I’m the fellow who wrote that wikipedia entry. And yes, I verified it in Bailey, at the local university’s library. For more details see discussion at http://wordcraft.infopop.cc/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/932607094/m/7886078523?r=2216042033#2216042033 by me and Mo. Shea; as he notes, you’ll find the word in Bailey’s and (in this century) in Shea’s book, Shipley’s, and Mrs. Byrne’s. It also appears in Burton’s “Anatomy of Melancholy”.

Usually, it is believed that Schadenfreude has no direct English equivalent. For example, Harper Collins German-English Dictionary translates schadenfreude as “malicious glee or gloating.” An apparent English equivalent is epicaricacy, derived from the Greek word επιχαιρεκακία, epichaerecacia. This word does not appear in most modern dictionaries, but does appear in Nathaniel Bailey’s Universal Etymological English Dictionary (1727) under a slightly different spelling (epicharikaky), which gives its etymology as a compound of epi (upon), chara (joy), and kakon (evil).

Not having a copy of Mr Bailey’s dictionary to hand (someone must have borrowed it), I can’t say if he gives any references or if it’s just something he made up. Probably the latter since, as you say, it’s not in the OED.

It’s not a point that Staines made, but I think the problem is not complicity amongst MSM political journalist – it’s their lack of specialisation. Why should a health minister and a defence minister be interviewed by the same general-purpose “political” journalist? Blogs like EUReferendum or BOM, tho clearly partisan, show how futile this is, and how much better it could be. It’s not so much that people like Robinson refrain from asking the tough questions – it’s that they’re intrinsically incapable most of the time of knowing what those questions are. Guido (along with loads of other people) is definitely right that Robinson et al are a huge part of the problem -he’s just got the wrong reasoning, and the wrong answers.

A plague on both their houses.

He looked weak and stupid in front of his team of bullies, his somewhat skewed moderation policy was in full view immediately afterward (along with many unconvincing sock-puppets… all screaming “Sock-puppet!” at negative comments, no less) and – retraction or not – that final blurt is going to stick in a lot of people’s minds, which is sure to cause some sources to shy away. There are also some sources who only feed Staines to be part of something ‘cool’… and from there we head straight back to the beginning of this paragraph.

One big spiral downwards is what it looks like.

PS – Thank you for ‘epicaricacy’. I shall try to work it into conversation.

We prefer friendly blogs lik this.