To be shocked so many women are defending Saatchi on MN?

[PoppyAmex]

Thread about a million other threads...

I'm disappointed to read the comments of so many women spouting apologist crap regarding Saatchi's heinous behaviour:

"he looks like he's checking her glands"
"we don't know what she said before he did that"
"we need to hear his side of the story"
"we don't know the background"
"she must be mortified"

YABU to be genuinely shocked with just how many women chose to align themselves with such despicable behaviour?

It makes no sense to me.

By thst token - Flat earth news, brilliant book - advised reading for those who blindly believe the heavily embellished bullshit served up to us by the press.

Oh jesus christ save me. Right, first of all, Flat Earth News is on my bookshelf. Second of all, I'm just going to reprint my comment from above, because the comment I want to make to you now would probably get me banned at a stroke:

^What you are talking about is scepticism as blunt instrument, not as scalpel. One-size-fits-all scepticism in response to "anything the tabloids report" is very simplistic. You look at context. How likely is this, given the people involved, previously known facts about them, the angle of the newspaper, the legal risks to the newspaper, sheer common sense, to be substantially true? How likely is it to contain not one word of truth? Can I find out anything else about the people, or the journalist? Are these kinds of stories usually told by this paper? Why are they telling it, and why now? Why might they be misrepresenting? How have the people in the story interacted with the journalist, if at all?

I think it's just a function of reading a lot of media, to be honest. If you do that as part of your job - whether as journalist, editor, press officer or whatever - you will get more of a feel for where the bullshit is, and isn't.^

Welcome to Mumsnet moistenedbint1. What an interesting nickname you have chosen.

Ha, trigger-happy is what I am.

MadBusLady said:

"The key to reading media critically is to cultivate a bullshit radar, look for the slant, consider context. Not just take a universal cutesy "Look wot a rugged freethinker I am in not believing a word of this" stance to everything that gets written."

I think this answers your post, moistened.

Solari excellent post up thread, very sobering.

HTD, I think she may be under the duvet, poor woman.

How do gagging orders work?

justanuther, you are still reserving judgement?

Quite what do you need?

Missed Moistened.
Why do you read anything at all, if you are going to rubbish it.
If you have no idea what on earth is going on, I seriously suggest that you stop reading papers, watching news, reading anything on the internet.
Because you are not able to discern anything at all.

Read the express article. It is very good.
I think it is right to say that the person who it is done to has a big heart.

Thank you PoppyAmex, glad it contributed!

But there isn't an innocuous explanation. The police questioned him and he accepted a caution.They do not caution you for checking somebody's glands or having a light hearted tiff with your spouse.

Yep, and lynch mob inspired verbal bile was regurgitated from the outset... well before Saatchi was even cautioned and the press acquired information relating to his questioning..

anyfucker - from one who would probably advocate chemical castration for infectual cleaning of say, pebble dash and/or leaving the toilet seat up that made me laugh.. (and no I'm not comparing the aforementioned with domestic violence before you start)

yams its not all unmitigated bull, but you do have to sift the wheat from the chaff... A lot.

Ta Mintyy glad you approve.

the "lynch mob" were right though, weren't they

I put that down to emotional intelligence and having the ability to see what is right before their eyes

there is a script, and Saatchi is following it to the letter

So now you have sifted, what is your conclusion?