Originally Posted by
steve_w
So, someone raises some possibly valid criticisms (that tally with my own experience) and instead of some reasoned answers everyone points and laughs because hey, the silly girlie writes freelance for a paper that's not blue in flavour, has a blog and uses twitter?
Oh no, I'm not pointing and laughing because of that. I'm pointing and laughing because:
- blogging isn't journalism - a blogger is just a punter with a blog - and suggesting otherwise is demeaning to real journalists (but at least you didn't link to the Daily Mail, which is where I thought you were going when I read the title!);
- she is clearly biased towards EasyJet from the start;
- she expects prime customer service by Twitter
- she is selling her opinion "at a price" (probably tongue-in-cheek, but poor journalism ... oh wait)
- she booked flights that would have only scraped her into her destination by a matter of minutes anyway;
- she quite clearly cannot tell the difference between an airline or the weather being the cause of a problem
and most of all ... most of all ...
- because she accuses BA of being 'heteronormative' (and tossing in such a god-awfully stupid word without warning is bad enough) because they only responded to one person in the Twitter exchange "even though he and I had included each other in our @s to BA". Y'know, because maybe it would have been reasonable to assume that they were both on the conversation (as indeed they were) instead of pretending it was because BA was making some sort of judgement on her sexual preferences.
In her defence, those standard customer service responses get on my nerves too. They really are indefensible. But by the time I'd waded through her badly-argued case I'd lost the will to care.