Dominic Cummings further revelations

[vetran]

That question has a false premise. Why do you think I think he is not a journalist?

Show your working and link to posts I have made in this thread.

I have no idea how your deranged mind works. I am now assuming you are just making it up to annoy me.

I have however linked to a number of sources you have not provided alternatives for.

[Old Greg]

I have no idea how your deranged mind works. I am now assuming you are just making it up to annoy me.

I have however linked to a number of sources you have not provided alternatives for.

I have been tearing apart your poor logic, not expressing an opinion, but I'll take pity on you.

There is no black and white answer as to whether or not Farage is a journalist. You can argue it either way and you will never prove it one way or another. He doesn't fit a tight definition of a journalist. He does fit a loose definition of a journalist. But then I fit your definition because I write an article once a year for my local newspaper with an update of a club I belong to and how we have fared in various leagues. According to your definition, I'm a journalist. I don't think I am, but you could argue it either way I guess. You will struggle to prove that I'm a journalist though. Is every MP who has ever written a newspaper article a journalist? Or does there have to be some kind of regularity about it? You can make a case either way. But you won't prove it.

So the main errors you have made in your argument are:

1. Trying to prove something that is not provable.
2. Giving a definition of a journalist to try to demonstrate that being a radio presenter makes someone a journalist.
3. Trying to reverse the logic of a dictionary definition to attempt to demonstrate that if something fits the dictionary definition of a category, then that something is therefore an example of that category (remember a Transit van is not a car, even though a Transit van fits the dictionary definition of a car). A dictionary definition is a way of understanding what a word means. It is not a way of categorising items to that definition (otherwise Transit vans would be cars!)

HTH

[vetran]

I have been tearing apart your poor logic, not expressing an opinion, but I'll take pity on you.

There is no black and white answer as to whether or not Farage is a journalist. You can argue it either way and you will never prove it one way or another. He doesn't fit a tight definition of a journalist. He does fit a loose definition of a journalist. But then I fit your definition because I write an article once a year for my local newspaper with an update of a club I belong to and how we have fared in various leagues. According to your definition, I'm a journalist. I don't think I am, but you could argue it either way I guess. You will struggle to prove that I'm a journalist though. Is every MP who has ever written a newspaper article a journalist? Or does there have to be some kind of regularity about it? You can make a case either way. But you won't prove it.

So the main errors you have made in your argument are:

1. Trying to prove something that is not provable.
2. Giving a definition of a journalist to try to demonstrate that being a radio presenter makes someone a journalist.
3. Trying to reverse the logic of a dictionary definition to attempt to demonstrate that if something fits the dictionary definition of a category, then that something is therefore an example of that category (remember a Transit van is not a car, even though a Transit van fits the dictionary definition of a car). A dictionary definition is a way of understanding what a word means. It is not a way of categorising items to that definition (otherwise Transit vans would be cars!)

HTH

You know being a journalist is not an exclusive club its like being a w1nker the bar is low, 95% of men are.

Tearing apart my logic appears to be about your obsession with transit vans.

You disagree with the usage of a dictionary, the extent of a dictionary definition, the BBC's definition, The Associated Press Definition & the National College of Journalists definition. Yet you still believe you are right!

[jamesbrown]

You disagree with the usage of a dictionary, the extent of a dictionary definition, the BBC's definition, The Associated Press Definition & the National College of Journalists definition. Yet you still believe you are right!

He's not disagreeing with them, he's telling you that they're not your savior when applied to an individual on a spectrum (a bit like you ). If you want to convince us otherwise, you're going to need to provide a critical mass of examples that "win the argument". I haven't seen any yet. Farage is just a politician that publishes his opinions anywhere he can, like many other loudmouth politicians.

[vetran]

He's not disagreeing with them, he's telling you that they're not your savior when applied to an individual on a spectrum (a bit like you ). If you want to convince us otherwise, you're going to need to provide a critical mass of examples that "win the argument". I haven't seen any yet. Farage is just a politician that publishes his opinions anywhere he can, like many other loudmouth politicians.

If you believe their definition of a journalist is wrong fine. I am still happy to go with the experts. I don't need saving the definition is sound.

Many journalists are politically motivated, but the definition is collecting and publishing news stories in formal media. Farage achieves that, as does James O'Brien and Polly Toynbee.

[Old Greg]

You know being a journalist is not an exclusive club its like being a w1nker the bar is low, 95% of men are.

Tearing apart my logic appears to be about your obsession with transit vans.

You disagree with the usage of a dictionary, the extent of a dictionary definition, the BBC's definition, The Associated Press Definition & the National College of Journalists definition. Yet you still believe you are right!

So do you believe that my writing a news article once a year in the local newspaper makes me not just a journalist, but irrefutably a journalist? It cannot be argued otherwise?

[vetran]

So do you believe that my writing a news article once a year in the local newspaper makes me not just a journalist, but irrefutably a journalist? It cannot be argued otherwise?

Yes as per the sources provided. For the definition frequency or recent activity is not important.

Why do you believe otherwise?

You can add additional words to qualify it in the way you seem to want to.

Professional Journalist
Newspaper Journalist
Radio Journalist
TV Journalist
etc.

But you are either a virgin or not its as simple as that.

[jamesbrown]

If you believe their definition of a journalist is wrong fine. I am still happy to go with the experts. I don't need saving the definition is sound.

Many journalists are politically motivated, but the definition is collecting and publishing news stories in formal media. Farage achieves that, as does James O'Brien and Polly Toynbee.

This isn't really about "objectivity" - journalists are people and have perspectives, obviously. It's more about motivation, substance, presentation.

I think their definitions are perfectly fine, as they go. They are simply insufficient. Put differently, any classification of this spectrum is necessarily subjective and lossy. The only way out of the hole for you is to build an argument about where the line is drawn and how Farage sits on your side. So far, your argument has been absolutely pants and can be fairly summarised as "because my dad says". You'll need to post some links to examples of his journalistic output and make the case.

[Old Greg]

Yes as per the sources provided. For the definition frequency or recent activity is not important.

Why do you believe otherwise?

You can add additional words to qualify it in the way you seem to want to.

Professional Journalist
Newspaper Journalist
Radio Journalist
TV Journalist
etc.

But you are either a virgin or not its as simple as that.

Because I'm not a journalist, in my opinion.

If someone asks me whether I'm a journalist, I would consider the answer 'No' to be more truthful than the answer 'Yes'. Do you think that the truthful answer in 'Yes', and in fact irrefutably 'Yes'?

[vetran]

This isn't really about "objectivity" - journalists are people and have perspectives, obviously. It's more about motivation, substance, presentation.

I think their definitions are perfectly fine, as they go. They are simply insufficient. Put differently, any classification of this spectrum is necessarily subjective and lossy. The only way out of the hole for you is to build an argument about where the line is drawn and how Farage sits on your side. So far, your argument has been absolutely pants and can be fairly summarised as "because my dad says". You'll need to post some links to examples of his journalistic output and make the case.

Actually my argument has been 'Because the Dictionaries ,professional bodies and world renowned journalistic sources say so' Yours has been 'you are wrong because I think differently'. The line is drawn by the actions required to satisfy the definition.

I don't need to post links to his journalistic output because by definition he only needs to do it once.

But to be helpful as you guys are having trouble.

He has gathered news and shared it on the radio & online. He also interviews Priti Patel on the radio discovering future actions, laws and equipment used. so yes it satisfies all the requirements from the definitions. The information presented was new and he helped discover it.

I will try an analogy.

Once you have sex you are no longer a virgin that is it! You seem to think for someone to be an ex-virgin you need to rate someone's porn film.