« Phil Hendren: A light morning fisk of Steve Richards | Main | Cranmer: Rebuffing Revd Dr Giles Fraser »

February 16, 2007

Comments

Spark

I was hoping somebody was going to do this one. The thought I had when I saw it was "Rogue's Gallery"!

I don't mind the Indy becoming a viewspaper rather than a newspaper (to quote their editor), so long as people realise it has much more editorial bias than other papers.

Glyn

Very well written Alex. I particularly liked the bit about the "Exclusive".

If that was an "Exclusive", I wonder why they don't blazon "Exlcusive" over their front page every day - as their leading stories are almost always in the same ilk of, as you describe it, "self-created, self-serving bits of propaganda".

Valedistory

Indypuff - nice phrase!

What's the background of the Indy editorial team? Presumably some of them have been involved in pressure groups etc before becoming hacks.

Craig Mitchell

The future is only a dangerous place because of the likes of this website obfuscating the debate and disseminating the propaganda of the military industrial complex.

Of course those nasty Iranian hordes want to blow us up – don’t they? The only threats of using nuclear force are the West but obviously Fisking doesn’t like to mention fact, despite it’s protestations, rather it slants towards rabid opinion.

Why should we adhere to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, which came into effect in 1970? Lets nuke some sand-n*****s instead as we need to civilise the heathen b******s anyway. That’ll democratise them!

This is from the Telegraph:

“In a lecture at the London School of Economics, Mr ElBaradei said: "They (The Iran’s of the world) are told nuclear weapons are counter-productive because they do not protect your security.

"But when they look to the big boys, what do they see? They see increasing reliance on nuclear weapons for security, they see nuclear weapons being continually modernised."”

Craig Mitchell

The future is only a dangerous place because of the likes of this website obfuscating the debate and disseminating the propaganda of the military industrial complex.

Of course those nasty Iranian hordes want to blow us up – don’t they? The only threats of using nuclear force are the West but obviously Fisking doesn’t like to mention fact, despite it’s protestations, rather it slants towards rabid opinion.

Why should we adhere to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, which came into effect in 1970? Lets nuke some sand-n*****s instead as we need to civilise the heathen b******s anyway. That’ll democratise them!

This is from the Telegraph:

“In a lecture at the London School of Economics, Mr ElBaradei said: "They (The Iran’s of the world) are told nuclear weapons are counter-productive because they do not protect your security.

"But when they look to the big boys, what do they see? They see increasing reliance on nuclear weapons for security, they see nuclear weapons being continually modernised."”

Alan Douglas

I presume that any of the names on this stellar list would do the job I use Neil Kinnock for.

Any issue that Kinnock is for, I can without further inspection safely know I am against, and vice versa. Saves a lot of speculation and time. Thank you Lord (K) !

Alan Douglas

The comments to this entry are closed.

Welcome

About The Fisk

  • At The Fisk you'll read rebuttals of comment articles, speeches, government leaflets and blogs. In the internet age no sloppy thinking is free from exposure and analysis.

Contact

  • Sam[AT]ConservativeHome.com

What is fisking?

  • Jargon File: [blogosphere; very common] "A point-by-point refutation of a blog entry or (especially) news story. A really stylish fisking is witty, logical, sarcastic and ruthlessly factual; flaming or handwaving is considered poor form. Named after Robert Fisk, a British journalist who was a frequent (and deserving) early target of such treatment."

Writers

Tracker

  • ExtremeTracker