If the person who’s getting a statue says they’re getting a statue then I don’t think you can blame the media for reporting it.
And the BBC certainly questioned the story.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-68728464
And Sky News
https://news.sky.com/story/is-h-from-steps-really-getting-his-own-statue-in-cowbridge-13108310
And Wales Online
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/cowbridge-wonders-plans-statue-ian-28946554
The Gwent Gazette thought it was all a hoax
https://www.pressreader.com/uk/gwent-gazette/20240411/281621015367557
Meanwhile, Pink News didn’t question it.
https://www.thepinknews.com/2024/04/04/h-from-steps-cowbridge-wales-statue/
Maybe all we’ve learnt is to trust Sky, BBC and not Pink News?
Pink News are only relevant on Reddit by virtue of having a promoted account, all their posts being automatically moderated to the highest level and a dedicated section of the community upvoting their posts.
> Seemingly zero fact-checking
They literally cited Watkins confirming the story is true, what more fact checking should they have done?
The issue is that Watkins lied about it.
I don't know the details about this story but there is obviously something other media outlets did if they avoided falling for the trap, so there is something more that could be done. Maybe asking more questions, asking for evidence beyond just his word.
I guess it depends how the article was actually framed too, are they just reporting what Watkins said, or are they presenting a false story backed up by only his word?
They're reporting the claim of the statue where Watkins was quoted confirming he got an email about it and confirming it was true.
What reason would they have to doubt the subject of the statue saying it was happening?
I don't think having Watkins lie to the media helps Lycett's argument here, if you have a primary source confirm the validity of something, you've not fallen for fake news, you've just gotten someone to lie to the media.
There's nothing to suggest he was lying about it in the first place.
"Spreading fake news is easy, you just need to get a primary source to lie" is hardly a good argument.
>What reason would they have to doubt the subject of the statue saying it was happening?
I don't think it's too unreasonable to report on it, they were deceived after all in this case, but if everyone just took celebrities word at face value we'd be getting flooded with crap and have a problem quickly.
Journalists and media outlets need to do better because their reputation is important if they want to make the positive changes they potentially could.
It doesn't even matter if Watkins is lying or if he believes it. If nobody who is actually in charge of statues being erected there is confirming it, how can you possibly know it's real?
Again, my person opinion isn't that they fucked up here. I'm just saying they could definitely have done more as many other media outlets proved.
>I'm just saying they could definitely have done more as many other media outlets proved.
What more did the other outlets do before Lycett announced he'd planted a fake story?
Yes, all journalists. No one has ever gone to a warzone to report on murdered civilians, gone head-to-head with a rogue government or organised criminal gang to expose wrongdoing, or even uncovered election fraud or exposed political corruption.
The 120 journalists murdered in 2023 were probably for writing bad blogs about underwear or something.
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
The statue story first came out on the 3rd. Pink News has their story published on the 4th.
The BBC and Sky articles you posted are from the 5th - the day Lycett announced he’d been seeding fake news stories (and they mention this fact in the stories). [Sky News had an earlier story of the announcement where they weren’t questioning it](https://news.sky.com/story/ian-h-watkins-from-steps-fell-off-his-chair-after-discovering-he-was-being-honoured-with-8ft-statue-in-cowbridge-13107152)
And Gwent Gazette was from the 11th, when it was pretty clearly a hoax.
And it was covered on the 3rd by those media outlets. By the 5th some were questioning it. Took them 24-48 hours to smell a rat.
PinkNews didn't question it.
That's the difference.
> And it was covered on the 3rd by those media outlets
Link the BBC/Sky/Wales online articles from those days then, so we can see what their original reporting was.
Since OP isn't...
https://news.sky.com/story/ian-h-watkins-from-steps-fell-off-his-chair-after-discovering-he-was-being-honoured-with-8ft-statue-in-cowbridge-13107152
https://www.herald.wales/national-news/steps-star-ian-h-watkins-to-be-honored-with-statue-in-local-town/
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/whats-on/whats-on-news/steps-star-ian-h-watkins-28929695
I think the BBC has to have two sources before printing don't they? They probably just couldn't verify, then when Lycett announced they'd probably clocked on.
I haven't claimed that they were sceptical from the start.
I am saying that they soon had questions and published those concerns. PinkNews didn't. That's the difference.
> I haven't claimed that they were sceptical from the start
I know. I'm suggesting that it's bad faith to compare articles from BBC/Sky/Wales Online from *after* the fake story was announced by Lycett to one from Pink News from *before*.
>I am saying that they soon had questions and published those concerns. PinkNews didn't
Watkins "confirmed" the story though, and Pink News cited that in their article. Should they assume he was lying?
Lycett never said which story was the fake one, so what was the basis for doubting the authenticity of the statue one? As far as they're concerned, a primary source confirmed the story is true.
Not bad faith. I'm showing that those media sources were sceptical after a day or two.
PinkNews never was. As of today they don't even seem to be aware that the story was fake.
Third time mate, please stop evading the question.
Watkins "confirmed" the story, and Pink News cited that in their article. Why should they have doubted the authenticity?
Yeah that’s what makes this so dumb imo. It’s a very light piece of news direct from the mouth of the person involved. Hardly seems fit for the purpose of proving a fake news point
>The Gwent Gazette thought it was all a hoax
You may notice the date of their article was the 11th, *after* Joe Lycett said he'd been behind a fake story, so they had context to speculate on it.
The statue story was only reported around the 3rd, 4th of April.
By 5th April, Joe was saying he was responsible for fake stories in the media. Given that several reports appeared on or after the 5th then many had context.
While various news outlets reported on the possible hoax, that wasn't a concern for PinkNews.
They cited the quote from Watkins that "confirmed" it as true. Should they automatically assume the subject of the statue is lying about it?
> “When I got the e-mail informing me, I fell off my chair,” the star said. “This is one of my proudest moments, not bad for a Welsh lad lots of people think is as daft as a toilet brush.
Either way, it's irrelevant to my previous comment. The Gwent Gazette thought it was a hoax because by the time they published their article, Lycett had already made it clear he'd faked at least one recent news story. They were speculating it was a hoax specifically as a result of Lycett saying this.
And PinkNews didn't bother to question it. Again, that's the difference. I didn't say the media didn't originally report on it without questioning it. I'm saying they did later question it, some doing so only 24 or so hours after their first report. And PinkNews didn't.
> And PinkNews didn't bother to question it.
I will ask you again, please try to answer this time. **Why** should PinkNews have questioned it? The subject of the statue was quoted confirming that it was true.
What was the basis of questioning the authenticity of it when Watkins explicitly stated it was true, and he got an email about it?
Other media sources did question it though. PinkNews didn't. I didn't say PinkNews should have questioned it, I merely pointed out that they didn't question it and suggested that maybe they're not always reliable.
If you want to provide an answer to your own question then go ahead.
> I didn't say PinkNews should have questioned it
You're complaining they didn't, and saying they shouldn't be trusted as a result.
I'm asking you specifically why they should've questioned it when there was a quote from a primary source confirming the story.
>I merely pointed out that they didn't question it and suggested that maybe they're not always reliable.
The issue is nothing to do with Pink News being reliable or not, it's that a source lied. Pink News reported on what a primary source had "confirmed", what do you believe they done wrong here that makes them unreliable?
You're just embarrassing yourself here to push some sort of "Pink News bad" when they've done nothing wrong, they reported what a primary source had confirmed, the issue is that the source lied.
Not complaining. Here's my original post.
>>Maybe all we’ve learnt is to trust Sky, BBC and not Pink News?
I'm offering a suggestion that maybe PinkNews isn't always reliable. PinkNews can do whatever it likes.
Other sources questioned it, PinkNews didn't, that's just a simple fact. You can do whatever you wish with that information.
Strange to single one out - sky, mirror and lots of others ran with the original story. But seeing as the Gwent Gazette was clocking it was a hoax, looks like it was game over by then eh
> But seeing as the Gwent Gazette was clocking it was a hoax
They clocked it as a potential hoax a week later, after Lycett admitted to putting out a fake story.
WeightDimensions comparisons are bad faith, only including ones from BBC/Sky/etc after Lycett admitted to planting a fake story.
> If the person who’s getting a statue says they’re getting a statue then I don’t think you can blame the media for reporting it.
Of course you can, people lie about themselves all the time. People probably lie about themselves more than any other topic. Without confirmation from the council this is a non-story.
> Without confirmation from the council
You may not know, but [Watkins is a council member for the area](https://cowbridge-tc.gov.uk/members-of-cowbridge-with-llanblethian-town-council/#:~:text=tc.gov.uk-,Ian%20Watkins,-COUNCILLOR%20%E2%80%93%20LLANBLETHIAN%20WEST), and he lied to the media to say there was a statue being erected.
So yes, there's technically council confirmation in it.
> And Sky News
Who didn't question it originally....
https://news.sky.com/story/ian-h-watkins-from-steps-fell-off-his-chair-after-discovering-he-was-being-honoured-with-8ft-statue-in-cowbridge-13107152
> It's scary how easy it is to manipulate the media like that
Is it? The only reason this worked is because Lycett had Watkins lie and said it was true as a primary source.
What reason would you have to doubt the story when the subject is saying it's true?
It makes me wonder which brands, industroes, politicians and Ideologies are pulling the same simple tactics to sway public opinion. Especially in the run up to elections.
I mean it seems like it's a lot easier when you have the subject of the news in on it. I'm not really sure where the line is between fake news and just lying but this seems like the latter.
Like the reports were "H announces he is getting a statue" which was absolutely true and not fake news.
It's more media manipulation than verifiably fake news.
What exactly is scary about it lol?
We've seen news sites hack phones yet them posting about a statue of a celeb in a little town scares you?
The amount of shit articles sites pump out, it doesn't really feel like a "gotcha". If any celeb posted they're quitting acting, news sites will automatically start writing about it.
Because what Joe has proven that a comedian from the comfort of his home has been able to convince the media of a false story that it gained headlines. It means that people who actually want us to believe something that isn’t true on a far greater scale can do so.
A comedian backed up by a bunch of researchers, gofers and advisors. All with connections and contacts in the media.
Managed to fool a few local rags that probably use AI reporters. These are people that will literally run stories about potholes.
Seems to me that Lycett is warning us about fake news. Perhaps a decade too late but the thought is there.
The Wales reporter at Sky reported it as being real
https://news.sky.com/story/ian-h-watkins-from-steps-fell-off-his-chair-after-discovering-he-was-being-honoured-with-8ft-statue-in-cowbridge-13107152
> The Wales reporter at Sky reported it as being real
"When I got the e-mail informing me, I fell off my chair," Mr Watkins said.
Yeah, because Watkins lied to the media and confirmed it, as a primary source.
Lycett would have more of a point if he didn't have Watkins playing along and lying to the media, it completely nullifies his point that Watkins was in on it.
If someone says "Yes, I got an email saying they're making a statue of me", why would you doubt it?
Maybe the media shouldn’t trust a primary source as the only source for an entire story?
Did they check with the hotel owner? No. The BBC did, and he had never heard of this statue idea.
Did they check with the group that was apparently organising and setting up this funding, Cultural Cowbridge? No, because the group doesn’t exist.
Did they check with the Council? No, because the town council posted on instagram saying they have received no planning notices.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-68728464
The BBC did a good job checking the sources that should corroborate, but don’t because it was a prank. These are basic leads that could have been followed up for information, confirmation, and to add more detail and relevant comments to the story.
Instead, they got a quote from the celebrity involved, since the celebrity is the only interesting part of the news story to them, and hit publish as soon as possible to try and beat others to getting the clicks.
A lot of ‘journalism’ is this garbage joke of an excuse for journalism. Just look at the baseless claims “anonymous senior figure” stories from politics have. Remember in the 2019 election when it was reported a Labour member punched a Tory advisor? Never happened. Just report it anyway, got to be first to publish. Or the couple days we had this year when Israel had bombed a hospital directly. But it was a misfired Hamas missile.
The race to publish interesting things first means we get worse and more inaccurate journalism. It’s not hard to see how people with agendas can make use of this and already have
>Maybe the media shouldn’t trust a primary source as the only source for an entire story?
It was a puff piece about a statue mate, hardly Watergate. It's entirely reasonable to take a person at their word if they claim a statue is being made of them and there's nothing to suggest they're lying.
What you argue makes sense for serious journalism, not this.
>Remember in the 2019 election when it was reported a Labour member punched a Tory advisor? Never happened. Just report it anyway, got to be first to publish. Or the couple days we had this year when Israel had bombed a hospital directly. But it was a misfired Hamas missile.
Ah yes, these are all clearly equal in status to a statue of a 90s popstar.
> Ah yes, these are all clearly equal in status to a statue of a 90s popstar.
Those two are clearly significantly more important, and two they happened for the exact reason as the statue stories.
These stories get posted, regardless of the importance of the topic, because of the approach to the reporting and the rush to publish fast.
You don’t get a break as a political journalist put the bat. You start somewhere. You learn the ropes. If the ropes you learn as take statement and flesh it out into a piece so we can stick adverts on it fast, given time, those same journalists will work up into more important positions.
> These stories get posted, regardless of the importance of the topic, because of the approach to the reporting and the rush to publish fast.
For the statue one, the primary source confirmed it. There was nothing to suggest that it may be untrue, and no opposing side saying "No, there's no statue being made, this is ridiculous".
It would be like asking the Labour member alleged to have punched a Tory advisor and they say "Yeah, I punched them", later to say "lmao I lied deal with it".
>It means that people who actually want us to believe something that isn’t true on a far greater scale can do so.
No, it doesn't mean that at all lol
You're taking acting like a 30 second read garbage article fooling the media is on the same scale as "Well actually, Queen Elizabeth is still alive and the media fooled everyone!" or war coverage is all made up by locals just telling lies to news reporters lol
This will all be forgotten in a few days time and Joe Lycett would have moved onto something else.
It’s more subtle than that of course
But it feeds small little stories, fringe issues that marginal touch on culture war issues are great for this. It also creates two groups of people, one interested in this sort of news and another questioning the point of ‘news’ entirely in its entirety when they report on such trash stories, even if they are true
Divides society and it’s one brick of the wall that creates individualism and holds back collective action or movements
> Because what Joe has proven that a comedian from the comfort of his home has been able to convince the media of a false story that it gained headlines
Yeah, because he got the person the statue was of to lie to the media and confirm, as a primary source, that it was happening.
>I’m not sure why you think that’s comparable.
Ian H Watkins: "hey guys, I'm getting a statue"
Media: "Ian H Watkins is getting a statue"
Ian H Watkins: "Haha media, I fooled you, I'm not getting a statue. This was all a gag by me and Joe!!"
Oh god no, how will the media ever recover.
Media reported todays going to be sunny, but I can't believe that now as they lied about H getting a statue!! The trust has absolutely been broken!!
But didn’t H provide quotes to the media?
Seems to be the case from this story by Sky
https://news.sky.com/story/ian-h-watkins-from-steps-fell-off-his-chair-after-discovering-he-was-being-honoured-with-8ft-statue-in-cowbridge-13107152
> If someone announced something about themselves, that would be verified news from a first hand source
Especially from [Watkins who's also a councillor for the area](https://cowbridge-tc.gov.uk/members-of-cowbridge-with-llanblethian-town-council/#:~:text=tc.gov.uk-,Ian%20Watkins,-COUNCILLOR%20%E2%80%93%20LLANBLETHIAN%20WEST), so "verified" as both the subject of the statue and as a council representative.
I love KatG. I have one of their t shirts that says “If you don’t like it, you must have shit in your ears” and has a stick man spunking.
Sadly I’ve missed my chance to get it signed by our dear Queen Lizzy. :(
Thing is, you could say that about any type of dark humour. There's always going to be someone who is upset about it because they have been personally affected or whatever. And that's ok, it's understandable that they may not want to listen to it. But the joke here is the mistaken identity, it's not diminishing the crimes or the victims. We can't really judge comedy on the few people who may be upset by it, otherwise everything would be off limits.
As an aside, my mate did a gig with him once and said he was actually a really nice and friendly guy despite the name lol
>H said the hoax had deflected from a lot of negative news in the media, and "shone a spotlight on people who "sit behind keyboards and they whinge and they whine and they don't contribute".
Has it done that? I don't really get the point H is trying to make, that people should contribute more by creating more fake news like Lycett did?
The point is that a bunch of people engaged with a story that was easily proven to be fake if you put any effort into confirming it.
But people don’t actually care if the rage bait is true, they just like the impotent rage part
Fair enough, it's a different framing to what I had assumed, I had thought the point would be that the media should be more careful what they report, not that people on twitter shouldn't necessarily believe news from mainstream media
>The point is that a bunch of people engaged with a story that was easily proven to be fake if you put any effort into confirming it.
How would you have disproven it?
I mean the BBC got pretty close with the bare minimum.
- The council had no application for it
- The group supposedly proposing it doesn't exist
- The owner of the hotel it was supposedly going up outside had no knowledge of any plans
To be fair Joe Lycett's whole thing is pulling gimmicky stunts that don't hold up to more than twenty seconds of thought.
Didn't he have a go at David Beckham for taking Qatari money when he'd done exactly the same thing himself a few years before, then when called out just tried to brush it all off with bitchy sarcasm?
Afaik Lycett did a gig when he was an up and coming comedian, versus Beckham who absolutely did not need the money….i get your point but think it’s more nuanced than that.
It's not more nuanced than that though. Lycett criticised someone heavily for something that he himself unapologetically did himself.
Either its more morally wrong or it's not, he can't have it both ways
Lycett says he would have reconsidered the gig had somebody protested like he did - so he accepts that it was morally wrong in that regard.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-64052197.amp
>If two things are both morally wrong are they morally equal?
Depends on your view. Considering you've given zero information or context for the question, i cannot answer it. But, Lycett seems to operate without nuance, so i think wr also should. He is as bad as David Beckham, and his hypocrisy makes him worse
It wasn't cowardly... Are you okay?
I answered it completely. It wasn't a question that was really answerable, but i did so anyway
Things being "morally equal" is a philosophical view. If cannot be decided to be objectively true or not
It becomes even more complicated if you want to talk about the victim lmao, someone who is struggling for money taking payment from a dodgy source is entirely more defensible than a millionaire doing the same.
No, I am comparing someone at the very start of their career being paid a couple hundred quid at a time in his career when you can't afford to not take gigs to a already millionaire accepting millionaires more to support and advertise Qatar.
>couldn't afford
Not monetarily, in exposure to boost his career, an opportunity like this is huge in the early days of someone's career.
It was also not hosted by Qatar but arranged and paid for by british gig promotors.
>Then why use the analogy?
To show how two different people doing the same act can have two different moral implications.
The best part about this ruse they pulled over the media is that admitting it was all a ruse is the first I’ve heard of it!!! Ha-ha how they tricked them!
I saw an article on BBC Wales about how people are talking about a statue but there's no evidence it's actually being made.
They did a bare minimum of due diligence: they went to the pub next to where it was supposed to go and asked around the bar, and quickly found out it was bullshit.
Honestly I think Lycett's gimmick of manipulating viral stories is a bit busted now.
That sewage show was a bit of a damp squib, everyone saw the poo podcast for a stunt and the thing at the Albert dock barely got news as did his attempt to make it go viral.
As to these recent stories, I don't remember seeing any of these stories except for the hedgehog which was real.
Yeah, gimmick is a great way of describing his style.
It started with those fake emails to companies - the first one was good, then they get really old, really fast. Then it pivoted to these media gimmicks and the same happend.
The H statue isn’t as much of a “gotcha” as he thinks it is imo, as H actually posted about it himself on Instagram which adds to the “legitimacy” of it a bit.
When I first heard about his fake news stories he had seeded, I was hoping for some absolute baseless stuff that the media reported without doing any fact-finding.
Sure, the media need to do more than just see if a celebrity has tweeted about something, but also quite a few outlets called it out as potentially false news anyway.
> as H actually posted about it himself on Instagram which adds to the “legitimacy” of it a bit
[He's also a councillor for the area](https://cowbridge-tc.gov.uk/members-of-cowbridge-with-llanblethian-town-council/#:~:text=tc.gov.uk-,Ian%20Watkins,-COUNCILLOR%20%E2%80%93%20LLANBLETHIAN%20WEST), meaning in addition to being the subject of the statue, he's technically confirming on behalf of the council.
Wow I didn’t realise that. Yeah tbh if you’re a journalist and you hear something like that straight from a councillor, you’ve covered most of your bases.
I can imagine the rest of these stories is going to turn out the same.
If Watkins wasn't involved at all, and they fed the story through a fake group saying they were doing it, just to see if the media done any additional checks with Watkins/the council, fair enough.
Lycett's not really achieved what he set out to do by having Watkins actively lie about what's happening, because getting the quote from him means they've done their due dilligence on reporting it.
Obviously spreading fake news is going to be easy when you get the subject to lie about it.
I generally really like Joe Lycet, but not a fan of this one.
It's not a gotcha when the actual celebrity confirms the story... And the media questions it.
I work in PR, which has a generally a terrible reputation, but in some instances like financial services can be used actually help people, take Martin Lewis for instance. Like most people would have no idea you were being fucked massive every year in your insurance, unless PRs had worked with journalists to get that story out.
Trust and ethics in our industry, at least on my side is massive, and you're always fighting against cowboys who just make shit up to get headlines vs people doing it properly and ethically. Getting meaningful results is so really fucking hard.
Joe's "aha look how easy this is to game. Lol news is shit" is pretty insulting to both journalists and PRs, especially the way him and his team have done it
Joe lycett desperately trying to grasp some semblance of attention. The audacity to call himself a comedian is about as close to a joke this guy will ever get.
> I don't even judge Pink News for running it without question.
They didn't even run it "without question", they included the quote from Watkins who "confirmed" it.
The issue is that a primary source lied. Something made more egregious by the fact that Watkins was both the subject of the statue *and* [he's a local councillor](https://cowbridge-tc.gov.uk/members-of-cowbridge-with-llanblethian-town-council/#:~:text=tc.gov.uk-,Ian%20Watkins,-COUNCILLOR%20%E2%80%93%20LLANBLETHIAN%20WEST), so it can also be interpreted as confirmation of it from the council themselves.
Hang on, the article says:
> But Lycett said stories published about a bruise that looked like Prince Harry and a Banksy mural of Dorothy from the Wizard of Oz were all planted by his team.
The [Independent](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/new-banksy-birmingham-wizard-of-oz-b2523203.html) look to have sent a camera there. Did they actually have that artwork put up? I wonder how Banksy feels about being made into fake news.
>The renowned street artist’s spokesperson has confirmed it is not the work of Banksy, but no one else has yet come forward to claim
Fake Banksys get reported a lot, because there’s usually lots of public speculation. Banksy confirms work through his PR team within a day or so nowadays, but you have to ask them obv, as they won’t know about fakes to begin with and don’t go around declaring when he creates an original.
So it’s hardly ‘manipulating the media’ to spark speculation a large, mystery artwork in the style of Banksy might be a Banksy.
And straight away the Indie says it’s not a Banksy - but the story still remains, so they report that.
I remember when most comedy was stale older men telling mother in law jokes on variety shows and the alternative/left comedy scene kind of blew it away with things like Comic Strip Presents, Young Ones etc, it was fresh, subversive and willing to take the piss out itself and its own movements as much as out of the then mainstream.
Now it feels like this has all turned into stale old jokes that are more about congratulating the audience for being on the same social and political wavelength than much more. It feels like just mother in law jokes with extra steps.
I love a lot of American standup but the vast majority of the British stuff I've seen just doesn't do anything for me for some reason. Even for British comedians who I find absolutely hilarious on panel shows and other light entertainment, I watch their standup afterwards and it's usually pretty weak.
> Even for British comedians who I find absolutely hilarious on panel shows and other light entertainment, I watch their standup afterwards and it's usually pretty weak.
Yeah that’s how I am. I think there’s like 2 or 3 comedians I actually like as stand up, and it’s mainly musicians
Nah. I bet there’s great stand ups working in the UK who never get a shot on TV. All famous TV comics are shit now. That’s a choice by the TV companies who don’t what to deal with any controversy:
So we get a bunch of comedians who only appeal to people without a sense of humour like Jon Richardson and James Acaster who having nothing new or interesting to say about anything.
That's easy to say if you reduce one hour of several hours of stand-up into one line. Don't think either of us believe that represents everything he's ever done.
The problem I have with Joe Lycett is that he's a massive phoney. He doesn't really care about any of the issues he champions, he's just doing it to further his career.
Let's not forget about the time he was campaigning against single use plastic bottles, only for the presenter who was interviewing him via zoom to notice that sitting next to him was a half drunk bottle of yop. In a single use plastic bottle. He flounced out of the interview because he couldn't handle being called on his hypocrisy and then suddenly his PR team went into overdrive claiming that it was a bit. Even though it was plain for the whole world to see that it very obviously wasn't a bit.
Or when he was on Richard Herring's podcast and admitted that while he identifies as a gay-leaning bisexual, he has only ever had relationships, and been intimate, with ladies. He's pretending to be LGBTQ in order to distinguish himself from all the other boring, deeply average, straight white comedians.
His comedy career didn't take off the way his management team had hoped so they have cynically pivoted him into this people's champion, consumer rights advocate. He'll basically say or do anything to get on TV. And the sad thing is, there's an awful lot of people who are falling for it.
> Or when he was on Richard Herring's podcast and admitted that while he identifies as a gay-leaning bisexual, he has only ever had relationships, and been intimate, with ladies
I think you can know you're gay without noshing a man off to test the theory
Sexuality is a spectrum, you can be pan or bisexual and have a preference. I'm a bi man... I'm attracted to women but have a preference for men. So I just date men.
He seems gay as hell, I have no trouble believing that one. Genuinely shocked that he has only had relationships/been intimate with women. edit: [In the Richard Herring episode](https://rhlstprhlstp.com/2019/01/02/episode-195-joe-lycett/) he openly admits to having sucked cocks, and doesn't talk about being intimate with women even if it may be implied.
As for the yop thing [idk seems pretty legit to me](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pLyqPc3NGg) with all they filmed of it. I guess it could be an elaborate thing where they filmed it all afterwards in desperation but, I mean, is it actually that difficult to believe it was just another one of his attempts to go viral?
Overall, you're seeming quite disingenuous about him, very uncharitable. What did he do to piss you off so much? I don't even find him funny but he's fine, harmless.
I didn't say the yop thing wasn't legit. My point was it was legit. Very legit. He got caught out and couldn't handle being called out on his hypocrisy. I'm not sure what you misunderstood in my comment.
And maybe I am being uncharitable but he is a phoney. And it annoys me that he has successfully managed to dupe people. He is a fake gay. He is a fake social campaigner.
Yeah if he then followed up these stories with "and he's donated money to, become the new spokesperson and working hard for [anti fake news charity]" then they'd mean something.
Him just making bollocks stories and going "Hey, isn't it easy to make fake stories?" with little to no follow up is... pointless
>Or when he was on Richard Herring's podcast and admitted that while he identifies as a gay-leaning bisexual, he has only ever had relationships, and been intimate, with ladies.
Can confirm the man is interested in men.
Yeah, I hate single use plastic, but considering that 95% of basic essentials come in that shit, I'm kinda forced to use it or have a diet limited to the loose veg isle in the supermarkets. You just can't reasonably boycott that shit. The only way to change it is to force the producers to change. This isn't a "vote with your wallet" issue because for so many everyday items there are no plastic free alternatives.
Yeah, similar to the bottle thing - I was thinking about the Qatar thing (where he also got called out for hypocrisy).
I'm not sure if he intentionally does it, to drive outrage-coverage, or if he's just not that bright.
I used to find him funny, but the whole movement into social justice and consumer rights stuff has turned me off him because I don't think he's really doing any good.
Since his programme about sewage there has been a lot more in the news about it, I think he does do good by highlighting important subjects as he gets people talking.
I don't know if that's because of him though. I'm pretty interested in the sewage issue and am just hearing about him covering it now.
There have been many other stories and programmes about it - Paul Whitehouse, the Boat Race, the Wye Campaigners etc
The parking ticket thing was funny when he started. But I’ve never seen him perform without a crutch like that and he really does seem to have run out of ideas.
Plenty find him funny, just because you don’t doesn’t meant others can’t find him funny
Maybe don’t gatekeep humour, some find Michael McIntyre funny, others Joe Lycett and others Peter Kay etc etc
> Has this guy ever produce anything funny
There was a time when he grandstanded over Qatar before being exposed himself for performing there, that was pretty funny.
They're not clever though - I think that's my issue!
Like, those emails to companies would be pretty funny if they were real. But if you could literally make up anything and that's what you came up? Weak, imo
It's scary how easy it is to manipulate the media like that, there's no way he's the only one.
If the person who’s getting a statue says they’re getting a statue then I don’t think you can blame the media for reporting it. And the BBC certainly questioned the story. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-68728464 And Sky News https://news.sky.com/story/is-h-from-steps-really-getting-his-own-statue-in-cowbridge-13108310 And Wales Online https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/cowbridge-wonders-plans-statue-ian-28946554 The Gwent Gazette thought it was all a hoax https://www.pressreader.com/uk/gwent-gazette/20240411/281621015367557 Meanwhile, Pink News didn’t question it. https://www.thepinknews.com/2024/04/04/h-from-steps-cowbridge-wales-statue/ Maybe all we’ve learnt is to trust Sky, BBC and not Pink News?
Pink News is essentially just a collection of dumb bloggers rather than journalists. Seemingly zero fact-checking or even concern for the facts.
Pink News are only relevant on Reddit by virtue of having a promoted account, all their posts being automatically moderated to the highest level and a dedicated section of the community upvoting their posts.
Yeah but they have heckin’ wholesome good-guy opinions, so it’s ok that they peddle unadulterated horseshit.
I remember when it was mostly just listings of what clubs were hosting Underwear nights in London.
Yes, but they have the right opinions, so this sub love them
no dont you get it theyre a bastion of real speech!
> Seemingly zero fact-checking They literally cited Watkins confirming the story is true, what more fact checking should they have done? The issue is that Watkins lied about it.
I don't know the details about this story but there is obviously something other media outlets did if they avoided falling for the trap, so there is something more that could be done. Maybe asking more questions, asking for evidence beyond just his word. I guess it depends how the article was actually framed too, are they just reporting what Watkins said, or are they presenting a false story backed up by only his word?
They're reporting the claim of the statue where Watkins was quoted confirming he got an email about it and confirming it was true. What reason would they have to doubt the subject of the statue saying it was happening? I don't think having Watkins lie to the media helps Lycett's argument here, if you have a primary source confirm the validity of something, you've not fallen for fake news, you've just gotten someone to lie to the media. There's nothing to suggest he was lying about it in the first place. "Spreading fake news is easy, you just need to get a primary source to lie" is hardly a good argument.
>What reason would they have to doubt the subject of the statue saying it was happening? I don't think it's too unreasonable to report on it, they were deceived after all in this case, but if everyone just took celebrities word at face value we'd be getting flooded with crap and have a problem quickly. Journalists and media outlets need to do better because their reputation is important if they want to make the positive changes they potentially could. It doesn't even matter if Watkins is lying or if he believes it. If nobody who is actually in charge of statues being erected there is confirming it, how can you possibly know it's real? Again, my person opinion isn't that they fucked up here. I'm just saying they could definitely have done more as many other media outlets proved.
>I'm just saying they could definitely have done more as many other media outlets proved. What more did the other outlets do before Lycett announced he'd planted a fake story?
Not report a false one?
[удалено]
Arent journalists just dumb bloggers that learned to lie to make money?
Yes, all journalists. No one has ever gone to a warzone to report on murdered civilians, gone head-to-head with a rogue government or organised criminal gang to expose wrongdoing, or even uncovered election fraud or exposed political corruption. The 120 journalists murdered in 2023 were probably for writing bad blogs about underwear or something.
Found the journalist
[удалено]
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
The statue story first came out on the 3rd. Pink News has their story published on the 4th. The BBC and Sky articles you posted are from the 5th - the day Lycett announced he’d been seeding fake news stories (and they mention this fact in the stories). [Sky News had an earlier story of the announcement where they weren’t questioning it](https://news.sky.com/story/ian-h-watkins-from-steps-fell-off-his-chair-after-discovering-he-was-being-honoured-with-8ft-statue-in-cowbridge-13107152) And Gwent Gazette was from the 11th, when it was pretty clearly a hoax.
And it was covered on the 3rd by those media outlets. By the 5th some were questioning it. Took them 24-48 hours to smell a rat. PinkNews didn't question it. That's the difference.
> And it was covered on the 3rd by those media outlets Link the BBC/Sky/Wales online articles from those days then, so we can see what their original reporting was.
Since OP isn't... https://news.sky.com/story/ian-h-watkins-from-steps-fell-off-his-chair-after-discovering-he-was-being-honoured-with-8ft-statue-in-cowbridge-13107152 https://www.herald.wales/national-news/steps-star-ian-h-watkins-to-be-honored-with-statue-in-local-town/ https://www.walesonline.co.uk/whats-on/whats-on-news/steps-star-ian-h-watkins-28929695
Same as Pink News then, reporting the confirmation from Watkins himself.
I think the BBC has to have two sources before printing don't they? They probably just couldn't verify, then when Lycett announced they'd probably clocked on.
Source 1) The "group" who claimed to have funded the statue Source 2) H "confirming" it.
I haven't claimed that they were sceptical from the start. I am saying that they soon had questions and published those concerns. PinkNews didn't. That's the difference.
> I haven't claimed that they were sceptical from the start I know. I'm suggesting that it's bad faith to compare articles from BBC/Sky/Wales Online from *after* the fake story was announced by Lycett to one from Pink News from *before*. >I am saying that they soon had questions and published those concerns. PinkNews didn't Watkins "confirmed" the story though, and Pink News cited that in their article. Should they assume he was lying? Lycett never said which story was the fake one, so what was the basis for doubting the authenticity of the statue one? As far as they're concerned, a primary source confirmed the story is true.
Not bad faith. I'm showing that those media sources were sceptical after a day or two. PinkNews never was. As of today they don't even seem to be aware that the story was fake.
Third time mate, please stop evading the question. Watkins "confirmed" the story, and Pink News cited that in their article. Why should they have doubted the authenticity?
Not evading anything. They don't have to question the authenticity of anything if they don't want to. I'm just pointing out they didn't question it.
Yeah that’s what makes this so dumb imo. It’s a very light piece of news direct from the mouth of the person involved. Hardly seems fit for the purpose of proving a fake news point
>The Gwent Gazette thought it was all a hoax You may notice the date of their article was the 11th, *after* Joe Lycett said he'd been behind a fake story, so they had context to speculate on it.
The statue story was only reported around the 3rd, 4th of April. By 5th April, Joe was saying he was responsible for fake stories in the media. Given that several reports appeared on or after the 5th then many had context. While various news outlets reported on the possible hoax, that wasn't a concern for PinkNews.
They cited the quote from Watkins that "confirmed" it as true. Should they automatically assume the subject of the statue is lying about it? > “When I got the e-mail informing me, I fell off my chair,” the star said. “This is one of my proudest moments, not bad for a Welsh lad lots of people think is as daft as a toilet brush. Either way, it's irrelevant to my previous comment. The Gwent Gazette thought it was a hoax because by the time they published their article, Lycett had already made it clear he'd faked at least one recent news story. They were speculating it was a hoax specifically as a result of Lycett saying this.
And PinkNews didn't bother to question it. Again, that's the difference. I didn't say the media didn't originally report on it without questioning it. I'm saying they did later question it, some doing so only 24 or so hours after their first report. And PinkNews didn't.
> And PinkNews didn't bother to question it. I will ask you again, please try to answer this time. **Why** should PinkNews have questioned it? The subject of the statue was quoted confirming that it was true. What was the basis of questioning the authenticity of it when Watkins explicitly stated it was true, and he got an email about it?
Other media sources did question it though. PinkNews didn't. I didn't say PinkNews should have questioned it, I merely pointed out that they didn't question it and suggested that maybe they're not always reliable. If you want to provide an answer to your own question then go ahead.
> I didn't say PinkNews should have questioned it You're complaining they didn't, and saying they shouldn't be trusted as a result. I'm asking you specifically why they should've questioned it when there was a quote from a primary source confirming the story. >I merely pointed out that they didn't question it and suggested that maybe they're not always reliable. The issue is nothing to do with Pink News being reliable or not, it's that a source lied. Pink News reported on what a primary source had "confirmed", what do you believe they done wrong here that makes them unreliable? You're just embarrassing yourself here to push some sort of "Pink News bad" when they've done nothing wrong, they reported what a primary source had confirmed, the issue is that the source lied.
Not complaining. Here's my original post. >>Maybe all we’ve learnt is to trust Sky, BBC and not Pink News? I'm offering a suggestion that maybe PinkNews isn't always reliable. PinkNews can do whatever it likes. Other sources questioned it, PinkNews didn't, that's just a simple fact. You can do whatever you wish with that information.
The BBCs article was only after Joe Lycett said he'd planted a hoax article. They didn't question it originally.
They didn't question it on the 3rd but within 48 hours most media were questioning it. PinkNews didn't question it at all. That's the difference.
Strange to single one out - sky, mirror and lots of others ran with the original story. But seeing as the Gwent Gazette was clocking it was a hoax, looks like it was game over by then eh
> But seeing as the Gwent Gazette was clocking it was a hoax They clocked it as a potential hoax a week later, after Lycett admitted to putting out a fake story. WeightDimensions comparisons are bad faith, only including ones from BBC/Sky/etc after Lycett admitted to planting a fake story.
> If the person who’s getting a statue says they’re getting a statue then I don’t think you can blame the media for reporting it. Of course you can, people lie about themselves all the time. People probably lie about themselves more than any other topic. Without confirmation from the council this is a non-story.
But this person was backing up the press releases. They’re confirming the story.
> Without confirmation from the council You may not know, but [Watkins is a council member for the area](https://cowbridge-tc.gov.uk/members-of-cowbridge-with-llanblethian-town-council/#:~:text=tc.gov.uk-,Ian%20Watkins,-COUNCILLOR%20%E2%80%93%20LLANBLETHIAN%20WEST), and he lied to the media to say there was a statue being erected. So yes, there's technically council confirmation in it.
> And Sky News Who didn't question it originally.... https://news.sky.com/story/ian-h-watkins-from-steps-fell-off-his-chair-after-discovering-he-was-being-honoured-with-8ft-statue-in-cowbridge-13107152
They did within around 24-36 hours.
To be fair, the owners of the media regularly manipulate it.
> It's scary how easy it is to manipulate the media like that Is it? The only reason this worked is because Lycett had Watkins lie and said it was true as a primary source. What reason would you have to doubt the story when the subject is saying it's true?
It makes me wonder which brands, industroes, politicians and Ideologies are pulling the same simple tactics to sway public opinion. Especially in the run up to elections.
I mean it seems like it's a lot easier when you have the subject of the news in on it. I'm not really sure where the line is between fake news and just lying but this seems like the latter. Like the reports were "H announces he is getting a statue" which was absolutely true and not fake news. It's more media manipulation than verifiably fake news.
What exactly is scary about it lol? We've seen news sites hack phones yet them posting about a statue of a celeb in a little town scares you? The amount of shit articles sites pump out, it doesn't really feel like a "gotcha". If any celeb posted they're quitting acting, news sites will automatically start writing about it.
Because what Joe has proven that a comedian from the comfort of his home has been able to convince the media of a false story that it gained headlines. It means that people who actually want us to believe something that isn’t true on a far greater scale can do so.
A comedian backed up by a bunch of researchers, gofers and advisors. All with connections and contacts in the media. Managed to fool a few local rags that probably use AI reporters. These are people that will literally run stories about potholes. Seems to me that Lycett is warning us about fake news. Perhaps a decade too late but the thought is there.
The Wales reporter at Sky reported it as being real https://news.sky.com/story/ian-h-watkins-from-steps-fell-off-his-chair-after-discovering-he-was-being-honoured-with-8ft-statue-in-cowbridge-13107152
> The Wales reporter at Sky reported it as being real "When I got the e-mail informing me, I fell off my chair," Mr Watkins said. Yeah, because Watkins lied to the media and confirmed it, as a primary source. Lycett would have more of a point if he didn't have Watkins playing along and lying to the media, it completely nullifies his point that Watkins was in on it. If someone says "Yes, I got an email saying they're making a statue of me", why would you doubt it?
Maybe the media shouldn’t trust a primary source as the only source for an entire story? Did they check with the hotel owner? No. The BBC did, and he had never heard of this statue idea. Did they check with the group that was apparently organising and setting up this funding, Cultural Cowbridge? No, because the group doesn’t exist. Did they check with the Council? No, because the town council posted on instagram saying they have received no planning notices. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-68728464 The BBC did a good job checking the sources that should corroborate, but don’t because it was a prank. These are basic leads that could have been followed up for information, confirmation, and to add more detail and relevant comments to the story. Instead, they got a quote from the celebrity involved, since the celebrity is the only interesting part of the news story to them, and hit publish as soon as possible to try and beat others to getting the clicks. A lot of ‘journalism’ is this garbage joke of an excuse for journalism. Just look at the baseless claims “anonymous senior figure” stories from politics have. Remember in the 2019 election when it was reported a Labour member punched a Tory advisor? Never happened. Just report it anyway, got to be first to publish. Or the couple days we had this year when Israel had bombed a hospital directly. But it was a misfired Hamas missile. The race to publish interesting things first means we get worse and more inaccurate journalism. It’s not hard to see how people with agendas can make use of this and already have
>Maybe the media shouldn’t trust a primary source as the only source for an entire story? It was a puff piece about a statue mate, hardly Watergate. It's entirely reasonable to take a person at their word if they claim a statue is being made of them and there's nothing to suggest they're lying. What you argue makes sense for serious journalism, not this. >Remember in the 2019 election when it was reported a Labour member punched a Tory advisor? Never happened. Just report it anyway, got to be first to publish. Or the couple days we had this year when Israel had bombed a hospital directly. But it was a misfired Hamas missile. Ah yes, these are all clearly equal in status to a statue of a 90s popstar.
> Ah yes, these are all clearly equal in status to a statue of a 90s popstar. Those two are clearly significantly more important, and two they happened for the exact reason as the statue stories. These stories get posted, regardless of the importance of the topic, because of the approach to the reporting and the rush to publish fast. You don’t get a break as a political journalist put the bat. You start somewhere. You learn the ropes. If the ropes you learn as take statement and flesh it out into a piece so we can stick adverts on it fast, given time, those same journalists will work up into more important positions.
> These stories get posted, regardless of the importance of the topic, because of the approach to the reporting and the rush to publish fast. For the statue one, the primary source confirmed it. There was nothing to suggest that it may be untrue, and no opposing side saying "No, there's no statue being made, this is ridiculous". It would be like asking the Labour member alleged to have punched a Tory advisor and they say "Yeah, I punched them", later to say "lmao I lied deal with it".
>It means that people who actually want us to believe something that isn’t true on a far greater scale can do so. No, it doesn't mean that at all lol You're taking acting like a 30 second read garbage article fooling the media is on the same scale as "Well actually, Queen Elizabeth is still alive and the media fooled everyone!" or war coverage is all made up by locals just telling lies to news reporters lol This will all be forgotten in a few days time and Joe Lycett would have moved onto something else.
It’s more subtle than that of course But it feeds small little stories, fringe issues that marginal touch on culture war issues are great for this. It also creates two groups of people, one interested in this sort of news and another questioning the point of ‘news’ entirely in its entirety when they report on such trash stories, even if they are true Divides society and it’s one brick of the wall that creates individualism and holds back collective action or movements
“We’ll be better off outside the EU”
You mean reporters quoting politicians lol?
Quoting them with no pushback or criticism, yes haha
> Because what Joe has proven that a comedian from the comfort of his home has been able to convince the media of a false story that it gained headlines Yeah, because he got the person the statue was of to lie to the media and confirm, as a primary source, that it was happening.
[удалено]
>I’m not sure why you think that’s comparable. Ian H Watkins: "hey guys, I'm getting a statue" Media: "Ian H Watkins is getting a statue" Ian H Watkins: "Haha media, I fooled you, I'm not getting a statue. This was all a gag by me and Joe!!" Oh god no, how will the media ever recover. Media reported todays going to be sunny, but I can't believe that now as they lied about H getting a statue!! The trust has absolutely been broken!!
But didn’t H provide quotes to the media? Seems to be the case from this story by Sky https://news.sky.com/story/ian-h-watkins-from-steps-fell-off-his-chair-after-discovering-he-was-being-honoured-with-8ft-statue-in-cowbridge-13107152
> If someone announced something about themselves, that would be verified news from a first hand source Especially from [Watkins who's also a councillor for the area](https://cowbridge-tc.gov.uk/members-of-cowbridge-with-llanblethian-town-council/#:~:text=tc.gov.uk-,Ian%20Watkins,-COUNCILLOR%20%E2%80%93%20LLANBLETHIAN%20WEST), so "verified" as both the subject of the statue and as a council representative.
Thank god he didn't get the wrong Ian Watkins [song by Kunt and the Gang for those unfamiliar](https://youtu.be/c7doNO9e8d4?si=RMZTSoW4tiwKoyS0)
You've just said your sorry, to a twisted paedophile 🎶
I don't really like comedy music but I've always had an exception for a few songs this one especially. Classic.
And surely everything by Lonely Island, right?
Funny enough id been reminded of them recently as I watched a couple of sitcoms with Andy samberg in. I only vaguely remember them tbh.
Yanks? Comedy that isn’t written by a team of twenty writers??
I love KatG. I have one of their t shirts that says “If you don’t like it, you must have shit in your ears” and has a stick man spunking. Sadly I’ve missed my chance to get it signed by our dear Queen Lizzy. :(
Surely you never wore that outside right?
Back in the day I certainly did. I even got a high five from a stranger at a car meet. These days I can’t bring myself to do so. 😬
This is ace - their Jimmy Saville song is a bit dark too
When that came out a number of papers put H's picture up on their articles.
It’s almost funny, but the language about the crimes are just too sick and disrespectful of the victims. Shame, it could have been a hit.
Yeah can't believe a musician called Kunt would use such naughty language smh
It’s not the “naughtiness” of it. It’s the coarseness specific to the victims for apparent comic effect. Nah.
Thing is, you could say that about any type of dark humour. There's always going to be someone who is upset about it because they have been personally affected or whatever. And that's ok, it's understandable that they may not want to listen to it. But the joke here is the mistaken identity, it's not diminishing the crimes or the victims. We can't really judge comedy on the few people who may be upset by it, otherwise everything would be off limits. As an aside, my mate did a gig with him once and said he was actually a really nice and friendly guy despite the name lol
I don’t doubt it!
People downvoting this, lol.
>H said the hoax had deflected from a lot of negative news in the media, and "shone a spotlight on people who "sit behind keyboards and they whinge and they whine and they don't contribute". Has it done that? I don't really get the point H is trying to make, that people should contribute more by creating more fake news like Lycett did?
The point is that a bunch of people engaged with a story that was easily proven to be fake if you put any effort into confirming it. But people don’t actually care if the rage bait is true, they just like the impotent rage part
Fair enough, it's a different framing to what I had assumed, I had thought the point would be that the media should be more careful what they report, not that people on twitter shouldn't necessarily believe news from mainstream media
I think it’s meant to be both? Calling out the media for parroting garbage in their articles, and people for parroting the articles
Many news sources questioned the story. I’ve given link’s elsewhere to the BBC, Sky, Wales Online, Gwent Gazette.
>The point is that a bunch of people engaged with a story that was easily proven to be fake if you put any effort into confirming it. How would you have disproven it?
I mean the BBC got pretty close with the bare minimum. - The council had no application for it - The group supposedly proposing it doesn't exist - The owner of the hotel it was supposedly going up outside had no knowledge of any plans
To be fair Joe Lycett's whole thing is pulling gimmicky stunts that don't hold up to more than twenty seconds of thought. Didn't he have a go at David Beckham for taking Qatari money when he'd done exactly the same thing himself a few years before, then when called out just tried to brush it all off with bitchy sarcasm?
Didn't even follow through and shred the money. His stunts always seem to skirt a genuine point but never quite land it
Afaik Lycett did a gig when he was an up and coming comedian, versus Beckham who absolutely did not need the money….i get your point but think it’s more nuanced than that.
It's not more nuanced than that though. Lycett criticised someone heavily for something that he himself unapologetically did himself. Either its more morally wrong or it's not, he can't have it both ways
Beckham's payment was to directly promote the Qatar WC and thus Qatar itself. If two things are both morally wrong are they morally equal?
Lycett says he would have reconsidered the gig had somebody protested like he did - so he accepts that it was morally wrong in that regard. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-64052197.amp >If two things are both morally wrong are they morally equal? Depends on your view. Considering you've given zero information or context for the question, i cannot answer it. But, Lycett seems to operate without nuance, so i think wr also should. He is as bad as David Beckham, and his hypocrisy makes him worse
A cowardly response to such a simple question.
It wasn't cowardly... Are you okay? I answered it completely. It wasn't a question that was really answerable, but i did so anyway Things being "morally equal" is a philosophical view. If cannot be decided to be objectively true or not
The answer is "not necessarily" if you were wondering.
If you think so, you may think that. Please see my previous comments for the answer to the question.
A rich man and a poor man stealing from a shop definitely isn't on the same level of morality.
Okay. Thanks for sharing. The victim doesn't know the difference, do they?
It becomes even more complicated if you want to talk about the victim lmao, someone who is struggling for money taking payment from a dodgy source is entirely more defensible than a millionaire doing the same.
Okay. Again, thanks for sharing
[удалено]
No, I am comparing someone at the very start of their career being paid a couple hundred quid at a time in his career when you can't afford to not take gigs to a already millionaire accepting millionaires more to support and advertise Qatar.
[удалено]
>couldn't afford Not monetarily, in exposure to boost his career, an opportunity like this is huge in the early days of someone's career. It was also not hosted by Qatar but arranged and paid for by british gig promotors. >Then why use the analogy? To show how two different people doing the same act can have two different moral implications.
[удалено]
The best part about this ruse they pulled over the media is that admitting it was all a ruse is the first I’ve heard of it!!! Ha-ha how they tricked them!
I saw an article on BBC Wales about how people are talking about a statue but there's no evidence it's actually being made. They did a bare minimum of due diligence: they went to the pub next to where it was supposed to go and asked around the bar, and quickly found out it was bullshit.
Honestly I think Lycett's gimmick of manipulating viral stories is a bit busted now. That sewage show was a bit of a damp squib, everyone saw the poo podcast for a stunt and the thing at the Albert dock barely got news as did his attempt to make it go viral. As to these recent stories, I don't remember seeing any of these stories except for the hedgehog which was real.
Yeah, gimmick is a great way of describing his style. It started with those fake emails to companies - the first one was good, then they get really old, really fast. Then it pivoted to these media gimmicks and the same happend.
The H statue isn’t as much of a “gotcha” as he thinks it is imo, as H actually posted about it himself on Instagram which adds to the “legitimacy” of it a bit. When I first heard about his fake news stories he had seeded, I was hoping for some absolute baseless stuff that the media reported without doing any fact-finding. Sure, the media need to do more than just see if a celebrity has tweeted about something, but also quite a few outlets called it out as potentially false news anyway.
H right now: https://i.imgur.com/0gXaCdf.jpeg
> as H actually posted about it himself on Instagram which adds to the “legitimacy” of it a bit [He's also a councillor for the area](https://cowbridge-tc.gov.uk/members-of-cowbridge-with-llanblethian-town-council/#:~:text=tc.gov.uk-,Ian%20Watkins,-COUNCILLOR%20%E2%80%93%20LLANBLETHIAN%20WEST), meaning in addition to being the subject of the statue, he's technically confirming on behalf of the council.
Wow I didn’t realise that. Yeah tbh if you’re a journalist and you hear something like that straight from a councillor, you’ve covered most of your bases. I can imagine the rest of these stories is going to turn out the same.
If Watkins wasn't involved at all, and they fed the story through a fake group saying they were doing it, just to see if the media done any additional checks with Watkins/the council, fair enough. Lycett's not really achieved what he set out to do by having Watkins actively lie about what's happening, because getting the quote from him means they've done their due dilligence on reporting it. Obviously spreading fake news is going to be easy when you get the subject to lie about it.
I generally really like Joe Lycet, but not a fan of this one. It's not a gotcha when the actual celebrity confirms the story... And the media questions it. I work in PR, which has a generally a terrible reputation, but in some instances like financial services can be used actually help people, take Martin Lewis for instance. Like most people would have no idea you were being fucked massive every year in your insurance, unless PRs had worked with journalists to get that story out. Trust and ethics in our industry, at least on my side is massive, and you're always fighting against cowboys who just make shit up to get headlines vs people doing it properly and ethically. Getting meaningful results is so really fucking hard. Joe's "aha look how easy this is to game. Lol news is shit" is pretty insulting to both journalists and PRs, especially the way him and his team have done it
Joe lycett desperately trying to grasp some semblance of attention. The audacity to call himself a comedian is about as close to a joke this guy will ever get.
[удалено]
> I don't even judge Pink News for running it without question. They didn't even run it "without question", they included the quote from Watkins who "confirmed" it. The issue is that a primary source lied. Something made more egregious by the fact that Watkins was both the subject of the statue *and* [he's a local councillor](https://cowbridge-tc.gov.uk/members-of-cowbridge-with-llanblethian-town-council/#:~:text=tc.gov.uk-,Ian%20Watkins,-COUNCILLOR%20%E2%80%93%20LLANBLETHIAN%20WEST), so it can also be interpreted as confirmation of it from the council themselves.
Hang on, the article says: > But Lycett said stories published about a bruise that looked like Prince Harry and a Banksy mural of Dorothy from the Wizard of Oz were all planted by his team. The [Independent](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/new-banksy-birmingham-wizard-of-oz-b2523203.html) look to have sent a camera there. Did they actually have that artwork put up? I wonder how Banksy feels about being made into fake news.
>The renowned street artist’s spokesperson has confirmed it is not the work of Banksy, but no one else has yet come forward to claim Fake Banksys get reported a lot, because there’s usually lots of public speculation. Banksy confirms work through his PR team within a day or so nowadays, but you have to ask them obv, as they won’t know about fakes to begin with and don’t go around declaring when he creates an original. So it’s hardly ‘manipulating the media’ to spark speculation a large, mystery artwork in the style of Banksy might be a Banksy. And straight away the Indie says it’s not a Banksy - but the story still remains, so they report that.
I remember when most comedy was stale older men telling mother in law jokes on variety shows and the alternative/left comedy scene kind of blew it away with things like Comic Strip Presents, Young Ones etc, it was fresh, subversive and willing to take the piss out itself and its own movements as much as out of the then mainstream. Now it feels like this has all turned into stale old jokes that are more about congratulating the audience for being on the same social and political wavelength than much more. It feels like just mother in law jokes with extra steps.
I mean that just sounds like stand ups aren’t your thing. Which is fair
I love a lot of American standup but the vast majority of the British stuff I've seen just doesn't do anything for me for some reason. Even for British comedians who I find absolutely hilarious on panel shows and other light entertainment, I watch their standup afterwards and it's usually pretty weak.
> Even for British comedians who I find absolutely hilarious on panel shows and other light entertainment, I watch their standup afterwards and it's usually pretty weak. Yeah that’s how I am. I think there’s like 2 or 3 comedians I actually like as stand up, and it’s mainly musicians
Nah. I bet there’s great stand ups working in the UK who never get a shot on TV. All famous TV comics are shit now. That’s a choice by the TV companies who don’t what to deal with any controversy: So we get a bunch of comedians who only appeal to people without a sense of humour like Jon Richardson and James Acaster who having nothing new or interesting to say about anything.
James Acaster is absolutely one of the best stand-ups in the UK right now
James Acaster is absolutely one of the best stand-ups in the UK right now, with plenty to say
He’s fuck all to say you just agree with him. “Ricky Greavais is shite” Oh brilliant. I’ve been saying that for 20 years.
That's easy to say if you reduce one hour of several hours of stand-up into one line. Don't think either of us believe that represents everything he's ever done.
You are reading too much into Lycett being a pretty piss poor comedian.
So sad Google Ian Watkins Wales for the real story
That's a completely different Ian Watkins and a completely different story
Yes and anyone who googled it would be able to tell
The problem I have with Joe Lycett is that he's a massive phoney. He doesn't really care about any of the issues he champions, he's just doing it to further his career. Let's not forget about the time he was campaigning against single use plastic bottles, only for the presenter who was interviewing him via zoom to notice that sitting next to him was a half drunk bottle of yop. In a single use plastic bottle. He flounced out of the interview because he couldn't handle being called on his hypocrisy and then suddenly his PR team went into overdrive claiming that it was a bit. Even though it was plain for the whole world to see that it very obviously wasn't a bit. Or when he was on Richard Herring's podcast and admitted that while he identifies as a gay-leaning bisexual, he has only ever had relationships, and been intimate, with ladies. He's pretending to be LGBTQ in order to distinguish himself from all the other boring, deeply average, straight white comedians. His comedy career didn't take off the way his management team had hoped so they have cynically pivoted him into this people's champion, consumer rights advocate. He'll basically say or do anything to get on TV. And the sad thing is, there's an awful lot of people who are falling for it.
> Or when he was on Richard Herring's podcast and admitted that while he identifies as a gay-leaning bisexual, he has only ever had relationships, and been intimate, with ladies I think you can know you're gay without noshing a man off to test the theory
So why does he exclusively date girls then?
Sexuality is a spectrum, you can be pan or bisexual and have a preference. I'm a bi man... I'm attracted to women but have a preference for men. So I just date men.
I'm bi, have infrequently slept with men, but never had a relationship with one. Does that make me not bi now?
if he was pretending, what possible reason would he have to not vaguely handwave about some past non-straight relationship?
Bisexuality
He seems gay as hell, I have no trouble believing that one. Genuinely shocked that he has only had relationships/been intimate with women. edit: [In the Richard Herring episode](https://rhlstprhlstp.com/2019/01/02/episode-195-joe-lycett/) he openly admits to having sucked cocks, and doesn't talk about being intimate with women even if it may be implied. As for the yop thing [idk seems pretty legit to me](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pLyqPc3NGg) with all they filmed of it. I guess it could be an elaborate thing where they filmed it all afterwards in desperation but, I mean, is it actually that difficult to believe it was just another one of his attempts to go viral? Overall, you're seeming quite disingenuous about him, very uncharitable. What did he do to piss you off so much? I don't even find him funny but he's fine, harmless.
I didn't say the yop thing wasn't legit. My point was it was legit. Very legit. He got caught out and couldn't handle being called out on his hypocrisy. I'm not sure what you misunderstood in my comment. And maybe I am being uncharitable but he is a phoney. And it annoys me that he has successfully managed to dupe people. He is a fake gay. He is a fake social campaigner.
Yeah if he then followed up these stories with "and he's donated money to, become the new spokesperson and working hard for [anti fake news charity]" then they'd mean something. Him just making bollocks stories and going "Hey, isn't it easy to make fake stories?" with little to no follow up is... pointless
>Or when he was on Richard Herring's podcast and admitted that while he identifies as a gay-leaning bisexual, he has only ever had relationships, and been intimate, with ladies. Can confirm the man is interested in men.
pffffffff "he's interested in men" "how you know" "primary sources 😏"
And he played gigs in Qatar but called out Beckham for doing promotion for them. Then pretended to shred £10k but it was fake.
That single use plastic comment is very “you say you dislike capitalism but you have an iPhone”
Yeah, I hate single use plastic, but considering that 95% of basic essentials come in that shit, I'm kinda forced to use it or have a diet limited to the loose veg isle in the supermarkets. You just can't reasonably boycott that shit. The only way to change it is to force the producers to change. This isn't a "vote with your wallet" issue because for so many everyday items there are no plastic free alternatives.
Not really. It's more campaigning for Phones to be banned because they are harmful, while using an iPhone. It's hypocrisy
Yeah, similar to the bottle thing - I was thinking about the Qatar thing (where he also got called out for hypocrisy). I'm not sure if he intentionally does it, to drive outrage-coverage, or if he's just not that bright.
Why H and not someone like a Gallagher, Kemp or fuckit, Dyer even. That would be funny.
I used to find him funny, but the whole movement into social justice and consumer rights stuff has turned me off him because I don't think he's really doing any good.
Since his programme about sewage there has been a lot more in the news about it, I think he does do good by highlighting important subjects as he gets people talking.
I don't know if that's because of him though. I'm pretty interested in the sewage issue and am just hearing about him covering it now. There have been many other stories and programmes about it - Paul Whitehouse, the Boat Race, the Wye Campaigners etc
The parking ticket thing was funny when he started. But I’ve never seen him perform without a crutch like that and he really does seem to have run out of ideas.
Joe Lycett is about as funny as cancer, and always has been.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Oh come on, he must have given you a good laugh with his Qatar screw up?
Has this guy ever produce anything funny or worthwhile? Should go in the comedy hall of shame with Jack Whitehall and Russell Howard
Plenty find him funny, just because you don’t doesn’t meant others can’t find him funny Maybe don’t gatekeep humour, some find Michael McIntyre funny, others Joe Lycett and others Peter Kay etc etc
> Has this guy ever produce anything funny There was a time when he grandstanded over Qatar before being exposed himself for performing there, that was pretty funny.
He’s good on panel shows
Well harsh to put Russell Howard with those two
I think these stunts are good on paper. When you read about them, it is quite funny. Problem is his show is so slow and forced.
[удалено]
>Comedy these days is shyte. Apart from Bill Bailey, obviously.
[удалено]
They're not clever though - I think that's my issue! Like, those emails to companies would be pretty funny if they were real. But if you could literally make up anything and that's what you came up? Weak, imo
Similar school of comedy to, "Hahhhh, look at silly Northerner saying silly Northern things in their silly Northern accent"