|
home : best of bloggerheads : photoshopping : rupert murdoch : mps and weblogs : email tim ireland : search engine optimisation : viral marketing : weblog marketing |
|
| Bloggerheads Archives :: welcome to the hard shell | |
|
to front page to date archives to category archives national service © Tim Ireland 2004-2006 Design by Wibbler RSS | RSD | Atom |
|
|
« Monsters | Main | Because you want it and she asked for it » November 1, 2007Nadine Dorries and what she has (and has not) learned from Iain Dale[Note - Garry has also blogged about this, because Yesterday, Nadine Dorries was all-drama as she released her 'Minority Report'. In it, she made this claim: We were greatly concerned to read in the Guardian on 27 October an article clearly aimed at undermining the credibility of Professor John Wyatt, which contained detailed information about Wyatt's evidence, which was passed by him to the committee after his oral evidence session, and which could only have been passed on to the journalist concerned by a member of the Select Committee. There should be an enquiry about how this information got into the public domain and as to whether such a personal attack represents a serious breach of parliamentary procedure given that witnesses were told by the committee that any disclosure of personal interests would not prejudice the hearing of their evidence. Just quickly, here's a simple courtesy that Nadine couldn't manage herself; a hyperlink to said article. There's a mirror of it on the author's weblog. (You may note distinct differences between the two versions... yes, the blog version contains more of those pesky hyperlinks.) But like many people who blog in the style of Iain Dale, Nadine Dorries has learned the value of not actually linking to the item/person she's attacking. This is a most-useful technique to use when you are launching an ad hominem attack on someone by falsely claiming that they have launched an ad hominem attack on yourself or one of your associates. [It is here, class, that I must refer you to a related chapter showing you how to further perfect this technique by also refusing, redirecting and/or fouling *inbound* hyperlinks.] Here's the reaction from the author, Dr Ben Goldacre: My article did indeed contain detailed information about Prof Wyatt's evidence, but I suspect any enquiry set up to examine how I managed to obtain that information would finish its work well before the first set of tea and biscuits arrived, since all the facts came from the written evidence published openly and in full during the select committee hearing. There's nothing clever about what I do, let me promise you. Some readers of Iain Dale's weblog refused to mindlessly accept/endorse Nadine's nonsense and complete ignorance of parliamentary procedure as readily as Iain did. In fact one them posted this: Chris Rodger said... That comment was not published by Nadine Dorries. Needless to say, she didn't withdraw her false claim or apologise for making it, either. This distinct lack of accountability didn't escape the attention of comment-contributors to Ben Goldacre's weblog. One of them posted this: BarryNL said, (October 31, 2007 at 2:39 pm) [It should be noted for the record that another graduate of the Iain Dale School of Blogging classifies this kind of behaviour as a Denial of Service Attack.] But the only challenging comments Nadine (eventually) published were so gently obscure in nature or so completely lacking in detail that they did nothing to actually challenge what she had to say (example: "I think you're wrong here Nadine"). There was certainly no published reference to her false claims about Ben Goldacre. Nadine Dorries then sought to address this little problem by refusing to publish *any* comments until further notice because she's 'too busy':
Like yet *another* graduate of the Iain Dale School of Blogging, she has cleverly made a false claim and run away when it has been challenged. [Psst! It is at this point, Nadine, that the Iain Dale Guide to Blogging Like a Complete Twat recommends that you scream "Personal attack!" and/or "Vitriol!" in a way that allows you to refuse all references to Ben Goldacre, instead of refusing comments altogether. Even if these claims are completely without basis, you need not be concerned because... you will be refusing all references to Ben Goldacre! A case study of the master at work is published here.] Ben Goldacre and his readers have reacted in a suitably 'obsessive' fashion by 'secretly conspiring' in the following manner:
I'm sorry, but I'm laughing too hard to write up a coherent conclusion. This lesson is over. Class dismissed. [Homework assignment: Follow the exchange from here and keep a general eye on Ben Goldacre's blog for further developments.] UPDATE - Ah, I see that's she's learned consistency from Iain Dale, too. Despite claiming that she's not publishing any more comments, Nadine is now publishing comments of support. For extra credit in this course, see if you can sneak a comment that is dripping with sarcasm past moderation. Posted by Manic on November 1, 2007 10:02 AM in the category The Political Weblog Movement Pings (Trackback)For trackbacks, this is the URL: Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Nadine Dorries and what she has (and has not) learned from Iain Dale:
» Is Nadine Norris a blogging MP... from Bob Piper Tracked on November 1, 2007 3:23 PM Comments The first post on Dorries' new comment-free blog is entitled "Chatterbox!" Oh, the irony. Posted by: bookdrunk at November 1, 2007 1:57 PM I fear I didn't help here. She had a post by "Peter" which said she would make a big announcement at 1 minute past midnight. I chanced by at 3 minutes past, and commented along the lines of: "It's three minutes past now. Have you changed your mind?" I never saw the comment displayed but I did note that the big announcement wasn't posted until 8 minutes past. The women was seven minutes late. Or just daft to predict that she could post things to 1 minute accuracy. She needs to get a blogger account where you can just fix the date/time to one that suits :-) Now she's gone off in a huff. Would you describe her as a bit touchy? Posted by: Lobster Blogster at November 1, 2007 9:53 PM Witnesses giving oral evidence to select committees normally submit written evidence in advance. This evidence is usually published either before, or at the time of, the evidence session in question: so, for instance, hard copies of the Wyatt evidence would have been available in the committee room for anyone to read and take away at the time Wyatt was giving evidence. This is pretty standard procedure, and ought to be common knowledge to select committee members who are, erm, actually paying attention . . . Posted by: farnboro at November 2, 2007 3:21 PM Post a commentThanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out) (If you're new to Bloggerheads, you may need to be approved by the moderator before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.) | |