Written on: Updated on:
Now I’m sick with flu at the moment so my sense of humour is probably not what it should be but it would appear that Bullard’s article is simply a moronic tactic to get reaction out of the blogosphere and to build up publicity for the Sunday Times. youngBLOOD has said as much in his blog post this morning and I’m even more perplexed than before as everyone who was complaining last night seem to be all smiles today.
I know I’m no highly-paid, well-respected journalist for a major Sunday newspaper but can someone humour me please?
A interesting point I got out of Bullard’s response was that he’s a columnist that has never based any of his commentary on fact and that’s was has made him last for 13 years. He goes on to say that had he based his article on fact then he’d simply be a journalist however that’s what makes him a columnist.
So, the question has to be asked Mr. Bullard - are you then just in fact a glorified blogger? It seems as if The Times’ new Editor in his blog post this morning might concur with me?
It would appear by your statements that your column simply does not go through the “journalistic” procedures of being proof-read, checked for facts and approved by the editor so I’m struggling to see the difference between you and I? Oh wait, it’s that huge salary you get paid.
Bullard goes on to say that as a journalist he has responsibilities unlike “us” bloggers when writing which makes me see red. How can he claim to have responsibilities when he can go on a scathing attack like he has against 70-million people world-wide and create a vastly negative impression to his huge Sunday Times readership?
If this is Sunday Times’ reaction then I’m appalled.
UPDATE: This is just for some great fun! I think I’ll take this stance from here on in.