Bloggerheads (UK) - The Sun: no comment

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

« I've earned a day off | Main | Derek Draper, LabourList and... Schillings?! »

January 12, 2009

The Sun: no comment

1. The Sun's article claiming that 'top jews' were being targeted by Muslims (that was in fact based on forum comments written by their quoted terrorism 'expert' posing as a Muslim) has been removed [404] from The Sun's website without explanation.

2. Before their Jenvey-reliant article was withdrawn this morning, it carried 74 comments. The article carried 74 comments before it was discovered that it was based on fraudulent comments made by their quoted 'expert', and it carried 74 comments after it was discovered that it was based on fraudulent comments made by their quoted 'expert'. In other words, no comments were published that would give any indication that something might be wrong with the story.

Below are the two comments I submitted, and the time/date of submission. These comments were not published.

The Sun were aware that something was wrong with the story, and they were specifically aware of the evidence proving exactly what was wrong with the story... and yet they refused to engage under comments, or even publish the questions/challenges that they still refuse to answer.

Comment submitted @ 15:13 on 08-01-2009 (and not published):

Misrepresentation of content aside, what do you say to the allegations that the key comments you condemn in this story were actually submitted to the Ummah.com forums by (a) a freelance journalist (b) who isn't really a Muslim?
I can offer clear evidence of the latter if you feel you need it. The forum authors will already have been in touch about the former, I'm sure.

Comment submitted @ 22:38 on 08-01-2009 (and not published):

I now have evidence that the forum entries you express the most concern about here were actually written by Glen Jenvey. Do you have any response to that, or will you be discarding this comment also?

The Sun: no comment

Newspapers: Don't purport to accept comments if you plan to refuse any meaningful criticism or scrutiny or, like pseudo-blogging losers ranging from David Miliband to Paul Staines, you will be cheating your readers by giving the impression that a channel for accountability exists where it is in fact refused outright.

Try an 'applause' button instead, and stop pretending to be something that you're not.

Posted by Manic on January 12, 2009 10:28 AM in the category Old Media

Pings (Trackback)

For trackbacks, this is the URL:
http://www.bloggerheads.com/cgi-bin/mt-tbbh_20x07.pl/2163

Comments

I suspect The Sun are more arrogant than even The Daily Mail and you won't get a response.

Nice at least that they have acknowledged the story is fraudulent by deleting it - though that's not going to make it disappear from the 200 or so other sites it got echoed too.

Posted by: mikkimoose at January 12, 2009 11:45 AM

"you won't get a response"

I expect as much, but I'm in a unique position to prove it.

:O)

Showing the problem of "the 200 or so other sites", what they've echoed and what can be done about that is next.

(At some stage I may even finally end up blogging about the Independent, whose editor refused to even discuss the correction of some data - unrelated to this event - that was clearly false/incorrect. I've stopped buying their paper as a result.)

Posted by: Manic at January 12, 2009 2:56 PM

Would that editor be Decentish Blair worshipper Roger Alton, by any chance? My parents went back to the Times after 25-odd years with the Indy when he took over. It takes something special to make Murdoch's rag look the better option, I can tell you.

Posted by: Tom at January 12, 2009 4:48 PM

It is indeed. I was a regular buyer of the Independent for 10+ years until he personally made it clear that he has scant regard for simple accuracy and accountability.

Since then, they've not had a penny of mine apart from my purchase of the edition of their newspaper that led (LED!) the pack in print with Damian Green's 'grooming' spin. On that note, I also have significant doubts about current Deputy Political Editor, Nigel Morris.

It's some comfort to know that I'm not alone, so thanks for that.

Posted by: Manic at January 12, 2009 5:08 PM

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
go back to front page to date archives to category archives support national service © Tim Ireland 2009 Design by Wibbler RSS \| RSD \| Atom
	« I've earned a day off \| Main \| Derek Draper, LabourList and... Schillings?! » January 12, 2009 The Sun: no comment 1. The Sun's article claiming that 'top jews' were being targeted by Muslims (that was in fact based on forum comments written by their quoted terrorism 'expert' posing as a Muslim) has been removed [404] from The Sun's website without explanation. 2. Before their Jenvey-reliant article was withdrawn this morning, it carried 74 comments. The article carried 74 comments before it was discovered that it was based on fraudulent comments made by their quoted 'expert', and it carried 74 comments after it was discovered that it was based on fraudulent comments made by their quoted 'expert'. In other words, no comments were published that would give any indication that something might be wrong with the story. Below are the two comments I submitted, and the time/date of submission. These comments were not published. The Sun were aware that something was wrong with the story, and they were specifically aware of the evidence proving exactly what was wrong with the story... and yet they refused to engage under comments, or even publish the questions/challenges that they still refuse to answer. Comment submitted @ 15:13 on 08-01-2009 (and not published): Misrepresentation of content aside, what do you say to the allegations that the key comments you condemn in this story were actually submitted to the Ummah.com forums by (a) a freelance journalist (b) who isn't really a Muslim? I can offer clear evidence of the latter if you feel you need it. The forum authors will already have been in touch about the former, I'm sure. Comment submitted @ 22:38 on 08-01-2009 (and not published): I now have evidence that the forum entries you express the most concern about here were actually written by Glen Jenvey. Do you have any response to that, or will you be discarding this comment also? Newspapers: Don't purport to accept comments if you plan to refuse any meaningful criticism or scrutiny or, like pseudo-blogging losers ranging from David Miliband to Paul Staines, you will be cheating your readers by giving the impression that a channel for accountability exists where it is in fact refused outright. Try an 'applause' button instead, and stop pretending to be something that you're not. Posted by Manic on January 12, 2009 10:28 AM in the category Old Media Pings (Trackback) For trackbacks, this is the URL: http://www.bloggerheads.com/cgi-bin/mt-tbbh_20x07.pl/2163 Comments I suspect The Sun are more arrogant than even The Daily Mail and you won't get a response. Nice at least that they have acknowledged the story is fraudulent by deleting it - though that's not going to make it disappear from the 200 or so other sites it got echoed too. Posted by: mikkimoose at January 12, 2009 11:45 AM - "you won't get a response" I expect as much, but I'm in a unique position to prove it. :O) Showing the problem of "the 200 or so other sites", what they've echoed and what can be done about that is next. (At some stage I may even finally end up blogging about the Independent, whose editor refused to even discuss the correction of some data - unrelated to this event - that was clearly false/incorrect. I've stopped buying their paper as a result.) Posted by: Manic at January 12, 2009 2:56 PM - Would that editor be Decentish Blair worshipper Roger Alton, by any chance? My parents went back to the Times after 25-odd years with the Indy when he took over. It takes something special to make Murdoch's rag look the better option, I can tell you. Posted by: Tom at January 12, 2009 4:48 PM - It is indeed. I was a regular buyer of the Independent for 10+ years until he personally made it clear that he has scant regard for simple accuracy and accountability. Since then, they've not had a penny of mine apart from my purchase of the edition of their newspaper that led (LED!) the pack in print with Damian Green's 'grooming' spin. On that note, I also have significant doubts about current Deputy Political Editor, Nigel Morris. It's some comfort to know that I'm not alone, so thanks for that. Posted by: Manic at January 12, 2009 5:08 PM - Post a comment Thanks 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.) URL: Remember me? YesNo Comments:

The Sun: no comment

Pings (Trackback)

Post a comment