http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/11/jowells_comments_come_as_no_su.html en-gb 30 Tue 29 Dec 2009 19:31:09 GMT+1 A feed of user comments from the page found at http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/11/jowells_comments_come_as_no_su.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/11/jowells_comments_come_as_no_su.html?page=18#comment13 No the sloppy journalism isn't in the use of anonymous 'sources'. You're right - no journalist can reveal all his sources.The sloppy journalism is in leaping to spurious conclusions and then publishing them as fact to sensationalise a story and mislead your readership.The problem with blogs is taht your readership can feedback - if you don't like that - blogging isn't for you! Wed 10 Dec 2008 15:02:07 GMT+1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/11/jowells_comments_come_as_no_su.html?page=17#comment12 "They are certainly celebrating in Paris at the minute."Yes we are.[smirks]"Paris can celebrate all they like, it's not going to magically give them the Games."What on earth make you think that we ever want them now?The whole point of our bid was that most of the facilities, including the main stadium, were already up and running which would have lead to reduced costs for everyone.The IOC have priced themselves out of the market and we are certainly not going to bankrupt ourselves, à la Montreal, Athens, London & Co, for their sole enjoyment.... Wed 26 Nov 2008 08:27:01 GMT+1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/11/jowells_comments_come_as_no_su.html?page=15#comment11 "people star jumping, bunny hopping and getting their bodies wet"Whilst you have a right to think the Olympics are a waste of space and money (fair point I suppose in terms of costs to the taxpayer) I tnink a bit of respect needs to be given to these athletes that earn very little and often don't actually achieved the highest success but work hard to train just to have a chance at their dream ambition.Its a bit more than school sports day. Fri 21 Nov 2008 16:33:32 GMT+1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/11/jowells_comments_come_as_no_su.html?page=14#comment10 Re 7, you have to be careful before you accuse somebody of "sloppy journalism", my friend.You are probably not aware of this but ministers, aides and other officials have to keep Cabinet confidentiality. That means that they are not supposed to discuss any debates which may have taken place in Cabinet with anybody else outside the Cabinet.So it is far from "sloppy journalism" when a BBC reporter finds out what has happened around the Cabinet table. You have to dig hard to get that information. And the last thing a good journalist then does is say from whom he got his information and when. Many award-winning journalists I have worked with in newspapers and broadcasting in Britain and abroad can't say exactly where they have got their information from. The key point is that the reporters must be confident the information is accurate by talking to several independent sources. They can't always identify those sources. That is life. You may not like that but the one thing it isn't is "sloppy journalism". Fri 21 Nov 2008 15:58:16 GMT+1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/11/jowells_comments_come_as_no_su.html?page=12#comment9 Dear Me!........When! When! When are people going to listen?Olypmic cost are unrealistic? Is this the conclusion now?We made this clear at the very beginning when Coe was ramming it down our throats since day one. When Coe and his cronies did everything, but everything to stop the people from getting to the Olypmic commitee and telling them the truth.We had the precedents already in place The Dome for one, for two our predecessors have never made any profits or benefit having held these games. I understand that even today a few countries are still trying to pay off the debts incurred by this nonsencial event.Why is it only after the preparations and building have gone to far to stop does the truth come out.Sounds to me like the WRONG people employed in the wrong jobs.Has Hesletine apologised to the people for his Dome? I think not. Has he even given back his peerage? No. But we, the people have had to continue to pay for his decisions and subsequently his lifestyle.Look....It's perfectly simple....If me Coca cola want to see people star jumping, bunny hopping and getting their bodies wet then let them pay for it in total and stop stiffing the people. Fri 21 Nov 2008 10:39:49 GMT+1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/11/jowells_comments_come_as_no_su.html?page=11#comment8 The Olympics have become an overgrown machine that bankrupts cities, leaving underused monuments to the megalomaniac ambitions of the IOC. It is time to rethink the whole show. It has become something that only rich countries can afford and even then they are struggling! The minister should have added that to her comments. Fri 21 Nov 2008 09:02:03 GMT+1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/11/jowells_comments_come_as_no_su.html?page=10#comment7 Paris can celebrate all they like, it's not going to magically give them the Games.And if they want to a chance to have them again, they'd be better off focusing on what they did wrong rather than peering over the garden fence and sniffing disdainfully. Thu 20 Nov 2008 20:52:18 GMT+1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/11/jowells_comments_come_as_no_su.html?page=8#comment6 "Some of the influential people I talked to admitted that it really was "touch and go" whether the Cabinet would agree to a bid."Er, names please and dates when they said this.Sloppy journalism doesn't belong at the BBC, I hope. Thu 20 Nov 2008 20:48:47 GMT+1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/11/jowells_comments_come_as_no_su.html?page=7#comment5 They are certainly celebrating in Paris at the minute. Thu 20 Nov 2008 20:44:19 GMT+1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/11/jowells_comments_come_as_no_su.html?page=5#comment4 It's a gaff in the sense that she is now admitting she was wrong and politicians never do that.Lots of her colleagues were against the idea of a bid, with Brown worrying about funding even when times were good.It's like not being sure whether to buy an expensive house, the loan for which will stretch your income to the maximum. Your 'other half' is against the idea but you go ahead anyway. Next day you're made redundant. Thu 20 Nov 2008 11:15:07 GMT+1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/11/jowells_comments_come_as_no_su.html?page=4#comment3 Can we please get rid of the London 2012 swastika. Mon 17 Nov 2008 15:29:01 GMT+1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/11/jowells_comments_come_as_no_su.html?page=2#comment2 1. The media is starting a drip-feed of these sorts of articles. Why? What good does it do anyone? If UK pulls out of this one we will NEVER host anything again. NEVER. Because we cannot be trusted. Picketts' Lock was a cock up on a small scale. This would be Nagasaki and then some....2. The politicians said 'the Dome was a disaster'. It wasn't actually. The launch FOR THE PRESS was a disaster. Then the Press hate campaign went into overdrive so the politicians almost gave it away to Anschutz. He's making millions from it now. That tells you what you need to know about the Press. Stooges for private business interests, often foreign.3. The same can be said about Terminal 5. They cocked up the opening. But it was a successful construction project and I've heard on good authority that service there is now superb. 4. Do we think that the press, en masse, need to be sent to see psychiatrists to answer one simple question: 'Why do you hate Britain so much and why are you working in this country if you can never stop attacking it?'5. Do the Press believe that the health of the nation is promoted by never ending heart-throb, emotional-stringing sensationalism?6. If not, when will they START PROMOTING HEALTHY LIVING RATHER THAN ENDLESS WHINING ABOUT THINGS WHICH PEOPLE CAN DO VERY LITTLE? Sun 16 Nov 2008 11:15:10 GMT+1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/11/jowells_comments_come_as_no_su.html?page=1#comment1 This post has been Removed Sat 15 Nov 2008 10:21:53 GMT+1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/11/jowells_comments_come_as_no_su.html?page=0#comment0 This is a nonsense!To paraphrase what I understand Ms Jowell has said: 'If we had known then what we know now we would have done things different - but I think that would have been a mistake because we can now see what the advantages really are.How is this a gaff?Personally I have little time Ms Jowell but one might think that you and your colleague from the [notoriously impartial] Daily Telegraph might have better things to do than whip this stuff up. There are plenty of difficult questions to be asked of Ms Jowell and the government on 2012; plenty of issues to be probed. Instead you've managed to get yourself tangled in a row about semantics whilst ignoring the clear intention of her remarks.Stupid! Fri 14 Nov 2008 12:38:32 GMT+1