GRcade

KK wrote:I really think it's disgusting how few media outlets properly reported on this whole Dove "controversy", cynically fueling the outrage further. The Guardian, just one example of many, ran the original story on the 8th October, but only corrected it on the 10th, admitting at the base of the rejigged article "This article was amended on 10 October 2017 to include more information about the advert’s sequence.", the model in question writing yesterday and then this morning talking on BBC Breakfast (8:20am-ish if you want to watch it on iPlayer) to set the record straight on a few things, and how proud and excited they all were for the campaign.

I bet many of the journalists themselves didn't even watch the full commercial, investigated its context, or maybe they even intentionally hacked the advert up for screen grab purposes.

The Guardian loves misrepresenting things (usually statistics, but not always) to fit their narrative and so this is no surprise. There are/were so many morons on twitter working themselves up about it as well without bothering to look at the full picture (and of course shitty news websites just embed these tweets and call it an article, which only spreads the 'outrage'). It's what happens when everyone's desperate to be a victim and itching to accuse people/organisations of an '-ism'.

Saw ITV's new After the News program last night and good god it was utter strawberry floating gooseberry fool, at one point they actually used Buzzfeed as a source in a summary of the days 'newspapers'

Buzzfeed

There is proper stuff on buzzfeed mixed in with the gooseberry fool.

Dove's Facebook unquestionably did a poor job of explaining their own campaign in a rather random 7 second gif (a black woman removing her clothes to become a white woman who in turn removed her clothes to become an Asian) but the way you would then remove the Asian woman to further alter that very sequence, and not feel it worthy to investigate or report on the context of the entire campaign (which had already been running in the UK for a number of weeks before reaching the USA on TV and YouTube, and is still running) is just so bad.

There are genuine issues when it comes to race, body image and what have you, you do not need to intentionally create a scenario.

It's the more respectable face of running a bullshit story in a newspaper headline and a few days later printing a small appology on page 12 because it was either untrue or missing key points. You circulate one story, that will get shared multiple times and garner all the headlines, and then a few days later you amend the same article (and be honest, why would you click on it again if you think you've already read its contents) to say 'oh by the way, this clip ran for 3 more seconds and featured a 3rd woman but we forgot to mention that'.

Errkal wrote:There is proper stuff on buzzfeed mixed in with the gooseberry fool.

Yeah, very occasionally Buzzfeed will come out with an actual piece of investigative journalism (tennis earlier this year, or maybe '16), sometimes in conjunction with another news source, in amongst the trivial lists about why a McDonald's in the USA tastes better than one in Australia because the fries were as limp as the dick who strawberry floating wrote it.

Lotus wrote:

KK wrote:I really think it's disgusting how few media outlets properly reported on this whole Dove "controversy", cynically fueling the outrage further. The Guardian, just one example of many, ran the original story on the 8th October, but only corrected it on the 10th, admitting at the base of the rejigged article "This article was amended on 10 October 2017 to include more information about the advert’s sequence.", the model in question writing yesterday and then this morning talking on BBC Breakfast (8:20am-ish if you want to watch it on iPlayer) to set the record straight on a few things, and how proud and excited they all were for the campaign.

I bet many of the journalists themselves didn't even watch the full commercial, investigated its context, or maybe they even intentionally hacked the advert up for screen grab purposes.

The Guardian loves misrepresenting things (usually statistics, but not always) to fit their narrative and so this is no surprise. There are/were so many morons on twitter working themselves up about it as well without bothering to look at the full picture (and of course shitty news websites just embed these tweets and call it an article, which only spreads the 'outrage'). It's what happens when everyone's desperate to be a victim and itching to accuse people/organisations of an '-ism'.

The Guardian had an entire article yesterday written with the words of the model explaining how she isn't a victim at the hands of Dove. Surely they should have suppressed that if they merely wanted to willfully misinterpret everything?

Cuttooth wrote:

Lotus wrote:

KK wrote:I really think it's disgusting how few media outlets properly reported on this whole Dove "controversy", cynically fueling the outrage further. The Guardian, just one example of many, ran the original story on the 8th October, but only corrected it on the 10th, admitting at the base of the rejigged article "This article was amended on 10 October 2017 to include more information about the advert’s sequence.", the model in question writing yesterday and then this morning talking on BBC Breakfast (8:20am-ish if you want to watch it on iPlayer) to set the record straight on a few things, and how proud and excited they all were for the campaign.

I bet many of the journalists themselves didn't even watch the full commercial, investigated its context, or maybe they even intentionally hacked the advert up for screen grab purposes.

The Guardian loves misrepresenting things (usually statistics, but not always) to fit their narrative and so this is no surprise. There are/were so many morons on twitter working themselves up about it as well without bothering to look at the full picture (and of course shitty news websites just embed these tweets and call it an article, which only spreads the 'outrage'). It's what happens when everyone's desperate to be a victim and itching to accuse people/organisations of an '-ism'.

The Guardian had an entire article yesterday written with the words of the model explaining how she isn't a victim at the hands of Dove. Surely they should have suppressed that if they merely wanted to willfully misinterpret everything?

Shush, don’t get in the way of old men shouting at clouds.

It would have looked a bit odd had she wrote in to the paper and they then chosen not to run it, though it hasn't been given as much prominence as the original piece (which sat at the top of the front page).

KK wrote:It would have looked a bit odd had she wrote in to the paper and they then chosen not to run it, though it hasn't been given as much prominence as the original piece (which sat at the top of the front page).

twitter.com/BBCHelenaLee/status/917863219246514176

What was the original story like?

KK wrote:It would have looked a bit odd had she wrote in to the paper and they then chosen not to run it, though it hasn't been given as much prominence as the original piece (which sat at the top of the front page).

Out of curiosity I went to see what The Guardian's front page looked like for both articles, and while you're right that the first one was in the headlines section (but seemed to disappear the same day when I guess they realised people had got the wrong end of the stick?), the second wasn't exactly shoved to the bottom of the website:



The second was just below the headlines, with a bigger link and image.

EDIT - Virtual reality journalism.

Cuttooth wrote:

Lotus wrote:

KK wrote:I really think it's disgusting how few media outlets properly reported on this whole Dove "controversy", cynically fueling the outrage further. The Guardian, just one example of many, ran the original story on the 8th October, but only corrected it on the 10th, admitting at the base of the rejigged article "This article was amended on 10 October 2017 to include more information about the advert’s sequence.", the model in question writing yesterday and then this morning talking on BBC Breakfast (8:20am-ish if you want to watch it on iPlayer) to set the record straight on a few things, and how proud and excited they all were for the campaign.

I bet many of the journalists themselves didn't even watch the full commercial, investigated its context, or maybe they even intentionally hacked the advert up for screen grab purposes.

The Guardian loves misrepresenting things (usually statistics, but not always) to fit their narrative and so this is no surprise. There are/were so many morons on twitter working themselves up about it as well without bothering to look at the full picture (and of course shitty news websites just embed these tweets and call it an article, which only spreads the 'outrage'). It's what happens when everyone's desperate to be a victim and itching to accuse people/organisations of an '-ism'.

The Guardian had an entire article yesterday written with the words of the model explaining how she isn't a victim at the hands of Dove. Surely they should have suppressed that if they merely wanted to willfully misinterpret everything?

No, not necessarily. And I didn't say that they misinterpret everything.

How do you lot pronounce the word harassment?

HArassment

or

haRASSment

I will reveal the correct answer later this evening.

Hawrassmunt

HARASSment

Dual wrote:HARASSment

This.

I'm more concerned about which syllable bears the emphasis than how the word actually sounds.

Dual, you're not bloody French, you can only choose to emphasise one of the syllables!

HARASSMENT!!!

I shout and put stress on every syllable.

Somebody Else's Problem wrote:HARASSMENT!!!

I shout and put stress on every syllable.

You talk like a dalek?

Knoyleo wrote:

Somebody Else's Problem wrote:HARASSMENT!!!

I shout and put stress on every syllable.

You talk like a dalek?

It rymes with gun.

Somebody Else's Problem wrote:HARASSMENT!!!

I shout and put stress on every syllable.

I hope you also yelled "HELP I"M BEING OPPRESSED BY THE MAN!"