Amaral's GoFundMe - use of language

by **Jill Havern** Fri May 13, 2016 9:17 am

Same "story" - even though it was a year late.

Spot the differences.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-goncalo-amaral-gofundme-7827828?

British supporters of a Portuguese cop who claims Madeleine McCann’s parents lied following their daughter's abduction have raised £50,000 for him on GoFundMe.

Those supportive of Amaral have been labelled "trolls".

http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/birmingham-fund-paid-portuguese-cop-11233605?

A Birmingham fundraising appeal paid a Portuguese police officer £50,000 to help him overturn a libel ruling from Madeleine McCann ’s parents, it has emerged.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3556119/British-trolls-paid-50-000-help-Portuguese-policeman-fight-libel-suit-against-Madeleine-McCann-s-parents.html

British trolls paid £50,000 to help a Portuguese policeman fight his libel suit against Madeleine McCann's parents, it has emerged.

by Guest Fri May 13, 2016 10:12 am

The use of the word "trolls" to describe a group of people supporting someone in his appeal against injustice (which he won!) is outrageous.

There should be some way to get the papers to retract that.

by Guest Fri May 13, 2016 10:26 am

The Daily Mail article also says supporters (header changed too) but I think it has been amended from the use of the word 'trolls' . The article was updated 3 May , a week after the original. Maybe it was amended then.

by Cakefan64 Fri May 13, 2016 10:40 am

BlueBag wrote:The use of the word "trolls" to describe a group of people supporting someone in his appeal against injustice (which he won!) is outrageous.

There should be some way to get the papers to retract that.

Totally agree. The papers are a national disgrace!

by Verdi Fri May 13, 2016 4:32 pm

Cakefan64 wrote:
BlueBag wrote:The use of the word "trolls" to describe a group of people supporting someone in his appeal against injustice (which he won!) is outrageous.

There should be some way to get the papers to retract that.
Totally agree. The papers are a national disgrace!

International disgrace - these comics are online for all the world to read. So much for freedom of the press!

by Cakefan64 Sat May 14, 2016 3:18 pm

Yes of course they can be read all over the world, but they are British papers and a disgrace to Britain, that is my point.

by BarryTheHatchet Sat May 14, 2016 3:46 pm

And most of them are run by a geriatric Aussie, married to an American, with his business HQ also in the States. That's the real disgrace to Britain.

by Cakefan64 Sat May 14, 2016 4:25 pm

A very good point.

by Verdi Sat May 14, 2016 4:46 pm

BarryTheHatchet wrote:And most of them are run by a geriatric Aussie, married to an American, with his business HQ also in the States. That's the real disgrace to Britain.

Who on earth are you referring to - not this fine pair, surely..

Amaral's GoFundMe - use of language 1445824468728

Almost as convincing as Anna Nicole Smith and the love of her life..

Amaral's GoFundMe - use of language Article-0-1A133A16000005DC-374_634x395

Some people would sell their soul to the devil for a fast buck. :bad:

Sorry off-topic!

by ChippyM Sat May 14, 2016 5:54 pm

Ww

BlueBag wrote:The use of the word "trolls" to describe a group of people supporting someone in his appeal against injustice (which he won!) is outrageous.

There should be some way to get the papers to retract that.

i don't see how as it's their opinion. If they made specific claims about what people did that weren't true that would count as defamatory but 'troll' is something a bit unspecific where the definition could be argued about . It's really cheap, gutter press tactics to get people's emotions riled up and but that isn't new.

by Bishop Brennan Sun May 15, 2016 4:10 am

ChippyM wrote:
BlueBag wrote:The use of the word "trolls" to describe a group of people supporting someone in his appeal against injustice (which he won!) is outrageous.

... 'troll' is something a bit unspecific where the definition could be argued about . It's really cheap, gutter press tactics to get people's emotions riled up and but that isn't new.

It's odd how the press have completely hijacked the word 'troll'. Originally a "troll" was used to describe someone on a forum who pretends to be a genuine participant but whose actual purpose is to annoy, argue and generate a 'posting war' with one or more posters. Their motivation was generally one of the following:

1. Sad individuals with nothing better to do than try to annoy people in a forum

2. Fans of 'the other side' of the forum's prevailing view, who want to obscure key facts by de-railing a valid discussion or taking the posters off-topic.

We've seen plenty of examples of both of the above here over the years!

But the press in their typically lazy and partly-informed way have taken it to mean anyone who disagrees with an establishment view. Even in the 'quality' papers, it has been adopted as a useful shorthand for 'conspiracy theorist'. By using the word 'troll' they add an additional 'nasty'' overtone to the 'crazy' implication in order to colour the article they write. Words matter - especially in headlines - and the MSM's choice of words tells us a lot about the prevailing Establishment view (of any topic).

by willowthewisp Sun May 15, 2016 11:49 am

Verdi wrote:
BarryTheHatchet wrote:And most of them are run by a geriatric Aussie, married to an American, with his business HQ also in the States. That's the real disgrace to Britain.
Who on earth are you referring to - not this fine pair, surely..

Almost as convincing as Anna Nicole Smith and the love of her life..

Some people would sell their soul to the devil for a fast buck. :bad:

Sorry off-topic!

Hi Verdi,both of these women married these men because of love, but was it for the right reasons of love of something else?

by pennylane Sun May 15, 2016 12:37 pm

Well the second couple pictured are now both deceased, so perhaps the immoral of the story is grab it while you can?

by Cakefan64 Sun May 15, 2016 1:25 pm

ChippyM wrote:Ww
BlueBag wrote:The use of the word "trolls" to describe a group of people supporting someone in his appeal against injustice (which he won!) is outrageous.

There should be some way to get the papers to retract that.

i don't see how as it's their opinion. If they made specific claims about what people did that weren't true that would count as defamatory but 'troll' is something a bit unspecific where the definition could be argued about . It's really cheap, gutter press tactics to get people's emotions riled up and but that isn't new.

I would say in this context the term "troll" is definately meant in a derogatory manner