Sunday, February 11, 2007

D2AID2AIS


For those new to this blog, that's my 'Don't do as I do..' shorthand.

And this is what I feel to be a rather sad attempt at explanation/justification from a major medium selling papers based on its concern for the environment: The readers' editor on...
the true cost of flying and climate change


Some masterpieces of polspeak include: 'Our travel editor had acknowledged this from the start..' (so that's ok then). '...but while those of us fortunate enough to be able to afford the luxury of foreign travel agonise over our carbon footprints,' (we feel her pain).

The whole thing smacked of an episode of Newswatch, BBCs dawn fake mea culpa slot where editors come on to say they don't think they were wrong and even if they were so what.

I'm afraid I have to agree with the respondents so nasty to to haul the paper up. If only I could think of a way to help make the point better. Oo, look what I found at the top.

Nil points.

No comments:

Post a Comment

I believe in freedom of speech. But I also don't like bullies on blogs, even verbal ones, as they can drive away those with something valid to say... or offer.

Subjective is fine, but well argued and substantiated is even better. Calm and polite tops. Anything that crosses my personal line will not go up. There may be reasons given, but not guaranteed.

I'm not too keen on 'Anon' as a handle (and the content usually explains why), so if that's what you opt for it may not make it. Sorry.