Difference between revisions of "Talk:Editorial Intelligence"
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
This is not the version of events assumed around Fleet Street. If you recall the timetable last year, after the first flurry of activity in August, the story went quiet and Blunkett's job looked safe. Then on November 28, the Sunday Telegraph broke an exclusive: "Blunkett's ex-lover accusing him of fast-tracking visa." Someone, presumably from the Quinn camp, had given the story legs again. With this, the minister was doomed." | This is not the version of events assumed around Fleet Street. If you recall the timetable last year, after the first flurry of activity in August, the story went quiet and Blunkett's job looked safe. Then on November 28, the Sunday Telegraph broke an exclusive: "Blunkett's ex-lover accusing him of fast-tracking visa." Someone, presumably from the Quinn camp, had given the story legs again. With this, the minister was doomed." | ||
[http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1635700,00.html] | [http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1635700,00.html] | ||
| + | |||
| + | Can this line be expanded or supported in some way? | ||
| + | |||
| + | And she seems to have picked up the scent of 'PR Spiv', [[David Cameron]]. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Is there a source for the link between JH and Dave? | ||
Revision as of 20:28, 15 September 2006
well this has been changed quite a bit I wonder if it could be explained to me please. I don't really think whoever changed it really has improved it and when there is so much to be done here what's the point: I think the plan to section it off as some sort of 'polemic' seemed a better idea — I just don't trust the editting that's being done here — seems tendentious to me: do i have to go about re-instating bits, can't I be consulted first?
Best leave this to me I think — I'm quite open to suggestions on how to possibly change it and also if we are to publish it as a pamphlet I'm releuctant to name another author!
This para needs discussion. Can the language be toned down while keeping the main point?
Polly Filler is the Eye’s satire of someone psychologically out of touch with reality, luxuriating in smug affluence and with a casual callous indifference to the plight of others, particularly the poor, while pontificating for profit on behalf of the rich. Of all the stereotypes surrounding PR Cocaine has traditionally been portrayed as its metaphorical fuel — into a comfortable illusion reality gradually seeps and the addict needs yet another (head)line, until eventually they become a bullshitting embarassment to everyone. Does Hobsbawm break the mould? --David 17:05, 15 Sep 2006 (BST)
think this section needs to be substantiated - at present it is speculative and implies JH was the source
This is not the version of events assumed around Fleet Street. If you recall the timetable last year, after the first flurry of activity in August, the story went quiet and Blunkett's job looked safe. Then on November 28, the Sunday Telegraph broke an exclusive: "Blunkett's ex-lover accusing him of fast-tracking visa." Someone, presumably from the Quinn camp, had given the story legs again. With this, the minister was doomed." [1]
Can this line be expanded or supported in some way?
And she seems to have picked up the scent of 'PR Spiv', David Cameron.
Is there a source for the link between JH and Dave?
