Re: Joke

stuart graham wrote:
On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 17:22:56 GMT, Studs Murphy
<pleasedon'tspamme@xxxxxxx't> wrote:


stuart graham wrote:

On Sun, 5 Feb 2006 06:50:06 -0000, "Paddy" <pa@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



"stuart graham" <stuart.grahamdeletethis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:tmv9u15kmicd2mru8e1ptotlrilv3ngit7@xxxxxxxxxx


On Sat, 4 Feb 2006 19:18:36 -0000, "Paddy" <pa@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



Lets assume for a second that it doest matter. In that context explain
again why its of interest?

"A top premiership player at a top premiership club and an England
international is going to be 'outed' in a national newspaper as being gay
and being HIV positive"

But remember his (allegedly) being gay doesnt matter. Care to try
again?

It doesn't matter, not one iota !! But a big time player in a big time league being outed as gay is big news.

Their ya go.....again.


So something that doesnt matter matters?

I take it you never read anything in newspapers that "shoudln't matter"? What does football matter? Are we allowed to read about that?


Football is an entertainment. If you consider the private lives of
famous people to be an entertainment i am sure you will derive more
please from Heat magazine than from the sports pages.


Now, now, Stuart, you do like people to be accurate in their use of language. We read about many things that are not entertainment and your key criteria centred on what mattered and why anyone should have any interest in what doesn't matter.

Your choosing to categorise any possible story about Sol Campbell as "entertainment" purely because you are forced to accept that people - even you - may legitimtately read about about entertainment though it doesn't matter is the sort of crude diversionary device that even Gaffer might be expected to be alert to.

For example, last week there was a story about an old man who hung upside down on a barbed wire fence for 20 hours before being rescued. It mattered even less than Sol Campbell's personal circumstances, I am quite sure, yet thousands of reasonable intelligent people were interested in it.

When there is a culture in football - or any are of life - where there are no publicly gay figures, the fact that one of the most high-profile players in the country may be gay and possibly HIV positive is actually considerd news that those less discerning than you would like to consider yourself to be might choose to consider interesting.


What happened to that news then?

We may never know - but the discussion centred around the speculation that such news may be about to break. Speculation is, in itself, often considered to be news. When thousands and even millions of people begin to speculate about any individual, the implications of their speculation is often newsworthy in itself e.g. Charles Kennedy drinking, Mark Oaten and Simon Hughes having undisclosed sexual habits. In the three examples cited, the mere fact of there being speculation is newsworthy because the attitudes of those speculating impact on the standing and ability to continue in professional careers of the individuals named. You could say, it's sort of like people being interested in news about the possibility that one of the UK's highest-profile footballers may be reported as being gay and HIV-positive - or even the effects that widespread speculation might have e.g. contributing to circumstances in which he feels forced to absent himself from the public gaze.

.

Relevant Pages
Loading