Студопедия
Случайная страница | ТОМ-1 | ТОМ-2 | ТОМ-3
АрхитектураБиологияГеографияДругоеИностранные языки
ИнформатикаИсторияКультураЛитератураМатематика
МедицинаМеханикаОбразованиеОхрана трудаПедагогика
ПолитикаПравоПрограммированиеПсихологияРелигия
СоциологияСпортСтроительствоФизикаФилософия
ФинансыХимияЭкологияЭкономикаЭлектроника

Disagreeing

Origins | Defamation and liability | Political dangers | Collaborative blog | So Your Product or Service Copy Gets Read | Slogans | Extreme Advertising | WHY JOURNALISTS RISK ALL | To Be a Journalist in Iraq | Mass Media in a Changing World |


Jackie: Hello, welcome to the programme, with me, Jackie Dalton. This programme is all about expressions you can use when you think someone is wrong about something and you want to disagree with them.

We’re going to do this with the help of British Prime Minister, Tony Blair. He was recently interviewed by John Humphries, a BBC journalist. Tony Blair disagreed with quite a lot of the things John Humphries said and we’re going to look at some of the language he used when he did this – language you could use in all kinds of situations when you disagree with someone. In the first example, Tony Blair responds to John Humphries by using one of the simplest words in the English language.

Tony Blair: Shouldn’t you be apologising to those people? No, I don’t think we should be apologising.

Jackie: ‘No’ – a direct way of disagreeing. Be careful about how you use such direct language. As with a lot of language we’ll hear today, your tone of voice can be very important in how you come across. This person disagrees quite politely.

Example: You always come to work late. No, I don’t.

Jackie: But here, she sounds more aggressive.

Example: No I don’t.

Jackie: Listen to this next clip. What phrase does Tony Blair use in these examples to express his disagreement?

Tony Blair: You see, I mean, I don’t agree with that. I understand that’s the argument against what we’ve done, but I don't agree with it.

Well, I don’t agree with that at all…

I’m a great admirer of Kofi’s, but we obviously disagree about this issue.

Jackie: He uses the verb ‘to agree’ in the negative – ‘I don’t agree’ and he uses the verb ‘to disagree’- ‘I disagree’. Now we'll hear Tony Blair using a slightly more formal structure.

Tony Blair: And, it’s made this country a more dangerous place. Well I don’t accept that, either.

Jackie: ‘I don’t accept that’ – another way of saying you don’t agree with something that’s just been said.

Tony Blair: The failure of that responsibility- Well, I don’t accept that we failed in that responsibility.

Jackie: Sometimes you may agree with part of what someone says, but disagree with other parts. What structure does Tony Blair use to do that here?

John Humphries and Tony Blair: …many of them loyal to their own warlords.

Well, I think that although it is true to say that there are far too many parts of the police

that are sectarian and so on-

They’re…

Jackie: Tony Blair shows that he agrees with some of what John Humphries has said, but he tries to go on to say that there are other things he disagrees with. We know he disagrees with part of what John has said because he uses the word ‘although’ at the beginning of his sentence: ‘Although it’s true to say …’ He never quite finishes his sentence to tell us what he doesn’t agree with so let's listen to a more complete example of that phrase in use.

Example: He doesn’t work hard enough and he’s bad for the company! Although it’s true to say he doesn’t work as much as he should, I think he’s very clever and could help the company a lot.

Jackie: You could also use ‘while’ instead of ‘although’.

Examples: While it’s true to say he doesn’t work as much as he should, I think he’s very clever and he could help the company a lot.

Jackie: In this next clip, John Humphries says something that Tony Blair disagrees with. What’s the phrase that Tony Blair uses to interrupt him?

John Humphries and Tony Blair: …elected their own government, we’re now telling-

Well, hang on a minute John! They excluded…

Oh no well you added those bits-

Well hang on-

You added those bits-

No, no,before any of those things…

Jackie: ‘Hang on a minute…’ this sometimes just means ‘wait’, but here it’s a way of saying ‘Stop, I don’t agree and there’s something I want to say.’ He then corrects him.

Tony Blair: …elected their own government, we’re now telling-

Well, hang on a minute John! They excluded…

Oh no well you added those bits-

Well hang on-

You added those bits-

No, no, before any of those things…

Jackie: Let’s end on some very strong statements of disagreement.

Tony Blair: …process but-

You’d already decided by then.

That is really not true but, I mean…

I most certainly do not accept that he was not a threat.

Jackie: Both Tony Blair’s words and his tone of voice make it very clear he disagrees. He uses the adverbs ‘really’ and ‘most certainly’ to show how strongly he disagrees with what’s been said.

Tony Blair: That is really not true but, I mean…

I most certainly do not accept that he was not a threat.

Jackie: Finally, there are some very strong informal – and sometimes quite rude ways of disagreeing with someone that you might come across, although be careful about when you use them. Here they are.

Examples: That’s nonsense! That’s rubbish!

Jackie: Again, these expressions can be made stronger, this time, with adjectives.

Examples: That’s complete nonsense! That’s absolute rubbish!

Jackie: Although Tony Blair did seem to get quite cross in this interview, he never got quite angry enough to use those words.

 

Module V. ETHICS AT THE EDGE OF ONE’S COMPETENCY

Defamation

Welcome. My name is Lori King and I’m your instructor during this tutorial podcast on defamation.

I encourage you to listen closely and take notes during this presentation because this lesson is supplemented with a homework worksheet. A list of resources will be included with the worksheet.

Let’s start with the meaning of defamation, which is the act of harming a per­son’s reputation by either writing or saying something that’s false, or IS NOT true. The key word here is FALSE, and defaming someone either by accident or by malice can be big time expensive if you’re sued. Even if you wrote some­thing you thought was true but you found out later it wasn’t true, you could till be sued. Ignorance doesn’t protect you. Truth does.

So, the meaning of defamation is simple enough. The spoken version is called slander, and a published falsehood is called libel, which can include words, photos, pictures or symbols. The statement or images has to go beyond just offensive or insulting. It must be harmful. You might be wondering who decides what’s harmful? Ultimately, it’s the courts. Judges decide if a plaintiff is libeled, as well as the amount of monetary damages that will be awarded to that plaintiff.

It’s the various ways you can defame someone that get’s complicated. And as far as defending yourself, well, let’s just say that job’s best left to a lawyer, but it’s my job to help you stay out of that kind of trouble in the first place.

I’m only going to concentrate on libel during this pod cast because that’s the most common form of defamation, which are civil claims governed by state law. A few states consider defamation as criminal, though. So it’s important you know the law in your state.

Okay, write down these four letters: PIHF. This is an acronym and it stands for publication, identification, harm and fault. These are the four elements a person claiming they were harmed must prove to the courts to win a libel case. This is called the burden of proof, which rests on the plaintiff, or the person claiming to be defamed. These are the four things all journalists should know when writing a sensitive or controversial story about someone else.

Like it says in the Law of the Student Press textbook, “you should use the PIHF list as a quick mental checklist anytime you have a question about whether something is libelous.”

You also need to know the defenses of libel in case all four of the PIHF ele­ments are proven. Four seems to be the magic number, because there are four common defenses. The defenses to libel are consent, truth, privilege and opinion vs. fact.

In summary, you’ve learned that defamation is the act of harming someone’s reputation by either libeling or slandering that person. And you’ve learned the 4 PIHF elements and the 4 defenses you need to know once you’re accused of libel.

Okay, I’ve given you the basics, now it’s up to you to actually learn and under­stand the 8 elements of PIHF and defense.

Using the resources attached to your homework sheet, research and explain these elements in detail. It’s important you’re aware of them so you can stay out of libel trouble.

Good luck.


Дата добавления: 2015-07-11; просмотров: 60 | Нарушение авторских прав


<== предыдущая страница | следующая страница ==>
To google by Professor David Crystal| World Press Freedom Day

mybiblioteka.su - 2015-2024 год. (0.012 сек.)