I've justed watched Michael Crick's report from Newsnight last night about Nick Clegg. It opened by talking about Nick Clegg's campaign website and said "Newsnight can reveal" that the site was registered by the former Lib Dem MP for Sheffield Hallam, Richard Allen (who happens to now be Clegg's campaign manager).Now I thought that when information had been in the public domain for some time the BBC would use the phrase "has learned" rather than "can reveal" otherwise they could be accused of 'stealing' someone else's story, couldn't they? Other media outlets often link to such things when a quick Google search does the job for them.
Mr Crick, you "revealed" bugger all! (accept perhaps the revelation that the BBC can 'point and drool' with a mouse?).
23 comments:
So what Dizzy? By reading your blog, even if true, Crick has done an investigation. crick is one of the best and well informed political commentators. Prove he got the information from your blog, and even if he did , so what. Newsnight gets more viewers than readers of your blog. You should give him some credit, if you can manage that!
So what Dizzy? By reading your blog, even if true, Crick has done an investigation.
Utterly irrelevant to the point being made and the claim that he was revealing something. He didn't reveal that fact. The blogs did.
crick is one of the best and well informed political commentators.
And what does this have to do with the point being made? He could be Napolean for all I care. It doesn't change the fact that he did not "reveal" the story.
Prove he got the information from your blog
If I had said directly that he got it from my blog then perhaps I should. But I didn't. I pointed out that Crick did not reveal the story, and that traditionally when information is already in the public domain they will usually use different language.
I made a statement of fact. The story was already in the public domain, and actually, and I know that at least one Westminster lobby journo knew about it because I told them about it in September. The fact is it was covered on blogs long before it was "revealed" on Newsnight. As such Newsnight did not reveal it.
Now don't get me wrong here, I don't have a problem with Crick, or anyone at the BBC reporting a story that has broken on a blog and not mentioning that fact. What I have a problem with is when a report is made that suggests some sort of "exclusivity" to the information being given. As I said, the fact is it was out there, and it was covered on not just my blog but other even bigger traffic blogs (which all the lobby hacks read) long before it appeared on last night's Newsnight.
so what
So I have a problem with the claim that a story was "revealed" when it patently wasn't. Is it that difficult to understand?
Newsnight gets more viewers than readers of your blog.
What does that have to do with the price of bread? Oh bugger all, that's what. It is an entirely irrelevant statement to the point I'm making.
You should give him some credit, if you can manage that!
Excuse me? I should give Michael Crick credit for "revealing" something that he didn't reveal at all? Why? Because he's some sort of special person in an Ivory Tower of political journalism? Bugger that for a game of soldiers. This sort of thing happens all the time these days.
The vast majority of the lobby hacks are decent people who get the fact that blogs - and more importantly - Google, leaves a trail that can show they've not revealed what they might claim to have revealed. It's really that simple. Newsnight, and Michael Crick, did not "reveal" that fact about Clegg's website. Whether he read it here or not is actually irrelevant.
Thanks for your comprehensive response. Perhaps you have a means of contacting Crick? I would be most interested in his response. I watched the story live and the last thing that occurred to me was that the story was on your and other blogs first. He was revealing the story to a wider audience, that is all. I think it is totally irreverent where the story first surfaced. After all I doubt your blog is that widely read.
If Crick did get the story from your site, I thought you should be pleased. What is he supposed to do, spend his air time saying I got this bit of info from here, that piece from there etc.
He was revealing the story to a wider audience, that is all.
No, Newsnight was reporting and using language that implied they had discovered something that was new news. It wasn't. This sort of thing happens in the print industry too, a journalist locally will often write stories which are then picked up by the nationals as if they are new news.
"After all I doubt your blog is that widely read."
Depends on the definition of "widely" but I don't do stat porn anyway. It is far more widely read than I ever imagined it would be though.
If Crick did get the story from your site, I thought you should be pleased.
I wouldn't care, as I alreayd said whether it was or was not sourced on this site is irrelevant. The issue for me is the claim that Newsnight revealed a new story, angle, dimension, to the Clegg leadership bid. They didn't.
What is he supposed to do, spend his air time saying I got this bit of info from here, that piece from there etc.
What an utterly absurd thing to say, this is not about news reporters detailing source citation. It's about the implication that the news he brought was new when it wasn't.
It was a tired and ropey story and not revealing in any way ....
As I said why don't you contact Crick and get his views. We have both made our points.
Whatever the outcome, it really does not matter where the story originated. What Crick has done is made the information available to a wider audience and that can only be a good thing.
I like Newsnight and indeed your blog. Both serve their purpose and I am sure Dizzy you do not credit your sources all the time.
To put this in context, I have been reading Blair's speech in the US this week. I am no Blair fan, but he has important things to say which you have not blogged on. Does it really matter when Clegg set up his web site? It does matter though what happens in Iran, and will matter in 2 or 3 years when the LibDems will probably be reduced to about 20 seats at the General Election. Will then anyone remember then who and when Clegg's web site was site up, or how the news broke?
Howard,
Implying you broke a story when you didn't is dishonest and casts doubt on the character of the hack that did it.
We have both made our points.
You haven't actually made a point about this post from what I can see. Every "point" you made was irrelevant side bullshit.
I am sure Dizzy you do not credit your sources all the time.
What a load of bollocks.
To put this in context, I have been reading Blair's speech in the US this week. I am no Blair fan, but he has important things to say which you have not blogged on.
Oh here we go, the "why haven't you blogged about this important story" crap. This is my website where I choose to write about what I want to write about. It's not a fucking public service broadcaster. And I can tell you now, the quickest way to get me to not write about something is to pull this fucking line out of your arse.
Does it really matter when Clegg set up his web site?
What's that got to do with the point being made in this post? Oh, that's right. Fuck all.
It does matter though what happens in Iran.
And I'm so terrible for not writing about what you think I should be writing about. Oh woe is fucking me!
Will then anyone remember then who and when Clegg's web site was site up, or how the news broke?
Who suggested that anyone would or wouldn't remember? Oh look, no one, you're making another pointless irrelevant side step. Were I really rude at this point I would tell you to fuck off, but I shan't for now.
Howard should go away and curl up for hibernation. Or come to his senses and then admit his comments are rubbish.
Q: What could be dumber than a comment critic?
A: A "comment critic"-critic.
Chill out peeps.
Anyone who starts swearing has lost the argument.
I always swear Howard, and suggesting that I've lost the argument because of it, is, well, it's bollocks.
Howard, you're a total dick, now fuck off.
That made me chuckle.
although i agree with your first comments Dizzy, descending into foul language just demeans it. Why do people have to use language like this, it does nothing for the argument and lowers the tone of an otherwise excellent blog site.
I stopped visiting Guido's site because of the moronic language, I hope yours is not going the same way.
I've always sworn in the comments on this blog, because, it's my website. Swearing does not demean an argument at all, one look at the cerebral argument from Devils Kitchen shows that. The fact is, in the real world, people swear. What I think is most interesting is that clearly the word "fuck" is the issue, because I use "bugger","bollocks" and "piss" all the time. Ten years ago they were naughty words. This belief that "foul language" (whata subjective term that is) somehow demeans discourse is... well... it's bollocks. In fact, it actually enhances discourse. This blog is my blog and I will let anything through in my comment because I'm a libertarian - although hot-linking Goatse may be deleted.
I can't remember what the stories were now, but there were two occasions last week where the BBC regurgitated blogposts/already-blogged-news that were at least 2-3 weeks old, presenting them as if it was breaking news. I think this can safely be categorised as what Peter Cook would call "Bubonic Plagiarism"
...I should add that this is in stark contrast to blogging practice. I think I'm fairly typical in that if I'm trawling the news online for something to blog about, I generally won't touch an item that's already 2 days old...
And I'm so terrible for not writing about what you think I should be writing about. Oh woe is fucking me!
He has got a point Dizzy. Not once have you posted about the lack of geek-sex in Caernarfon (I know because Ive googled). This alone reveals the severe lack of bredth of subject matter on your blog, as well as its London-centric limitations. Please broaden your horizons and post on the political hot potato known as the Gwynedd geek-sex drought, Dizzy, show us that you care. As we Gwynedd geeks say: "Sex is not a sin, it's a fucking miracle"
goodbye
Surprised you bothered to say goodbye. The best exits online are always best left unsaid.
Incidentally, if the "moronic language" in the comments bothers you, why don't you just not read the comments? (here or anywhere else for that matter). I rarely read the comments on blogs accept my own.
"Bubonic Plagiarism"
I like that. I think I might use it.
Post a Comment