I’d like to thank Mr Cheng, from a hole in the ground, for taking the time to dig out our past stories and advertise them so people can read them again to reinforce the points we are making.
I’m still not quite sure what his point is. All he seems to be intent on doing is spreading a lie that we are being paid for all this, which I repeat again, we are not. I’m assuming he is on the KMT payroll and needs to do his paymasters bidding, so I understand he feels the need to attempt to score points from his PR keyboard.
I get that. What I don’t get is he feels the need to spread lies about people and sees conspiracy and plots all around. Paranoia because the KMT has run out of ideas, possibly?
Maybe he is just ignorant of how opinion and political sketch writing works. Rather than explain myself here, I’ve recently found a thing called GOOGLE which actually helps you understand things you don’t know, it’s amazing.
If it’s his opinion that the opinion of an opinion writer should be the same as his opinion, otherwise it’s not a valid opinion is not, in my opinion, a good opinion. The opinion of others is always a valid opinion and particularly if the opinion points to things that are a matter of opinion that others might be interested in, in forming their own opinions.
Rather than spending hours digging out the opinions of others who appear to disagree with his opinion he should perhaps write his own opinion, rather than advertising the opinions of those opinion writers who, it seems, disagree with his opinion.
In my opinion.
(Here is his opinion from yesterday...another chance for you to read at least a few of our stories :) Thanks to Mr Cheng for being my PA and digging out the links and saving me the trouble. By the way, sadly, I was never Reuters Editor-in-Chief but a mere regional editor but I guess he never lets the facts get in the way of what he writes. But it was flattering he thought otherwise...that GOOGLE thing would have helped him as my CV is online for all to see. Read what he says below carefully and draw your own conclusions about what he says about people who support an administration that has proved it is doing a great job and thanks to him for giving me yet another opportunity to point this out.)
《 觀點，觀點，觀點。。。》
我要感謝一位不知哪個洞裡跑出來的鄭先生，花時間挖掘我們過去的文章並且加以宣傳，好讓人們可以再次閱讀，以加強我們正在提出的一些觀點。
不過我仍然不太確定他的重點是什麼，感覺上他打算做的似乎是散佈謊言，暗示民進黨給我們好處讓我們為其喉舌。我再次重申，沒有。
我猜想他是在 KMT 的薪水單上吧，所以他得向付他薪水的老闆交代，所以我也可以理解他覺得從他的公關鍵盤上表現給老闆看是必要的。
這一點我明白，我不明白的是他覺得有必要散佈關於他人的謊言，在他看來到處都是陰謀。如此偏執是不是因為 KMT 已經沒有其他任何的想法了，可能是這樣嗎？
也許他只是不知道觀點 (opinion) 和政治素描 (political sketch) 寫作是如何運作的。與其在這裡解釋，我最近發現了一個叫做 GOOGLE 的東西，它竟然可以幫助你理解你不知道的東西，真是不可思議。
我還是說明一下吧。如果他認為觀點作者的觀點應該與他的觀點相同，否則就不是有效的觀點，在我看來，他的這種觀點不是一個好觀點。他人的觀點應該都是有效觀點，特別是如果該觀點指向人們可能感興趣的觀點，進而運用這些觀點形成自己的觀點。
與其花幾個小時整理與他觀點不同的人的觀點，他也許應該寫下自己的觀點，而不是宣傳那些似乎不同意他的觀點的觀點作者的觀點。
這是我的觀點。
(以下是那位不知哪個洞裡冒出來的鄭先生昨天發表的觀點，提供各位再度閱讀我的文章的機會 🙂 感謝鄭先生成為我的私人助理，整理好文章連結為我省去不少麻煩。順便說一句，很可惜我從來都不是路透社的總編輯 (editor-in-chief)，而只是一個區域總編輯 (regional editor)，但我想鄭先生從不會讓事實妨礙他的寫作。他認為我是該社總編輯讓我受寵若驚，不過我的資歷是公開的，任何人都可以查看，我想 GOOGLE 這東西會對他有所幫助。各位可以好好看一下他的發文，然後得出自己的結論。寫這些文章的人，基本上支持一個在疫情之中把工作做得很好的當局。再度感謝他又給了我一個機會指出此一觀點。）
不知哪兒來的鄭先生的發文原文貼上如下： 喔忘了說這就是前路透總編史密斯先生的太太 多謝您的指教 比起澄清我更多的是疑惑 國策基金會就偏藍 台灣智庫偏綠 這不算批評吧 路透總編輯史密斯先生的言論大致擇錄如下： 心疼陳時中！前路透總編評他「可信度近滿分」 自曝：心在淌血 https://www.ettoday.net/news/20210704/2022215.htm 替「台灣陳叔叔」尷尬！ 前路透總編批提問媒體「一群準備不足的機器人」 https://newtalk.tw/news/view/2021-07-04/598684 在野黨被《路透》前總編諷「大腦放屁」 何孟樺嘆：丟臉！（何孟樺為民進黨北市副執行長） https://www.setn.com/News.aspx?NewsID=961484 好，看完這些文章後，我充分理解一位狂罵我們國內對陳時中大部長提問的媒體朋友是「一群準備不足的機器人」，心疼防疫滿分頭髮變白的陳時中叔叔，諷刺在野黨監督是大腦放屁，也狂罵黃珊珊與柯文哲的人，絕對是公正客觀獨立沒有政黨好惡，其夫人用心經營，發文數在挺政府酸在野相關網頁居冠的粉專也絕對沒有政治影響企圖。 好哦，好棒喔 #史密斯先生投稿為台灣智庫 #春秋女士在台灣智庫欄位也有一席之地47篇文章 #不要誤會我並沒有在批評這個智庫喔 #還是說一個智庫偏綠現在已經是批評了嗎 #史密斯夫婦ㄟ煞氣
No comments:
Post a Comment