Archive for the ‘Old Media’ Category

Posted by Tim Ireland at November 17, 2008

Category: Humanity, Old Media, The Political Weblog Movement, Tories! Tories! Tories!

1.

Independent – Facebook vigilantes identify mother of Baby P: The identity of the 27-year-old mother of Baby P was last night being circulated on the internet with the names of her boyfriend and the third man convicted of causing the child’s death, after online vigilantes began a campaign calling for violent retribution against them. An order issued by the judge who oversaw the trial of the woman and her boyfriend forbids details about them, including their names, photographs and addresses, from being made public. But yesterday the information was listed on unofficial news websites and social networking sites… Another social networking site, Bebo, removed the mother’s profile page after abusive messages were posted, while her Friends Reunited profile was also being circulated. The difficulties of policing the internet were highlighted when the mother’s name briefly appeared in a discussion thread about Baby P hosted by The Sun. The information was removed.

Some slack reporting from the Independent here; they’re not to blame for accepting Bebo’s version of events (it was an outside complaint that prompted the removal of this profile, not an internal decision based on detection of abusive comments, as this paragraph suggests) but someone somewhere really should have pointed out that this information was initially spoon-fed to the public by the Times and the Sun, who carried near-to-identical paragraphs that mikkimoose fairly describes here as “the information that screams ‘google me'”.

(I can’t show you that information yet without doing the same thing, sorry.)

That Bebo profile was the first step on the easiest path to all names, and both of these Murdoch-owned newspapers pointed the way in flashing neon letters.

Someone should be called to account for that act, be it an accident or defiance of the law…. and both newspapers will want to be especially careful not to give the impression that it was the latter:

“We are still barred from identifying the defenceless tot further – or naming the mother and her sadistic lover who killed him.” – The Sun

2.

Speaking of possible defiance of the law, the frequently-refreshed ‘libertarian’ Paul Staines (aka ‘Guido Fawkes’) claims to stick to the letter of the law (when sober, at least), and also has a well-earned reputation for switching on Blogger’s comment-vetting function whenever he finds himself in personal difficulty… but in this case, he refused to switch it on until very recently, despite his keyword-rich emotionally-charged posts being a prime target for anonymous dickheads wishing to name names in clear violation of a court order.

When confronted about this last week, Staines claimed that he was too busy to check every link/comment – (so switch on registration or switch off comments if you can’t handle the volume, you dipstick!) – and actually had the temerity to blame the BBC at one stage for an article they had not been ordered to remove from their archives, that really only serves to do damage when someone links the present state of affairs to that archived article (i.e. the kind of crap that Staines has allowed under his comments many times in the past few days).

Quick-changing to ‘law-abiding citizen’ mode just long enough to hit the BBC with a stick, Staines then claimed that he had been in touch with the BBC, and that they refused to remove the article. He then invited me to pursue the matter myself, as if I wouldn’t do this. Just for laughs, I asked Staines to pass on the details of the person he had spoken to so I could, as he put it, take it from where he had left off. This request was ignored, most probably because Staines was making shit up again and didn’t have a damn thing to offer me.

When alerted to the repeated use of this archived article by online vigilantes, the BBC did finally remove it late on Friday.

By contrast, the thread under this post by Staines hosted at least three ‘outings’, and the most overt of these was live on Staines’ site for 16+ hours yesterday… but comment moderation was not switched on until late yesterday or early this morning.

[Staines also inadvertently revealed during our exchange that he does indeed make comments defending himself while pretending to be somebody else, but now is not the time.]

3.

Paul Staines often doublespeaks himself out of difficulty and distances himself from material on his own website by claiming that ‘Guido Fawkes’ is a character, and his blog tabloid is written in the voice of that character.

Therefore, one must wonder if the outrage expressed here, here and here is based on genuine human emotion, or is instead of a bit of colour thrown in to enrich the character and land a few blows on Labour/Brown.

4.

While touching (briefly) on the issue of people possibly playing party-politics (a charge that notorious ambulance-chaser Iain Dale denies), dare I ask if it’s entirely in keeping with a Conservative view to suggest that the state should decide who does and does not deserve to have children?

(And, while we’re here, how would such a ruling be enforced? Photo-ID cards? Bedside scanners? Genital cuffs? Sterilisation?)

Ellee Seymour hangs her half-baked case on a quote from this article from Jon Gaunt, where that stopped clock actually opens his article by saying; “…it must never happen again that we allow an elected and unelected metropolitan elite impose their warped views and social engineering on our country.”

Tim Montgomerie read that article and branded it as; “Another reason why more needs to be done to promote the two parent family and the marriage bond.”

Ellee read that article and Montgomerie’s post and concluded that perhaps it was time for us to allow an elected and unelected metropolitan elite to impose warped sensible views and social engineering.

May Dog preserve us from lightweight ‘bloggers’ with heavyweight demands.

5.

For ‘bloggers’ and newspaper wage-slaves who may not be aware of what the word ‘moderation’ means, here is a definition:

Moderation (noun) – Avoidance of extremes of opinion, feeling, or personal conduct

Comment moderation most commonly involves the avoidance of extremes via deletion of extreme content and/or a quiet word off the record, or publication with a quiet word within the public conversation (that also serves as a warning to others). Very little of that is going on in newspaper websites, and none of it happened here, on the website of ‘leading blogger’ Paul Staines:

John Trenchard said…

bring back hanging… for the council fuckers who allowed this to happen.

as for the scumbags who actually did it – drawing, quartering and heads stuck on spikes would suffice for me.

of course , our political class will do none of this – and thus these baby murderers will get out , on good behaviour in about 7 years. (14 years “life” divided by the parole system)

November 11, 2008 11:01 PM

Of course, this particular ‘blogger’ is going to be blind to some extremes if he himself is expressing a desire for vigilante justice in the hands of “ordinary decent criminals”, but not even the left-loathing Staines would go so far as to suggest that this case justifies the death penalty for council/social workers… or would he?

(Sadly, there’s no telling; any action taken over this comment at this late stage could be a simple act of self-preservation, and there’s little that Staines says that can be trusted.)

6.

The Sun, meanwhile, is hosting a petition that demands “ALL the social workers involved in the case of Baby P” be sacked and “never allowed to work with vulnerable children again”.

a) This may look a tad extreme on the face of things, until you consider that Wade is probably calling for a high body count in order to avoid a further calls for a genuine body count. Think of it as a form of methadone for the mob.

b) Not that this gets Wade off the hook for her ongoing failure to recognise how stupid some people can be, especially when crazed with child-preserving blood-thirst; 1, 2

c) A quick look at the petition shows that it’s not of the credible variety, in that it only asks for a name and location. Testing this morning showed that the petition accepted two submissions from ‘Mr Made-Up Name’ from the same IP address, even after it was closed.

[MINI-UPDATE – The Sun’s web petition is now back online. There is no indication/notice why or when it was taken offline and later returned to service (without visible changes).]

d) George Pascoe-Watson (political editor of the Sun newspaper), was interviewed on Radio 4 late yesterday, and was asked by the host if their coverage was as helpful as it could be. You might want to put that coffee down before you read his response:

“Now, let’s not get carried away with an anti-tabloid campaign!” – George Pascoe-Watson

e) The Sun claims that “over 225,000 caring Sun readers have signed our petition to bring the people responsible for the tragic death of Baby P to justice”. Far be it from me to repeat myself, but this does not take into account the Sun’s readership (3 million or so), which puts apparent support for their (easily diddled) petition at around 6% among their readers.

f) And for those who doubt that some Sun readers may have other views/concerns, I offer this….

7.

After listening to George Pascoe-Watson enthuse on the subject of Sun readers, what they want, and how very important it is that they get it (now!), I popped by their website and noticed something under their ‘petition’ article.

Perhaps you can spot it, too…

Yep, according to the Sun’s own ‘most read stories’ data, this is what Sun-readers care most about, in order of reader-determined priority:

1. X Factor
2. Tits
3. Baby P
4. Sport
5. Tits

And today’s ‘most read stories’ table tells a similar story:

1. Funny pictures
2. Tits
3. Baby P
4. Sport
5. Tits

Oh dear… a consistent third place?

Somebody’s not thinking of the children.

Related bloggage:
Septicisle> – War on personal freedom, Baby P and weekend links
Liberal Conspiracy – Right wing confusion & bile over Baby P








Posted by Tim Ireland at November 13, 2008

Category: Old Media

Boris Watch – Mr Gilligan, I Presume?

Details! Evidence! Forensic analysis!

My goodness, we are spoiled.

And what does Mr Gilligan have to offer us?

Andrew Gilligan – King Ken or Baron Boris – all mayors need a challenge: The new media could be another answer, but isn’t yet. Several anti-Boris blogs now purport to “enhance the accountability of the mayoralty”. Alas, most read more like Private Eye parodies, daily finding new evidence of sinister neo-con evil in Johnson’s choice of breakfast cereal. Even the more measured ones simply copy stories from other media outlets (they all have a particular, and flattering, obsession with the Standard). Boris’s enemies in Nerdistan won’t do much damage until they learn the difference between investigative journalism and a Google search.

Ah. I see.

Did we all get that, then? Andrew Gilligan is superior to his accusers, in that he is a better writer and detective. Therefore, he must be innocent of anything they detect and above answering any questions they write.

That’s logic, that is. I know, because I once read a book about debating and stuff.

You may also note that he doesn’t link to or even name the site(s) he is criticising.

Oh, and the ‘obsessive’ tag, now standard with this kit.

Here’s what I submitted as a comment a few hours ago… it has yet to see the light of day:

Do you deny submitting comments to some of these blogs while pretending to be someone else? Because that’s the issue that’s prompted your outburst about them, I’m sure.

(Just in case your memory is going: the issue you fail to mention in this article is the same one that you got a jolly good ribbing about from your contemporaries this past week.)

The Tory Troll has more.

(Pfft! ‘Nerdistan’. Andrew Gilligan is now officially a wanker.)

UPDATE – Boris Watch is keeping track of comments not published by moderators under Mr Gilligan’s playground taunts. Submit your own failed submissions here.








Posted by Tim Ireland at November 12, 2008

Category: Old Media

Excuse me while I carefully talk around something; I need to warn you about a small problem without using certain keywords for reasons that will be obvious in a few moments…

A tragic death is in the news, a political football is in play, a mob is gathering, and several people cannot be named for legal reasons; it is not clear what those reasons are specifically, but the names weren’t a big secret until very recently, so it probably has something to do with further court proceedings (that anyone with genuine interest in justice wouldn’t want to compromise).

But now, thanks to the good work of the wage-slaves of Rupert Murdoch, widely-distributed articles exist that give anyone with basic knowledge of search engines the means to discover the name of every individual involved within seconds.

At least one ‘blogger’ you should be familiar with (and who should know better) today published information from some cretin that helpfully highlighted the Murdoch-published data and specified on which site the first name could be found; that site just happens to offer kindergarten-level 2.0 tools, so anybody who found the relevant page could leave a comment (yes, these had already started to appear) and look up details of people who had earlier signed up as ‘friends’ of this unnamed person.

I’ve sent an email to the relevant provider, and that profile has now been removed.

Fingers crossed that it ends there, and not with a brick through some innocent person’s window.

UPDATE – The data published by a ‘blogger’ who should know better has now been removed.








Posted by Tim Ireland at November 12, 2008

Category: Old Media

“Put another way, if mass-circulation newspapers, which also devote considerable space to reporting and analysis of public affairs, don’t have the freedom to write about scandal, I doubt whether they will retain their mass circulations with the obvious worrying implications for the democratic process.” – Paul Dacre (source)

David Osler – Paul Dacre on the morality of shag & tell journalism: Paul Dacre’s insistence that newspapers run with shag ‘n’ tell stories principally as a means to promote family values and uphold marital fidelity somehow – how can I put this? – fails completely to convince. Such limited moral rectitude on the matter as he may possess runs little deeper than the desire to sell tabloids by the truckload. Accordingly, the speech delivered by the editor of the Daily Mail to the Society of Editors on Sunday night, in which he actually does push this proposition, has to be dismissed as cant of the most breathtaking proportions.

Max Mosley – My sex life is of interest to no one but this squalid industry: So why this thoroughly disingenuous attack on a high court judge? During his speech, Dacre let the real reason slip. Without scandal, tabloid sales will decline. To keep this squalid industry afloat, an unrestricted right to publicise the sex lives of others is necessary, so the judiciary must be silenced.

Septicisle – The Daily Mail in the flesh: This is nothing more than blackmail covered with eye-watering cynicism. The same person who goes on to lionise the press and how wonderful it is is here suggesting that the gutter press needs scandal to survive. Nice little free press you’ve got here, be a shame if something was to happen to it. The proles need scandal, whilst we provide them with the finest news coverage in the world at the same time. What isn’t there to like?!

5cc – Dacre’s speech to the Society of Editors: Of course, what is being missed here is that every story is driven by scandal in tabloids. Dacre makes it sound as though there’s a little bit of scandal necessary to sell the real, scandal-free news coverage. But this kind of news is virtually non-existent. Almost everything the tabloids report – especially the Mail – is driven by faux outrage, and exaggerated to the point of being unrecognisable from the truth.

In case you haven’t already noticed, this is the game played by pseudo-blogger Paul Staines (aka ‘Guido Fawkes’), who deliberately pushes the more salacious nonsense in pursuit of a larger mob in the name of transparency and accountability. For some. On the left. And maybe any Tories he doesn’t personally care for. Certainly not for himself. That would be silly.

Skip forward to about 1:03:30 on this video to hear Paul Staines admit that he knowingly peddles the more crude/salacious material – and targets hate figures – on his ‘blog’ in order to boost his audience.

Do pause briefly on his use of hate figures, as it’s a startling admission; some charges in his ‘crusade’ are in no way earnest and exist only to rile the mob.

There’s nothing new or 2.0 about what Staines is doing with his ‘Guido Fawkes’ site; it’s primarily a tabloid with even less accountability, and even this he copied off Matt Drudge. His badgering of the ‘dead tree press’ is a nifty bit of web-friendly populism that handily disguises the fact that Staines is himself tabloid scum, right down to the ‘drunk most afternoons’ bit.

Of course, he’s (mostly) free to pursue this course, just as I’m (mostly) free to call him on it and point out that once you step onto that slippery slop*… whoops, too late; Paul’s already making his first none-too-subtle call for mob justice:

“You know in all truth, if ordinary decent criminals used these two as punch bags and they were to be found dead in a blood spattered cell, Guido would cheer. You can’t take the law into your own hands, but when the law fails to protect innocent children, many people including Guido, will say: justice can be a long time coming.” – Paul Staines

Wait, what? “You can’t take the law into your own hands”…? Hm. There’s a ‘nudge nudge, wink wink’ missing here. Oh, wait; here it comes…

“Is it really right that he faces a maximum sentence of only 14 years?” – Paul Staines

Much better.

All we have to do now is wait for someone in Paul’s mob to do the dirty work for him. As usual.

[Seriously, good on you for finally getting back to that Broon link, Paul. And do keep up with the ‘white supremacy’ angle; if you’re bold enough about it, your readers may forget about the alliance you tried to forge with the BNP all those years ago. Oh, sorry… did I just misrepresent what you assure us was a bold mission to infiltrate and discredit that group? My bad. How’s that mission coming along, BTW? Have you finished started it yet, or are you too busy making flaming torches right now? If so, I can understand that. Do take your time. Having some bloke beaten to death in a prison cell is the best way to preserve our democracy and ensure that no more children are exposed to abuse with “wounds of the intensity of a car crash”. Speaking which, I’m sure you’d never allow that sort of thing to happen on your patch; you even take the precaution of only drink driving in the wee small hours of the morning, when all the ickle babies are in bed. Hero!]

UPDATE – Phil Hendren, only one word short of “Hanging’s too good for ’em!”








Posted by Tim Ireland at November 11, 2008

Category: Old Media

Michael White earns a golf clap for his jest and this mention of it in Gilligan’s own paper:

Evening Standard – Footnote for banking: Private Eye editor Ian Hislop presented the 4th annual Paul Foot award last night for investigative journalism… Oddly Guardian assistant editor Michael White appeared to be wearing the name tag of my colleague Andrew Gilligan, who was shortlisted for the award.

The Tory Troll has a round up of further print-based teasing here, but unless Gilligan is properly nailed for this, he will keep doing it and his old-media mates will be further tempted to try it for themselves.

Think of it in terms of garden maintenance; it’s unrealistic to expect the eradication of nettles and bindweed, but we all know what happens if we don’t hack it back from time to time.








Posted by Tim Ireland at October 20, 2008

Category: Old Media, Photoshopping

For those who came in late:
Bloggerheads – Julie Moult is an idiot
Bloggerheads – The Daily Mail: let’s kick arse and take names

1. Finally!

2. It’s too early to start awarding prizes, as these fresh results are still in flux.

3. But, for the record…

a) The folks from thespoof.com have, since the earliest stages, nipped in and out of the front-page results with the classic belm from this article. There is no questioning their status as the first relevant front-page result.

b) Justin was the first relevant *top* Google Images search result (17th Oct), then he slipped into second place behind Check My Inevitables (19th Oct), and this morning he is back in first place (20th Oct).

c) Special mentions go to The Daily Quail for nicking my image (Oi!) then taking a top-row spot that’s rightfully mine (Oi!!), and to Chicken Madras for putting some thought into thumbnail appearance and using BIG werds.

Meanwhile, check this out…

Both the Daily Mail and The Sun have sought to make their readers laugh about the credit crunch by STEALING FROM ARTISTS!

B3ta thread about The Mail nicking images.
B3ta thread about The Sun nicking images.

Something something handbasket, something something couldn’t make it up.

The Daily Mail in particular outdid themselves by responding to this thread by stealing even more images and adding them to their online article. This was after they initially took credit for inspiring the artists (!!!) and slapped a meaningless and misleading copyright notice on all of the images, giving the impression that copyright rests with the owners of the site (it doesn’t) and they had done a deal with those owners (they haven’t).

In other words, they know who they’re stealing from, they know that those artists are unhappy, and They. Just. Don’t. Care.

The new incarnation of Daily Mail Watch will appear shortly. Then you’ll see some serious bloodletting on both fronts.








Posted by Tim Ireland at October 16, 2008

Category: Old Media, The Political Weblog Movement, Tories! Tories! Tories!

[Note – Yes, I still have what ‘blog poll’ data I could gather at the time saved, and I plan to crunch it when I have the time. Of course, Iain Dale himself could sort the whole matter out in maybe two minutes with some simple referral stats for his polling page(s) for the month of the poll, but that’s not going to happen, is it? I would also like it noted for the record that Iain Dale has clear views on the need for outside auditing. For others. Not for himself. Iain is far too perfect for that. Now let’s crack on…]

Total PoliticsThe Publisher

Following some childish shenanigans where Iain Dale used his ‘professional’ magazine to settle a personal score (more), I made several futile attempts to contact that publisher via email.

Instead of responding to that email, Iain thought it would be fun to play a little game…

Because the whole fuss began with Iain failing to receive an email (or merely claiming that he had failed to receive it) I went looking for acknowledgement of receipt of a relevant email that was directed and addressed to him as Publisher of Total Politics. Iain then replied via personal email only to confirm receipt of almost every email bar the one that counted. Repeated and quite explicit requests to confirm receipt of the original email led only to confirmation of receipt of the emails requesting confirmation. And so on and so forth.

Cute. And a pretty good indication of bad faith, I would venture.

The Editor

When I tried to contact Total Politics Editor Sarah MacKinlay through the contact details provided on their website, I was at first ignored, and then blindsided during a polite phone call with some bizarre histrionics (I was accused of being “aggressive” and not going through ‘formal’ channels, then cut off).

So much for discussing the matter sensibly with the Editor.

The only senior contact option left to me at Total Politics was…

The Executive Editor

Shane Greer is the Executive Editor of Total Politics. During a particularly unpleasant exchange with Paul ‘Guido Fawkes’ Staines this year when every right-wing blogger and his dog was having a go at me, Greer chose to ignore the central issue and take sides in a very personal way by declaring me to be “obviously unbalanced”, grouping me with a convicted stalker, and refusing/deleting any meaningful response to this.

I did not see any point in attempting to contact Shane Greer about this matter, and I’m sure any reasonable person can understand why.

The PCC (Press Complaints Commission)

So… raising my hands and admitting (*gasp*) that there might even be fault on both sides here, what we’re left with is two parties in dispute, communications in a state of total breakdown from the off, and a need for mediation.

And in the UK magazine industry, that is normally where the Press Complaints Commission comes into the picture.

Or not.

Because I found out while making my initial enquiries that the political magazine Total Politics is not answerable to the Press Complaints Commission!

In fact the PCC had never even heard of the magazine until I called them. At all.

I don’t need a long paragraph here explaining that politics is a particularly sensitive, volatile, and high stakes media field, do I?

No? Good. Let’s move on, then…

Here is the later confirmation of this disgraceful state of affairs from the PCC:

I can confirm that the current position is that Total Politics does not formally subscribe to the system of regulation overseen by the PCC.

Over 98% of titles do subscribe to the PCC and the Code. We also handle complaints informally against titles that do not subscribe.

But, really, what’s the point when Iain Dale has already placed his magazine outside of its influence and refused to conform to a standard of quality and responsibility accepted by 98% of magazines?

Oh, do excuse me; I just assumed bad faith. Perhaps Iain Dale has merely overlooked this ‘minor’ matter… for about six months.

Perhaps this is something I should discuss with the editorial board dedicated to “keeping Total Politics on track”… but not before offering Iain Dale something he refuses me on his website and now, apparently, in his magazine; a right of reply.

Over to you, Iain.

(waits)

[Psst! This follows Iain Dale playing a major role in a political television station not subject to Ofcom’s Broadcasting Code and his repeated refusal to address or correct minor ‘errors’ (like this push for an apology from Sunny Hundal) on his ‘blog’. A pattern emerges, and it doesn’t take a genius to spot it; Iain Dale is a man who seeks power without accountability. He’s also a man who’s willing to be the sole counter and auditor of votes in a political poll where he himself is in the running but, as I’ve said; that’s for another time.]

UPDATE (11am 17 Oct) – Iain Dale actually confirmed receipt for the relevant email this time around (in a personal not professional capacity, I noticed), but he has not responded beyond this, or issued any statement about his failure/refusal to subscribe to the system of regulation overseen by the PCC. You would think this would be an issue for the publisher of a political magazine, but it appears not. I have just emailed all of the members of the Total Politics editorial board that I could find contact details for. Perhaps this will lead to progress. Let’s see.

Oh, and Sim-O notes here that Iain Dale’s policy on his magazine appears to be the same as that for his blog; if he publishes something about you that you’re unhappy with, he’ll kindly think about changing it, but if he refuses, you’re welcome to… erm… walk away and leave him to it. Oh well. At least that beats being called a “bitch” and told to “piss off”.








Posted by Tim Ireland at September 24, 2008

Category: Humanity, Old Media, Teh Interwebs

An alert popped into my inbox at around 3am this morning, letting me know that Julie Moult finally returned to work late last night (almost a month after this embarrasment), apparently by ‘researching’ the vapour-trail left behind by Finnish gunman Matti Juhani Saari and then adding fresh details to this Daily Mail article.

Actually, the edit timestamps and the author’s failure to know/note the difference between profile text and a “posting” suggest that Julie simply lifted some details from this growing Wikipedia entry and invented the rest.

Here, let me show you what I mean…

This is what the article claims:

One posting made five days before the shooting said: ‘Whole life is war and whole life is pain. And you will fight alone in your personal war.’ (source)

Oh, really?

1. It is not a “posting”; it is text that appears in his YouTube profile. Like his list of interests/hobbies (“Computers, guns, sex and beers”) it is not a post, article or announcement, but instead intended to be general background about the user.

So far we’ve only split a hair, but stay with me…

2. No mention is made of the fact that these are lyrics, and not the words of Saari himself. Yes, lyrics can be chosen and used a personal statement, but why not say that? And while we’re at it, why would the Daily Mail of all papers miss an opportunity to jump up and down and point the finger at people with long hair who make loud music? (See also: Saari’s chosen screen name, Wumpscut86, and this link from his small pile of 18 ‘favourites’.)

Again with the hair, but we’re almost there. Here’s the whopper…

3. Did Saari dramatically post this text to Teh Internets “five days before the shooting”, as this article suggests? No, he didn’t. The text has been in place for well over a month, as the following screen capture of the time-stamped Google cache clearly shows.

The man killed 10 people. FFS, why would anyone feel the need to invent drama?

Perhaps to capitalise on the tragedy and shift a few more units? I’ll leave you to decide.

screengrab of cache of wumpscut86 youtube profile

Speaking of capitalising on a tragedy, several YouTube users are cunningly adding ‘wumpscut86’ to their profiles and/or video details in order to capture a few extra viewers, so hooray for them.

One bright spark even went so far as to pose as Matti Saari, posting several of his videos under the profile name ‘Mydadhitsmymom’ and claiming “yea whats up its me the guy that shot the school – i did it for the lulz”. Hilarious.

Still, I invite you to take a look at the comments left under that version of the ‘Good BYE’ footage. Essentially, these people have just been trolled by someone who is as funny as cancer, yet I can’t help but wonder what they were thinking as they posted these comments under what most of them clearly thought to be the account of a man who had just killed 10 people and was, at the time*, lying in a hospital suffering from a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head.

(*These comments were all made between 0930 and 1030 GMT.)

Were they hoping that Saari would be able to read their comments in the afterlife? If by some miracle he had lived and was then tried, convicted and imprisoned, did they expect him to login to YouTube and reply from his cell? It boggles the mind.

grab of comments submitted to wumpscut86 video hosted by mydadhitsmymom

(BTW, for those who are wondering, ‘kusipää’ is a Finnish word that’s used in much the same way that you or I would say ‘bastard’, ‘arsehole’, or ‘Hendren’. Literally, it translates as ‘pisshead’.)

Related:
Ingram 2.0 – Shooter’s YouTube account didn’t help








Posted by Tim Ireland at September 19, 2008

Category: Old Media, Teh Interwebs, The Political Weblog Movement

Iain Dale hahahaha frowns on hahahahaha fellow ‘blogger’ hahahahaha selling out hahahahahaha with unscientific poll!

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha…. *breeeeeathe*… ahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Can’t. Type. Or speak at normal. Rate.

[unexpected intermission]

Read more here.

Oh, and make a futile attempt to have Iain recognise his hypocrisy here if you feel like it, but do be prepared to (at least) be accused of being me or maybe some form of flying monkey-servant.

[His APCO-sponsored poll of blogs is just for fun, you see. That’s the difference. And no-one is being deceived about what it’s for. Did I mention that it’s just for fun?]

That’s twice this week (1, 2) that the Independent have fed us crap served as ice cream.

Meanwhile, over the pond, Sarah Palin’s email antics have led to a live internet kid-hackery whodunnit drama, complete with a ticking clock and a (so far) tenuous connection to the Democrats:

Christian Science Monitor – Palin’s hacked email account – what’s next?
The Register – Memo to US Secret Service: Net proxy may pinpoint Palin email hackers
Wired – Palin E-Mail Hacker Says It Was Easy

A free round on me if it turns out that Sarah Palin’s password was ‘1234’.

UPDATE (22 Sep, 1pm) – Phil ‘Dizzy’ Hendren charges me with wilful distortion here.

To avoid a lonnnng and complicated post, let’s skip past all examples of Hendren’s wilful distortion bar the most common/glaring one; his claim that I am responsible for “phone call making campaigns” (following email bombardment). I’ve made some rare calls to bloggers/publishers who have offered phone details as a contact option, when it was the only option left to me at the time. The only person in our little community who is guilty of ‘taking it offline’ and actually harassing someone by phone is Phil ‘Dizzy’ Hendren, who also went to the trouble of publishing my ex-directory number on his website in a clear effort to intimidate me. Hendren has sought to reduce his embarrassment over this by splitting hairs down to a subatomic level in some quarters and having others think me guilty of the same (or a similar) offence in others. He does this for the same reason that Iain Dale calls me a liar every chance he gets, and if this game keeps up, sooner or later we can probably expect Paul Staines to express ‘concern’ about the amount of alcohol I drink. How Hendren got his hands on my ex-directory number remains a mystery (the latest story has him calling Someone Who Is Certainly Not Iain Dale out of the blue and – surprise! – immediately chancing upon someone who had my home phone number and didn’t mind sharing this sensitive data), but he appears to be blissfully unaware that any uncertainty about the source of this personal data is a dangerous thing to have floating around when you work on maintaining data for an ISP that controls a great deal of personal data and doesn’t want their customers thinking that it might be used and abused by any old loser.

(ahem)

Now, it is Hendren’s position that I’ve engaged in wilful distortion because – in his view – Iain Dale did not actually ‘slam’ this unscientific poll.

Just for starters, there’s little-to-no question about it being an unscientific poll here, especially when Hendren (an unapologetic user of multiple/false identities) claims in this same post that he was willing and able to diddle it with ease…

“… I took the poll. In fact I took the poll on numerous occasions from numerous locations. I kind of figured that all I had to do was say I was a Labour member to make sure my answers would be included.” (source)

(Alex Hilton assures us that “Non Labour supporters who responded to the survey were stripped from the results”, which is just as reassuring as the ‘Gomer’ character from Good Morning Vietnam saying; “Well, we ask people, ‘Are you the enemy? And whoever says yes, we shoot them.”)

… so, if this is a notable instance of wilful distortion as Hendren claims, the only options left to us are:

– Iain Dale is mildly disapproving of the unscientific poll

– Iain Dale feels ambivalent about the unscientific poll

– Iain Dale does not care about the unscientific poll

– Iain Dale approves of the unscientific poll

With all of the above options, Iain would be blogging this quite deliberately as a feature (rather than a ‘Daley Dozen’ aside) not as a matter of principle, but instead to heighten/further Alex Hilton’s difficulty.

I’m happy to accept as a likely possibility any option that includes Dale being unprincipled, but it should be clear to any idiot not desperate for ammunition that Iain Dale does regard Hilton’s poll to be significantly flawed, and does regard these flaws to be a major aspect of the difficulty Hilton finds himself in (including, I would point out, the key problems that arose from his compromising his integrity/principles in pursuit of monetary gain).

But those with any doubts should take a look at how Iain responds to this anonymous ‘justification’ for the flawed nature of the poll, that he clearly misses as a joking reference to his own:

At September 19, 2008 4:59 PM , Anonymous said…

I think you’re being harsh here, Iain. As far as I can see, the poll was just a bit of fun and never claimed to be accurate.

At September 19, 2008 5:06 PM , Iain Dale said…

It was commissioned by a national newspaper!!

Iain Dale’s objection to this defence is immediate and clear; he obviously regards the poll to be flawed in some way, and – here comes the kicker – he regards the “(it was) just a bit of fun and never claimed to be accurate” defence to be meaningless because the poll was “commissioned by a national newspaper”.

Now, regrettably, we must leave Phil ‘Chick Magnet’ Hendren to his distortions/delusions, and focus on what the above reveals:

If it is seriously Iain Dale’s position that his unscientific poll is “just a bit of fun (that) never claimed to be accurate”, then he either regards this defence to be meaningless or doesn’t think much of APCO Worldwide and his own damn magazine:

“In early September TOTAL POLITICS, in association with APCO WORLDWIDE will publish the 2008-9 Guide to Political Blogging in the UK…” (source)

Oops.

(Psst! Meanwhile, Iain ‘Blinkers’ Dale watched his mate confess to skewing a poll with front-page implications, and saw only evidence of my ‘mendacity’. What a guy. I’d totally trust him to understand what the words ‘politically neutral’ might mean.)








Posted by Tim Ireland at September 18, 2008

Category: Old Media, Page 3 - News in Briefs, Rupert 'The Evil One' Murdoch

Omission of detail #1:

Septicisle on a few matters, including some case detail that the Daily Mail would rather not mention. The front page in question can be seen here.

Omission of detail #2:

Ian_QT fails to note or notice certain details regarding objections to wilful distortion. Helpful details can now be found in comments under that post.

Omission of detail #3:

I’m personally not prepared to comment publicly on the death of Jenny Grant at this time but, yes, I am aware of it. Thank you.

UPDATE – Oh, go on then… have another:

Omission of detail #4:

Check comment No. 4 over here for a litmus test or two and a minor detail that Iain Dale really should have mentioned in the printed version of his rigged poll of weblogs.








  • External Channels

  • Tim Ireland

  • Page 3 Politics

    Page 3: a short history

  • Main

  • Archives

  • Categories

  • Twitter

  • The Cautionary Campfire Songbook

    The Cautionary Campfire Songbook

  • Badges + Buttons

    religion