truthfully represent an interviewee but "spin" a story. It is reprehensible to link a professional manager with the word "baffled" if he did not actually say it. It's derogatory and demeaning. No wonder journalism is at such a low ebb in the public's opinion.
seenitall Posted 22 April 2012 Posted 22 April 2012 I think it may have had more to do with hacking Milliy Dowlers phone than slightly misrepresenting the Leicester City manager while they were mid table Championship fodder....
Donut Posted 22 April 2012 Posted 22 April 2012 "baffled" well heres a novel suggestion. CHANGE YOUR APPROACH. How the hell can you be baffled when YOURE the one in charge of preparing the team, does he not look at them all week and then stepping on the pitch away from home is a random act? stupid quote.
DANGEROUS TIGER Posted 23 April 2012 Posted 23 April 2012 Yup. This thread just goes to show how gullible some of the anti-Pearson brigade can be. I'd be embarrassed myself. I would be truly "embarrassed", if I was you! The Pearson, Blind Faith brigade are the "gullible" ones. Just so long as they have their darling little Nigel, ambition means nothing to them. Truly sad bunch of deluded zombies, imo. Never mind though, I don't expect they can help themselves. lol
Raw Dykes Posted 23 April 2012 Posted 23 April 2012 I would be truly "embarrassed", if I was you! The Pearson, Blind Faith brigade are the "gullible" ones. Just so long as they have their darling little Nigel, ambition means nothing to them. Truly sad bunch of deluded zombies, imo. Never mind though, I don't expect they can help themselves. lol It's not blind faith, though, is it? I've got no idea what's going to happen. Next season, we may improve under the current manager, or we may just be the same old rubbish. What I'm saying is we don't have enough evidence at this point to know that sacking the manager is the best thing to do right now. Sure, maybe it would be a good idea, but who in their right mind is going to want to replace Pearson after the club's owners sacked him after just five months of getting the same results out of the squad he inherited from a "world class" manager? If the owners sack Pearson, the next one could be our next MON, sure, but it's just as likely he'll be our next Sousa. Pearson may put a squad together over the summer that challenges for promotion next season, or he might fail to. What makes you so sure that the current manager will definitely fail, and the next one will definitely succeed? THAT is blind faith. I like evidence, myself.
chris_lcfc_85 Posted 23 April 2012 Posted 23 April 2012 It's not blind faith, though, is it? I've got no idea what's going to happen. Next season, we may improve under the current manager, or we may just be the same old rubbish. What I'm saying is we don't have enough evidence at this point to know that sacking the manager is the best thing to do right now. Sure, maybe it would be a good idea, but who in their right mind is going to want to replace Pearson after the club's owners sacked him after just five months of getting the same results out of the squad he inherited from a "world class" manager? If the owners sack Pearson, the next one could be our next MON, sure, but it's just as likely he'll be our next Sousa. Pearson may put a squad together over the summer that challenges for promotion next season, or he might fail to. What makes you so sure that the current manager will definitely fail, and the next one will definitely succeed? THAT is blind faith. I like evidence, myself. Good post, spot on
buzzy Posted 23 April 2012 Posted 23 April 2012 It's not blind faith, though, is it? I've got no idea what's going to happen. Next season, we may improve under the current manager, or we may just be the same old rubbish. What I'm saying is we don't have enough evidence at this point to know that sacking the manager is the best thing to do right now. Sure, maybe it would be a good idea, but who in their right mind is going to want to replace Pearson after the club's owners sacked him after just five months of getting the same results out of the squad he inherited from a "world class" manager? If the owners sack Pearson, the next one could be our next MON, sure, but it's just as likely he'll be our next Sousa. Pearson may put a squad together over the summer that challenges for promotion next season, or he might fail to. What makes you so sure that the current manager will definitely fail, and the next one will definitely succeed? THAT is blind faith. I like evidence, myself. this his pearsons team know it as been for 5 months so the buck stops with him. he as fallen out with players .owners get rid of pearson because he will not get us out of this league
Raw Dykes Posted 23 April 2012 Posted 23 April 2012 this his pearsons team know it as been for 5 months so the buck stops with him. he as fallen out with players .owners get rid of pearson because he will not get us out of this league How is it Pearson's team? Only three of the players are his. He has fallen out with Mills, yes. Do we know who's fault that is? If you're going to say he's fallen out will St. Ledger or Beckford, then how do you explain them being first team regulars since?
fleckneymike Posted 23 April 2012 Posted 23 April 2012 Shoe Laces have left me baffled - Nigel Pearson
wurmer Posted 23 April 2012 Posted 23 April 2012 How is it Pearson's team? Only three of the players are his. He has fallen out with Mills, yes. Do we know who's fault that is? If you're going to say he's fallen out will St. Ledger or Beckford, then how do you explain them being first team regulars since? Such bollocks. No manager who comes into a club gets to change all the players. He knew who we had when he took the job. He added in January. He dictates the training, He chooses the tactics. He picks the team. In what way is it not his responsibility?
fleckneymike Posted 23 April 2012 Posted 23 April 2012 Where the sun goes at night has left me baffled says Nigel Pearson.
Babylon Posted 23 April 2012 Posted 23 April 2012 It's not blind faith, though, is it? I've got no idea what's going to happen. Next season, we may improve under the current manager, or we may just be the same old rubbish. What I'm saying is we don't have enough evidence at this point to know that sacking the manager is the best thing to do right now. Sure, maybe it would be a good idea, but who in their right mind is going to want to replace Pearson after the club's owners sacked him after just five months of getting the same results out of the squad he inherited from a "world class" manager? If the owners sack Pearson, the next one could be our next MON, sure, but it's just as likely he'll be our next Sousa. Pearson may put a squad together over the summer that challenges for promotion next season, or he might fail to. What makes you so sure that the current manager will definitely fail, and the next one will definitely succeed? THAT is blind faith. I like evidence, myself. Good post, completely pointless though. Wanting to eliminate things from the equation before passing judgement will just get you labled a "Pearson bummer".
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.