Jeez.
Wow guys, did you really have to refer to Iain Duncan-Smith as "ratbag" in the title of the article? That may be what's on the t-shirts, but you're a journalism site. You really shouldn't be effectively "name calling" in the title of a piece. Get a grip, dudes. Seriously. "Thousands take to streets to protest Bedroom Tax" would have been perfectly fine. Don't get me wrong, I don't support what the dude is doing, but I don't support the way you addressed the guy in the article name.
When reviewing the article, that struck me as simply an attention-grabber, descriptive of the protest. I understand your position, and certainly wouldn't have objected had the reporter chosen to title it as you suggest, but the headline doesn't strike me as implying a POV.
We did have problems with the punctuation in the headline. The word "ratbag" is a direct quote, so should be in double quotes in the article, single quotes in the headline, but it's not clear how best to form the possessive form of a single-quoted word. So we put the word in its single-quotes and then let the closing single-quote merge with the possessive apostrophe.
The "product" of the project is the articles, and in this case a bunch of photos I hope tell a good story. Did the provocative headline make you more keen to read it? They're taking orders for the "ratbag" tee-shirts now, which is another reflection that quoting the word in the headline was justified.
The provocative headline actually made me more inclined to avoid it, rather than read it. Journalism is about getting people to read based on the quality of the work, not the use of shock headlines to attract the most mindless to open it just to see what all the fuss is about.
This reeks of someone who starts by resolving to deride Wikinews, and invents a "reason" to do so. See On Bullshit.
Fair enough. If that's what you think of my comments, and me, I simply won't come back. I'm entitled to an opinion, and if this is how you treat everyone who comes on Wikinews and uses their first comments to criticize the site's work, I wonder how you manage to get people to work for you. As for me though, I'm finished. Congratulations.
As an alternative reaction, you could prove you're not trolling. If you're not trolling.
Ok - Well, I'm not trolling. I simply wasn't happy about the fact that based on 2 comments, you made an assumption that I was a bad egg from the word "go". What would you like me to do in order to prove I'm not trolling? I can write without issue - but I'd need to learn your procedures for doing so. I'm willing to do anything you would like in order to give you the proof you want. So, Pi zero, point me in the right direction and find me a teacher :)
You would've had to be at the protest to judge the depth of feeling amongst those taking part. Trying to impart that through the body of the article would have overly clouded the issue. And, I'd hate to think the POV wars that'd come up through giving the protestors a platform, controlled as it might be.
Here's one of the chants/songs from the protest march. It's a sentiment that resonates, and think on this and go look at the video from youtube. The headline says what those protesting were doing in a brutally blunt manner, I selected to do as "cold" an article as I could and let the photos talk because I've a fairly strong opinion on the subject. How, exactly, would you work this sort of "gallows humour" into the article?
Put the Tories on the top
Stuff the Lib-Dems in the middle,
People are that-angry, the fact that Iain Duncan Smith (the aforementioned "ratbag") had the brass-danglies to say on the BBC this morning he could live on £53 per week shows that. Why? Because over 105,000 people have signed the petition daring him to try it for a year.
That, despite your preferably-genteel approch to news presentation, seems to be at-odds with what people on social media sites take an interest in.
I did not assume. I did conjecture, and I did point out how you were coming across. Forcefully pointed out, yes.
I don't "want" proof you aren't a troll; the question is whether you want to be helpful on the site. Presumably if you want to help, you'd want to not come across trollish. Your behavior thus far offers no evidence you aren't a troll. As for learning site procedure — that was provided to you; your query doesn't come across well.
How you come across hereafter is up to you.
How you've come across so far gives me no interest whatsoever in contributing here. The "evidence" you point out is based on the fact I pointed something out that you don't like. Wow. I revert to my previous statement- I won't be coming back. Suck on it.
The fact you objected to the headline has in itself no significant impact on my assessment of how your behavior appears.
Since I selected the title, and it survived review, I would've thought the above explanation might-well have satisfied you.
Is there some connection between the lable "ratbag" and the tax? The definition, for those of us who have not had a chance to chase down rats refers to what "rat catchers" used "who carried a 'rat bag'." So is Harry saying that Iain Duncan Smith is a person of multiple personalities, all of whom are rats, or that he represents a bunch of rats? Its hard for foriengers to get the meaning clearly...