MSE being ripped a new one on C4

theboyjb

I find all these comments about the guest being a "disabled man" quite outrageous.

Is there any reason why Martin shouldn't have faced a "disabled man"?

If he had been an "able bodied" man, would that have made any difference to the argument?

Why shouldn't C4 put forward the case of someone who happens to be in a wheelchair? Lord knows that this particular group doesn't get much airtime. :money:

wes88

theboyjb wrote: »

I find all these comments about the guest being a "disabled man" quite outrageous.

Is there any reason why Martin shouldn't have faced a "disabled man"?

If he had been an "able bodied" man, would that have made any difference to the argument?

Personally, I am pleased that C4 chose to exemplify the case of someone in a wheelchair. :money:

I think you have missed the point.

It is the fact that his "adversory" was disabled and obviously makes a natural disposition for viewers to be more sympathetic.

You will have noted the soft ride Jon snow gave him. Practically fellating him he was.

theboyjb

wes88 wrote: »

It is the fact that his "adversory" was disabled and obviously makes a natural disposition for viewers to be more sympathetic.

Wrong.

There are only some people who might have the "natural" "disposition" to patronise this man and give him additional "sympathy."

Other people might rank him in line with any other individual and not give him the "sympathy" that you might feel inclined to give him. The fact that he is a disabled person gives noone (including you) the right to give him any more or any less sympathy than if he was not.

wes88 wrote: »

You will have noted the soft ride Jon snow gave him. Practically fellating him he was..

Wash your mouth out with soap. I trust that you wouldn't relay this conversation to your mother.

MrExample

I hardly think this fellow's disability is pertinent. Channel 4 probably struggled to find someone who a) had that much invested (average is 15K, supposedly), and b) was willing to admit to it.

A solicitor with plenty of time on his hands, surely must have had some sort of clue(TM).

wes88

theboyjb wrote: »

Wrong.

There are only some people who might have the "natural" "disposition" to patronise this man and give him additional "sympathy."

Other people might rank him in line with any other individual and not give him the "sympathy" that you might feel inclined to give him. The fact that he is a disabled person gives noone (including you) the right to give him any more or any less sympathy than if he was not.



Wash your mouth out with soap. I trust that you wouldn't relay this conversation to your mother.

lol

Are you seriously saying that there was any chance that Jon Snow would give him a rough ride?

"You opened the account .. you happily took the risk to earn more interest ... isnt it ridiculous for you to now start moaning that the extra risk didnt pay off. Now, what have you got to say to that? Weve only a few seconds left by the way"

Even Jeremy Paxman wouldnt. So, I wouldnt say I was wrong .. I think its the natural goodness in people to treat those less fortunate with heightened sympathy.

I think that its a good thing.

I do agree its patronising though. However, some might argue that his very presence on a hot debate issue with only seconds to speak was patronising given his difficulties.

theboyjb

wes88 wrote: »

lol

You can "lol" all you like.

The plain fact is that you don't consider his contribution to the segment to be equal to the contribution of an able bodied person.

That you continue to hold this view, even when the discrepancy is pointed out to you, suggests that you need to re-examine your prejudices about who is (and is not) a valid subject for interview on a national news programme.

If it had been an able-bodied interviewee, would you have felt more comfortable about the interview?

How should disabled people ever get exposure to the media, if they are not given an equal platform on which to express their views? Would it be appropriate that this person's views should only be expressed in the presence of other disabled people - in the interests of the "level playing field" you understand?

Think hard, and then come back with an answer.

wes88

theboyjb wrote: »

You can "lol" all you like.

the "lol" was the wash your mouth out comment. i even gave you a thanks. clearly you are desperate for an argument to get on a soapbox about .. all I can suggest is you put more water in your drinks tonight.

The plain fact is that you don't consider his contribution to the segment to be equal to the contribution of an able bodied person.

Just where is this "plain fact" in what I have written? This "plain fact" must be "plainly" visible but I cant see it. Maybe you can point out the "plain" factual evidence for this ignorant remark.

That you continue to hold this view, even when the discrepancy is pointed out to you (I am waiting for this to be done), suggests that you need to re-examine your prejudices about who is (and is not) a valid subject for interview on a national news programme.

OK, maybe I can help you here. What happened was the guy had .. what 45 seconds to make his clearly deeply held point .. now, with his disability he is clearly at a disadvantage in debate terms. It therefore follows that most people will sympathise with him.

I have already said it is a patronising attitude. However, it is a fact of life that people will extend sympathy to those who are disadvantaged in life. It comes from a good motive even if its effect is, as I say, to patronise indiscrimantely.

If it had been an able-bodied interviewee, would you have felt more comfortable about the interview?

He was not given enough time to say more than two sentences in a four minute slot. If you are asking, I felt very comfortable with the interview bar that aspect and the fact that it gave Martin Lewis and Jon Snow an awkward "base" to challenge what he was saying for the reasons stated above. It shouldnt .. but it clearly did as they impassively just listened.

The situation was that Jon Snow was ripping Martin Lewis to shreds and then, after a few minutes, asked the other guy a couple of questions .. made no reposte .. and ended the interview with no critical input into what the guy was saying.

I have been referring to that and why this patronising behaviour occurred.

You seem to take it personally against me when I say this .. ask Jon Snow why he patronised him .. I wasnt there .. but have explained to you why what happened did happen.

How should disabled people ever get exposure to the media, if they are not given an equal platform on which to express their views? Would it be appropriate that this person's views should only be expressed in the presence of other disabled people - in the interests of the "level playing field" you understand?

OK, I can understand you want to play on the emotive side of things tonight (cheers!).

If the guy had been an elderly vicar, a decorated war veteran, a teenage girl, a uniformed nurse, a young student, a widowed woman, a Red Cross worker, etc etc up against an articulate, confident, savvy business man ... well, OK I will assume you genuinely dont understand this point and are not just ranting for fun, ... people such as these will illicit sympathy from viewers without a word being spoken ... any politician will tell you than .. hell, any grown up can tell you that.

Yes, its patronising but it happens and makes it harder for anyone who is opposing them in a debate or interviewing them critically. I am not saying it is right, I am saying it is totally patronising and I am saying it is what happens in the real world because of people's natural disposition to disadvantaged people.

If you still dont understand then can someone else be your posting buddy tonight as I really cant be bothered.


Think hard, and then come back with an answer.

My answer, again, is put some water in it.

1socrates1

As a caveat: I really enjoy the information that I find on Martin Lewis' website.

Having said that it would be better if in the future, in my opinion, if Martin toned down on his guru status. In tandem with this it should be noted that all that is found on this site is for informational value and does not constitute financial advise. This proviso should come to the fore and be in bold, not hidden away in some 'small print'.

Martin, in short, demystify exactly what your role is and what you provide.

Thanks

Caudle

1socrates1 wrote: »

Having said that it would be better if in the future, in my opinion, if Martin toned down on his guru status.

I agree with this. Nobody has forced Martin to call himself an "expert" or "guru". He has chosen to describe himself as such.

Presumably he dare not call himself an "adviser", because there would be legal issues surrounding that.

I hope this will be a wake-up call for Martin, but I also hope he will continue to run this site. Perhaps, as others have said, any warnings should be big and bold... not hidden away in small print!

Martin has dropped a bit of a clanger on this (let's leave the word blame out of it!), and the sooner he shows humility and admits it, the better for us all.:)

wes88

Caudle wrote: »

I agree with this. Nobody has forced Martin to call himself an "expert" or "guru". He has chosen to describe himself as such.

Presumably he dare not call himself an "adviser", because there would be legal issues surrounding that.

I hope this will be a wake-up call for Martin, but I also hope he will continue to run this site. Perhaps, as others have said, any warnings should be big and bold... not hidden away in small print!

Martin has dropped a bit of a clanger on this (let's leave the word blame out of it!), and the sooner he shows humility and admits it, the better for us all.:)

Yes, blame isnt the word .. cant think of the right word though.