Tomkins: Lucky, lucky Liverpool?

[dww]

I agree. Tomkins articles are well balanced, well argued and well researched. I always enjoy reading them, it makes a refreshing change to the bollocks other people get upset about that non-sensical journalists come out with. Then complain when there is a good article. Always something, isn't there...

I have to say that I can't really go with you on him being balanced. He views the world through LFC red tinted spectacles and I really can't see how anyone can say otherwise.

I can see how people can feel that his unfailingly well researched articles bring balance to the media debate but that is very different to them being unbiased of themselves. When it comes to the length I think that it is sad that people feel that 2000 words is too much but at the same time Tompkins can labour a point and I feel could at times benefit from a strong editor extolling the virtues of concision.

I like him as a counter weight to the powder puff two paragraph tribal football school of journalism but I think that he is far from the truly independent journalistic ideal and he is too wordy for a great propagandist.

[mick the click]

FFS can't Tomkins ever write a single article under 2000 words?

He knows his stuff and must just work on his style - which I find just a bit laboured, and if that happened, I'm sure you'd find 4000 words would be too few.

Don't forget that the poor bugger is exposed to the most critical readership imaginable, blah blah, yet however much he gets slated, people read his work.

All he needs is a good editor.

[Nicey]

Got nothing against Tomkins whatsoever, and I've never criticised him or ever mentioned ME. But we do have work to do you know. Time is precious and his articles are not as reader friendly as they could be - I'm just expressing the opinion that I wish he was more concise.

Bollix its about a two minute read at best ... and I read with a ****ig ruler on each line ... the ... cat ... went .. down ... the... street


Bone Idle lazy

[Revo]

Bollix its about a two minute read at best ... and I read with a ****ig ruler on each line ... the ... cat ... went .. down ... the... street


Bone Idle lazy

HAHAHAHA FLMAO

[Michael]

I liked that article. It wasn't as tedious as some others have been.

I like it too.... I've got to admit, the first thing I did was scroll down and see how long it was!

But it was more direct than usual and he didn’t repeat the same point too many times!

Good read!

[El Diego]

Yet again a very good article from Tomkins.

[Dhav]

Bollix its about a two minute read at best ... and I read with a ****ig ruler on each line ... the ... cat ... went .. down ... the... street


Bone Idle lazy

I used to be a teacher, and I've marked coursework assignments much shorter than some of Tomkins articles. I had to humour kids when I was a teacher but I'm not humouring anyone now. I ain't reading 2,000 words when he could have easily made the same point in less than 1,000. :bird:

[Dhav]

He knows his stuff and must just work on his style - which I find just a bit laboured, and if that happened, I'm sure you'd find 4000 words would be too few.

Don't forget that the poor bugger is exposed to the most critical readership imaginable, blah blah, yet however much he gets slated, people read his work.

All he needs is a good editor.

Laboured is certainly one way to describe his style - it's almost as if he deliberately tries to pad out his articles, as if to justify his fee or something.

[Maestro]

I used to be a teacher, and I've marked coursework assignments much shorter than some of Tomkins articles. I had to humour kids when I was a teacher but I'm not humouring anyone now. I ain't reading 2,000 words when he could have easily made the same point in less than 1,000. :bird:

I'll summarise for you...all he says is:

"Liverpool are not getting the credit they deserve for their fine form, and Cyprus is a ****hole"

[Skillz]

Laboured is certainly one way to describe his style - it's almost as if he deliberately tries to pad out his articles, as if to justify his fee or something.

No doubt. I actually enjoy reading them mainly due to the fact he has actually used thought and more importantly research to compile his articles. This is a rare thing in modern (Murdoch) journalism so I appreciate it even if it done with a heavy dose of red tint.

Having said all that he does ****en reinforce his point too much by half. He does need a good editor cos he makes many very valid points.

TBF to him he has written a couple of good ones lately and I include this one in that. I do not like to believe the press bias but there is no doubt an strong element of truth to the myth.

[Woobus]

People moan about how long Tomkins articles are, but then waste there time clicking into the link and posting that they cant be arsed wasting there time reading it.

[Dhav]

I'll summarise for you...all he says is:

"Liverpool are not getting the credit they deserve for their fine form, and Cyprus is a ****hole"

[sean_lfc]

Bollix its about a two minute read at best ... and I read with a ****ig ruler on each line ... the ... cat ... went .. down ... the... street


Bone Idle lazy

Im still laughing at this

[nobbylad]

Maybe I'm in the minority, but I enjoy reading about my team. I'm sick of picking up a paper with whole pages devoted to Arse, Scum or the Chavs and the one mention of Liverpool is restricted to something uninteresting, like one of the reserve team is now injured.

Unfortunately I read whole swathes of ****e in this forum, I'd much rather be inundated with Tomkins articles!

[Revo]

I'll summarise for you...all he says is:

"Liverpool are not getting the credit they deserve for their fine form, and Cyprus is a ****hole"

FLMAO