|
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 2009 Design by Wibbler RSS | RSD | Atom |
|
|
« Sarah Palin; pregnancy rumours and reality | Main | The bolder the lie, the bigger the laugh » September 3, 2008The Daily Mail: let's kick arse and take names[UPDATE (06 Sep) - Exciting NEW link! --> The Daily Mail (actually, genuinely) responds at last! <-- Will have no impact on this post, as its work is done and plans are afoot. Mwahahahahaha!] [You know this is going to be a fun post, because it comes in two exciting parts. Please stand by to share with family and friends and any bloggers you might now... there's plenty of names to be taken and arses to be kicked.] - Part One It is now a week since I first went on the record and declared that Julie Moult is an idiot. The article that started all of this is riddled with errors and fallacies, but the two that most people find easiest to grasp are as follows: 1. What Moult describes is not a Google bomb, and Google themselves have pointed this out. 2. Google bombing did not start "in the early 90s" (i.e. 5-6 years before Google existed). Got that part? Good. I now invite you to take a closer look at the article... just to see if you can see what I can see:
Have you spotted it yet? No? Maybe you'd care to look closer:
Yes, for starters, it's apparent that the article has not been updated since 11:25 PM on 22nd August 2008, despite the presence of two glaring errors. Many bloggers and other web users are aware of those glaring errors. In fact, literally tens of thousands of web users have taken an interest in my article, those errors and the author behind them (including people at 36 different workstations at Associated Newspapers, according to my stats). As I mention here, I initially sought to bring one of those errors to their attention via comments (the good people at the Daily Mail make a big deal about their allowing comments under every article, yes they do). I submitted this; "What you describe here is not a Googlebomb, but what Google regards to be relevant image result. Google themselves told you that, but you didn't listen." And.... ah, I see that almost everybody out there can now see what I see... but just in case there is any lingering doubt, let's zoom in even closer:
Yep, that's right. No comments. Not one. Let's take a look at that again, just in case we missed one:
Nope. Not a sausage. After thousands and thousands of visitors that have dropped by knowing that there is something wrong with this article, not one comment has been published about it and not one change has been made. And if that's not bad enough, The Daily Mail then go on to lie about it:
"No comments have so far been submitted"...? What a pack of lying bastards. Rather than admit that they made a mistake, the Daily Mail have instead followed the example set by Iain Dale; they have let outright falsehoods stand, resisted any attempt to address the matter via comments, and also given the false impression that the article has been subject to reader scrutiny all this time. And it looks like they've been at it for years. MINI-UPDATE - As I write this, I discover that Stewart Kirkpatrick submitted a comment, too. I'm sure there are plenty of others who have shared a similar experience involving this article alone. This self-serving censorship happens all the time at the Daily mail website and every savvy web user knows it. -
I waffled on a bit in that first part. I'll try to be more direct and to the point in this next part. How's this for starters?
This Googlebomb nonsense is the mere tip of the iceberg. I've seen far worse, and odds are that you have too. I've had a gutful of the Daily Mail making their readers worry about stuff just isn't real. I think they're well overdue for some serious scrutiny and I find myself in a unique position to do something about that... with your help. - Bigdaddymerk runs Daily Mail Watch, which is currently one of the top search results for 'daily mail' and only a quick refit away from being a serious contender for top search results relating not only to that tabloid's name, but also key articles, issues and columnists. I've been in touch, and he's keen to play ball. - I've just brought a dozen or so editors together for The Sun: Tabloid Lies. It's early days, but I think I'm onto something with the specialty-based work-sharing and the tactic of documenting clear and obvious cases of this tabloid deceiving the reader. The rest writes itself. If you are the author of an established weblog, and you would consider committing maybe an hour or two a week to documenting the lies and falsehoods of the Daily Mail (focusing on a subject, speciality or columnist of your choosing), then I'd like you to get in touch using the following email address: bloggerheads DOT com AT googlemail DOT com [Note - Make sure to include the URL of your weblog (and/or links to any past articles you have written about the Mail), plus any task preferences you may have and/or any special skills you can bring to the table. I'd also like to hear from anyone who thinks they can help with the practical side of the build and/or anyone who would be more interested in targeting The Sun... or maybe even The Express, a tabloid that's full of righteous anger and owned by a pornographer.] Then, shortly, we'll all sit down with Bigdaddymerk and have a private chat about tasks, missions, and tactics. Ideally, the broad aim of the new Mail project will be to waste less time barking at the liars, by instead reaching out to the readers who are subjected to their lies on a daily basis. Those readers will probably never change their politics or stop worrying about young people causing cancer and affecting house prices, but they may calm down a bit and they might even stop buying the Mail every day if they realise that a lot of the stuff in it has been invented, misrepresented, or blown out of all proportion. So what do you say, internets? I say those bastards at the Mail are due a jolly good kicking. I say the time has come for us to form an
UPDATE - Heh. Don't be afraid to throw your hat in, but I'd best point out before it's too late that competition for the Richard Littlejohn gig is already fierce. :o) - Posted by Manic on September 3, 2008 11:58 AM in the category Old Media Pings (Trackback)For trackbacks, this is the URL: Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Daily Mail: let's kick arse and take names:
» An Experiment from davblog Tracked on September 18, 2008 12:14 PM Comments This is from a way back, but it seems that columnist Andrew Alexander has had a "senior moment". http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/columnists/article-566674/Gordon-Caesar-fall-Labour-Empire.html The article above refers to Douglas and Wendy Alexander (presumably no relations of his) as husband and wife, which is a partnership beyond anything the Government might countenance legislating for. (They are, I hardly need to remind you, siblings). The error has been drawn to Mr Alexander's attention at least twice in comments submitted, but it appears that nothing has got past the moderators, and the article itself has not been corrected. I would have thought that the journalist and the paper would prefer to retain what integrity they had by admitting a mistake rather than pretending it didn't exist when it had been pointed out to them. Posted by: farnboro at September 4, 2008 2:43 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.) | |