19 thoughts on “De Wednesday Papers

  1. Twunt

    So Bodger, are you now satisfied that these attacks did happen, or are they still in the realm of ‘reported’?

    1. Deluded

      I believe there were incorrect inferences drawn from the “High Visibilty” post from yesterday.
      There are some comments indicating confusion over editing. Both links in the post, however, seemed, on reading, to be reputable and correct and there is no hint of denial, merely clarification.
      I note that lots of papers today have a picture of two people just a few hours after the event yet none of them mention the source. Who identified them? As the first link was The Guardian, in fairness, I would recommend this:
      Very few of us doubt these horrible events actually occur and I don’t believe that was Broadsheet’s intent. I question how we explain these events instead of discussing them in an informed, unhysterical manner.

      1. Steve

        When you’re explaining you’re losing.

        Surely from all those vantage points on high horses that broadsheet has taken over the years on FG / government / Irish water etc you would have learned that.

        1. Twunt

          A apology would be good. Right now they look like a bunch of filthy hypocrites who make juvenile jokes at the killing of innocents.

          1. ReproBertie

            I believe that “reported” was connected with a (later removed) link to a conspiracy website. It’s worth bearing in mind that the initial video circualting on social media claiming to be of the attack was of another attack several years ago.

            An apology would be meaningless though and I don’t think anyone is being prevented from getting on with their lives by the lack of one.

          2. MoyestWithExcitement

            The protestation over the word was, iirc, about it being too PC. 30 plus people died but weirdos on the Internet get a hard on because Broadsheet say they died of ‘reported’ bombs instead of, I’m assuming, ‘died at the hands of brutal Muslim terrorists who want to wipe out all white people.’

          3. Janet, I ate my avatar

            my beef was it took all day to post anything and when they did it was pretty frivolous

          4. rotide

            My problem with the word was nothing to do with it being PC.

            It was to do with the inference that the bombings didn’t actually happen. This is not just what i read from it, bodger replied in the comments to complaints about this as ‘everything isn’t what the news agencies tell us’ or some equal amount of horse poo.

            as for the link, it was just a link pointing out that some video that noone had really seen was a fake. Nothing about the bombings all day and the only thing that bodger puts up is an article telling us that a fake video is fake. This coupled with the use of the phrase “reported bombings” (as opposed to “bombings”) leaves me in no doubt that Bodger doesn’t actually believe these bombings occured.

          5. Kieran NYC

            And there has been previous form with the ‘false flag’ insinuations in the past. I think the post may have been deleted since, but I remember when the policeman was shot and killed in Paris last year around the time of the Charlie Hebdo attacks, BS posted it with a comment vaguely suggesting he was faking it.

          6. rory

            Jaypers lads, if yeer going to be waffling on about BS/Bodgers ‘false flag insinuations’, yee could at least provide links to said posts.
            Bodger is not the one sounding like a crank at the minute.

    2. Deluded

      Can someone please clarify if a link was also removed from the “High Visibility” post as well as the word “reported”?

    3. Deluded

      Ah, so rotide et al were wrong and can’t admit it; they didn’t read the information provided hence the comments on that post such as: “and a link to a conspiracy bs article”..

      I think I drew a fair parallel with the Columbine article, (unlike Steve above who made some tortuous connection to a rejection of PR and spin).

      Lastly, nobody has addressed the issue of the photos on today’s tabloids in their clamour for truthiness.

      It looks like manufactured outrage from start to finish and I am glad BS didn’t post a serious article where we could revel in bigotry, ignorance and r3ddit anecdotes.

  2. Weedless

    The Daily Star really hitting on the important news of the day with that eggposé … I’ll get my coat.

Comments are closed.