The case of the disappearing blog

On of our blogs is missing ! I counted them all out, but one failed to come back. Facetiousness aside, what happened to Simon Coulter's blog post on the visit he made to the Holy Land in 1998, in which he comments somewhat unfavourably on the state of upkeep of many of the Christian sites ?

It was there at the start of the Boat race, but missing at the end.

Post-publishing tweaking, which we all do from time to time (at least to correct technical glitches) should not require taking it down. Legal problems ? I'm trying to recall if Simon ventured into minefield territory. Nothing springs to mind immediately.

Updated Sunday 8th April: Simon's blog reappeared today, substantially re-written ( at least the introduction) under the title "Not the Easter Message". We are left to speculate on what the problem was with his Mark I version.


Simon Coulter is one of the Telegraph's Trusty Trio of guest bloggers. He's still posting comments to "Your View" ("Are we doing enough to tackle gun crime ?"). I usually agree with most of his opinions, but not today's on gun crime, in which he joins the ranks of those who consider the recent gun control legislation has failed. Although not challenging him directly, I have pointed out that the new laws were a response to the Hungerford and Dunblane massacres, and not to the use of guns for your ordinary everyday criminal nastiness.

An aside re Telegraph moderation: anyone reading my first comment may think it ends suddenly without making its point. Indeed it does. The moderators took exception to something in the second half. Here's the complete submission, with the blue-pencilled part shown in, you guessed, blue.


"Past experience of shootings suggests there are three distict groups. There are those who carry guns, sometimes for self-defence against rival gangs, or as fashion accessories. These are people who are often, but not always, associated with the so-called "black-on-black" shootings. Then there are the criminals who carry guns for hold-ups - they can be any colour. And then, finally, there's that almost extinct species (thanks to post-Hungerford/Dunblane gun control legislation) who have a lifelong fascination with guns, who attend target practice every week, and who once in a while flip, and proceed to summarily "execute" their fellow human beings.

Before one can reasonably discuss the most recent outrage, one needs ideally to know to which of the three groups the assailant belonged. Was it a gangmember or criminal who kept a weapon at home, and then allowed a petty dispute to get out of hand, grabbed the weapon, and did something they will regret for the rest of their lives ? If so, then this kind of impulse killing can only be reduced by a further strengthening of gun control laws, eg by increasing the length of sentences for illegal possession of a firearm. Or is it a mini-Hungerford situation, in which someone has managed to retain a weapon that should have been handed in years ago, and fulfilled a lifelong fantasy to turn it on someone who has crossed them in the past?

Right now, I have an open mind. But how long before we see one of those mindless comments to the effect that our gun control legislation has misfired (no pun intended), that possession of weapons is an inalienable right of man, that it is the person that kills, not the weapon, bla, bla, bla."


Speaking of commentaries, did you listen to ITV's Boat race commentary ? The guy sounded like he was competing for the Booker prize, with his pre-prepared script, with similes, metaphors and purple passages all tumbling out at a rate of knots (if you'll pardon my own confused simile).

Comments welcome. email: sciencebod01@aol.com

Blogospheric tactics for beginners

LESSON 7 : Trolls, Clones and Innocent passers-by

Having mastered the first 6 lessons, you should by now be finding your feet, and applying some of those techniques you have recently acquired.

And what is the main point we have stressed repeatedly ?

Yes, it's that PASSIVITY is always perceived as a sign of weakness.

In the Brave New World of the blogosphere, the only thing that counts is ASSERTIVENESS, allied ideally to total TRANSPARENCY.

But sometimes, as we have said, there is no choice but to go over, if not quite to the Dark Side, at least into shady territory.

Today's Lesson, Number 7 in the series, takes the form of a case history, and it's drawn from a recent MSM duel.

It was a Telegraph blog, in which Shane Richmond invited readers to meet him on his own ground (now there's one adventurous soul ! ) . Sadly, that fine gesture on his part brought out both the best and worst in the small blogging community that logs on to his site.

There were 16 comments in all. The entire thread is reproduced below ( I trust that's OK with you Shane: I didn't consider it necessary, or prudent, to consult, maybe for obvious reasons).

Here's what you have to do:

1. Identify the troll
2. Identify the target
3. Identify the clones. How many are there ?

"Hold on a minute", I hear you say." Who or what are "clones" ? Have I missed something ? I don't recall hearing "clones" mentioned before on this course. "

Correct, dear student, but common sense should tell you what that term "clone" refers to in the present context.

Why do you think clones were deployed in this thread. In other words, what was their intended role, and was their intended purpose achieved ?

What are your feelings about the ethics of (a) the trolling (b) the cloning ?

Comments invited, but regrettably by emails only ( a defence against those trolls ....)


sciencebod01@aol.com


Here then are the comments posted to Shane's post:

Look forward to meeting you
Nice one, Shane. I must hand it to you folk at the Telly - when it comes to the human touch you are streets ahead of the competition.I went to a similar hospitality "do" quite recently at the headquarters of Nice Matin, on the outskirts of (not surprsingly) Nice. That was most interesting - I've been meaning to post my video, complete with noisy soundtrack, but with my own modest blog in semi-hibernation mode, I have not got round to doing so yet.Have just this minute booked my flights - in on the 12th, back the next day. I look forward to meeting you and your splendid team. PLEASE don't change your mind .....Colin Berry (Antibes, France) at 14 Mar 2007 15:39

Look forward to meeting you (ii)
I'm definitely up for this.I would have been suggesting it myself 'ere long.
Sally Crawford at 14 Mar 2007 17:05

Look forward to meeting you (iia)
PS: art, art music and art literature would be my choice of blog topic/blogger; I get enough politics with my day job.
Sally Crawford at 14 Mar 2007 17:44

fly them in
At present this looks like being a pretty select party. However, if Daniel Hannan were there to kick-off proceedings and wind us all up with a brief Euro-homily, Catherine Elsworth and Bryony Gordon to bring a bit of chat and charm, Mick Cleary to buy those drinks he's been promising, and Toby Howse to generally raise the tone, I'd be delighted to accept.
Roger Goodacre at 15 Mar 2007 10:08

I wish I could fly them in!
Hi Roger,It won't be all that select - most people are emailing me their response, rather than leaving them in the comments. So far 15 people have said they'll come and eight Telegraph bloggers have confirmed that they will be there.I'll try to get Mr Hannan along - however he's in Brussels most of the time. Likewise Catherine Elsworth - I don't think the foreign desk will take too kindly to me taking one of their correspondents away from their post...I'll ask Bryony and Mick, though. But, as for your last request, are you after Toby Harnden or Christopher Howse?Shane Richmond at 15 Mar 2007 10:46

Christoby Howden
Sorry, a slip of the pen - both would be welcome, Christopher Howse was the intended, and I guess he might come cheaper (from his photo, I have to say he looks like a Toby though).. Disappointed to hear it won't after all be select.
Roger Goodacre at 15 Mar 2007 11:26

I'll see what I can do
Toby is unlikely - for the same reasons as Catherine. Though if this becomes a regular event I'll schedule future ones so that we can catch foreign correspondents on their occasional visits to home base.I'll speak to Christopher.It may be a juggling act to ensure that numbers are small enough for the event to be intimate but large enough that everyone who wants to attend can get in.I may cap the numbers at around 30, plus ten Telegraph staffers. That should be a decent size.Still, we haven't reached 30 yet so perhaps I won't have to cap at all.So can we expect to see you on April 12, Roger?
Shane Richmond at 15 Mar 2007 11:33

I will look in my diary.
Sounds like a better class of party. I am too old for fighting but whilst the youngsters grapple with each other over the hand, and possible other parts, of Bryony, Richard of Orleans and I could prop up the bar (there will be one won't they)and empty Mick's pockets in the process whilst solving the Anglo/French/Irish problems once and for all.It would be interesting to compare the photos with the flesh so to speak and I might find the moderator who objects to my light hearted banter about the Scots. (I love them dearly, I just have an unusual way of expressing it). Can't promise anything but I will see what I can do, unless I get death threats, in that case I will definitely turn up.
ped at 15 Mar 2007 11:41

I am skipping 'Growing tips for plants' at the YWCA for this gig
And Shane, if I may,You will try, won't you, to mix the genders (although please do not feel the need to exert yourself TOO much).But, as I see from the above, males would appear to be preponderant (I use the word advisedly). Fine. Please ask Mr Leith and Mr Toronyi-Lalic to attend.Actually, I could now skip out of the meeting with the 30 readers because I have already had the thought that perhaps the one way that journos can make their blogs different to those of the rest of us is to take the bold step of interacting with their readers.And you're already there.:))But I don't think I could bear not to meet ped, Richard of Orleans et al.
Sally Crawford at 15 Mar 2007 20:41

CO2 neutral
Shane, your meeting is a nice idea. I just have one concern. In these green times I believe this type of meeting should be as CO2 neutral as possible. Excessive and unreasonable travel should be avoided. I suggest you limit your invitation to those people who live in a 1000 km radius of London. People beyond this limit who really want to attend could come on a bicycle or in a rowing boat. Alternatively take a one way ticket only
richard of orléans at 16 Mar 2007 05:57

Health warning
Would it not be a good idea for "Richard of Orleans" to label his posts so we know what is intended, eg "This one is to reveal my ignorance of the facts" or "This one is just anti-Brit" or "This one is meant to be funny" ?
Tony S at 16 Mar 2007 10:56

It's a little bit funny
One has to suppose that the "joke" is at the expense of the guy who's flying in. If that be the case, then its presumably an in-joke between a couple of internet buddies. If it's not, then it's no joking matter at all. It's what we here (USA) call internet stalking.
geejay at 17 Mar 2007 03:02

Helpful Suggestion
As you are aware the lottery will no longer be paying out any prizes since all funds are needed for the financing of the Olympic Games. In Coe and Jowell’s finely tuned budget this hiatus is not expected to have any impact on the revenue generated from the patriotic Brits who are eager to contribute to this prestige project. However just in case some of the more money pinching souls are tempted to reduce outgoings, might I suggest that you offer tickets to Shane’s blog meetings as an alternative reward.
Richard of Orléans at 17 Mar 2007 07:29

It's that man again
Now that's a real brain-teaser you have given us there, "Richard of Orleans", where the filecard index is concerned (see MY helpful suggestion).The first sentence is definitely Category 1 - ignorance of the facts. It's not the Lottery prize fund that's to be raided, it's the grants to good causes, something entirely different. The final sentence is pretty opaque too, except the last bit. Yep, I'm all in favour of free tickets to Shane's shindig. Provided it's restricted to those who can write the Queen's English.
Tony S at 17 Mar 2007 13:14

Take it as read
Why would no one take it (CO2 neutral comment) as a serious relexion that we shouldn't be polluting our surroundings with CO2 and noise for the sake of non essential meetings?Or has environmentalism now become "stalking", to our rather heavily polluting American co-inhabitants of planet earth?
Richard of Orléans at 18 Mar 2007 14:55

"Richard of Orléans"
Anyone still reading this thread, Shane, whose eyes are not completely glazed over by now, may be wondering what on earth "Richard of Orléans" is blathering about (see "CO2 neutral" etc). Well, it's certainly not a genuine concern for the environment, as "geejay" above has correctly surmised, despite Richard's solemn assurances. It is in fact a case of "Richard of Orléans" using your post as an opportunity to snipe at someone he regards as the arch enemy. Now why would he do that, you may ask ? It's for a number of reasons, but mainly for my having had the temerity in the past to challenge his oft-stated anglophobic views - despite his being a UK national himself, a long-term resident in France (although still unnaturalized) - and for my having the effrontery to retire to France, which he considers "sponging".Here's a comment he posted yesterday to Louise's "Chocolates and Cuckoos" blog (see link below) which should leave readers in no doubt as to this man's true agenda:https://www2.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=37839278&postID=691498354887055363

"Colinb for me is the quintessential Englishman: free speech if you say the right thing, democracy if you vote for him, free trade as long as you buy his goods, fair play provided he wins, justice subject to him writing the laws as well as being judge and jury. There is an island set aside for people like him, he should go there." 3/17/2007 5:12 PM

Note in particular the final sentence, which ties in with his reference above to that "one-way ticket". He expects me, it would seem, to sell up, and return to the UK, because I and fellow retired Brits are deemed to be economically non-productive (despite spending freely on a multitude of French goods and services, and paying an assortment of taxes etc). The fact that I'm legally resident under EU and UK rules appears to cut little ice with this self-appointed defender of the French national interest, as seen through the prism of Orléans. I don't know about you Shane, but Richard of Orléans would appear to me guilty of at least a degree of self-indulgence in his questionable use a Telegraph blog to grind his particular axe. But then, you know this guy's modus operandi: he's almost an institution on Telegraph blogs, but may still have newcomers shaking or scratching their heads. Some might consider this man to have a confounded cheek, obsession even, to be pursuing one particular UK expatriate in particular, especially as he hides behind a pseudonym, while I use my real name. Perhaps we could discuss the issue of problematical posters such as Richard of Orléans when we meet next month.
Colin Berry at 18 Mar 2007 18:35

Peed off with Telegraph blogs

This is my third and final post on the subject of those Telegraph blogs.

ed. Update now added (in red): go to end of post

Here's what happened when I tried responding to Shane Richmond's blog posting entitled:

The Most Read Blog Posts of 2006


This was his ranking:

1. Shane Richmond: Singalong-a-Shearer (4 July)
2. Hilary Alexander: Posh's short sharp shock (3 August)
3. Anton La Guardia: Slip of the tongue (1 April)
4. Shane Richmond: Altered images (4 August)
5. Kate Connolly: Europe's biggest brothel (17 May)
6. David Rennie: The cartoon row goes on (1 February)
7. Anton La Guardia: How has this cartoon crisis come about (2 February)
8. Hilary Alexander: Hilary vs Hugh - fashion week fighting (19 September)
9. David Rennie: On the trail of the extra cartoons (6 February)
10. David Derbyshire: Peter Gabriel interview (27 October)

Are some of you regulars thinking what I'm thinking ? So off went the following Comment:

Popularity contests

Whilst not wishing to detract from your top ranking, Shane, might I take issue with you on one point. These are not necessarily the "most read blog posts". They are the post titles, with accompanying graphic and first sentence or two, that have attracted most interest to make folk want to click and read further .

It is perhaps not surprising that titles that mention celebrities occupy the top two positions, and others, with words like "brothel" and those cartoons look equally click-worthy. A more balanced survey would take account of other factors, whether measurable (eg number of comments) or perhaps not, such as time spent reading before moving on to something else.

The largest number of comments on a blog was for one of Colin Randall's (some 180 as I recall), but some of his faithful followers - myself included- did show an occasional tendency to stray off-topic, or even invent the occasional new visitor to enliven the proceedings.

But then the blog is essentially a branch of showbiz, would you not agree ?


That was sent 3rd Jan at about 6pm. Nothing appeared that evening. In fact, nothing appeared the whole of the next morning. Yet other comments, received after mine, went up. But I could not immediately protest. Why not ? Because I learned recently that when the Telegraph moderators go to work on a backlog of Comments, they deal with them on a " Last Come, First Served Basis" . Or "First Come, Last Served". Yes, that's official: it's from the horse's mouth (email from Shane Richmond).

So, to put down a marker, I sent the following short Comment to the same thread, which went up almost immediately:

A proper audit ?

Afterthought to the comment sent yesterday, Shane (although not as yet displayed !).

Does your league table include posts from that renowned, but sadly erstwhile blogger, Colin Randall ? Or Alec Russell, for that matter ?


That one went up quickly, thus making it abundantly clear to Telegraph readers that an earlier one was missing !

It took quite some time, though, for the earlier one to appear - hours, not minutes.

There was a similar performance today (see Comments on previous post). Comments received at the Telegraph this morning went up immediately.

One of mine, sent Saturday, only appeared 8 hours later. Yes, 8 hours !

ed : note added 10 Jan - it was held back, in fact, nearer two days in total !

And another sent the same day, to Toby Harnden's blog hasn't appeared at all. And even Toby is finding replies he sends to his own blog fail to appear (see Comments, previous post). Toby thinks it's an IT fault in the system. Personally, I think it's a human fault - failure to clear backlogs, exacerbated by the perverse policy of moderating in reverse chronological order. Whatever the explanation, it's not being dealt with.

Hell, what am I doing, documenting all this stuff ? Anal-retentiveness was not part of the New Year's resolutions ( except for cleaning that model ship on a monthly basis).

Let's not mince our words: those of us who post comments to Telegraph blogs are seen as a sad little bunch of individuals who can be treated in the most casual offhand fashion.

So the comment was sent two days ago - and is still waiting to be "moderated". "So what ? Let 'em wait. Show 'em who's boss. And if they moan, well, we can just ignore their comment altogether. No, that's not censorship, 'cos we won't even bother reading it. We'll just consign it straight to that good 'ol virtual dustbin. "

Well, I'm reading you loud and clear, Daily Telegraph. So here's me, blogging off. You can go find yourself another mug.

Update: Toby Harnden is in deep s***. I'm keeping quiet ( one doesn't kick a man when he's down). And Ben Fenton has once again got backs up by mixing up astronomy with astrology, at Patrick Moore's expense. It's not on his blog this time, for which I took him to task on a previous occasion, but a main article, inviting comments. Here's something I bashed off quickly, which has yet to appear at the time of writing:

" This is not the first time that Ben Fenton has used his privileged position on the Telegraph (or his blog) to introduce an astronomy topic, and then proceed to trivialise it with references to astrology. This might be understandable (though not forgivable) in a red-top tabloid.
Does he have any idea of the insult that he causes to readers who thirst for the latest scientific discoveries concerning our planet, the Solar System and the Universe ? Does he not realise that there are many among us who have astrology mentally bracketed with seances and tarot cards, and consider it a pollutant in any discussion of astronomy ? "

14:00 London time: The Telegraph has recently added a batch of extra comments to Ben Fenton's story. Yes, you guessed correctly: mine is not among them. It has clearly been censored.
Mental note: there's no point wasting any more time in sending comments to either the Telly's blogs or its main stories. The new Victoria HQ has become the Kremlin for Conrad Black's new empire.

But somebody else makes a similar point to my own, in slightly toned down language, and questions why a "quality paper" allows Fenton to publish his trivial down-market guff.

And the s*** just keeps getting deeper for Toby Harnden......

So what's going on at the Telegraph these days ?

Piton post: needs to be read in reverse, starting at the end ! Colour -coded for convenience.

Update 1350 London time . It's finally appeared, my comment to Ben Fenton's blog, would you believe it ! Not the original, sent yesterday, but the duplicate sent a short while ago (see below). So what happened to the original, one may ask ? And why has the sequence of events described here happened time and time again in the past, with no satisfactory explanation ?

My next step is to email Ben Fenton and Shane Richmond, suggesting that they take a glance at this blog, and perhaps offer, if not an apology, at least an explanation.

Update 13.45 London. Despite sending a duplicate some 45 minutes ago, there are still no Comments on Ben Fenton's Saddam posting.

The Telegraph's main page for blogs (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/) now shows the latest 15 postings - an improvement on the past. But the window for seeing a particular post on that main page is now down to a couple of days or less, as new blogs flush old ones off the bottom, so to speak, into the archives.

Ben Fenton's is now 8th in the list. How long before it disappears from view, without my comment, possibly without any, for that matter ? So, to repeat the title, what IS going on at the Telegraph these days ?

I shall resubmit my comment a third and final time at 14.00 London.

Update 13.00 London time. Comment resubmitted under new title "Justice or Revenge ?". Original comment sent yesterday had still not appeared, needless to say.

Update: 12.56 London time. Still not appeared. In the past when this had happened, like yesterday for example (details later) one's first reaction is to think that the Comment was never received. But that has rarely if ever been the case. When one persists, by sending complaining emails etc. the Comment is always found, and does finally appear. But why was it held up in the first place ? Is it an attempt at half-hearted censorship ? If so, of the particular Comment, or the individual who sent it ? Does anyone else have this experience ?

At 1300 I will re-submit the Comment to see what happens !



This is what I previously called a "piton post". It's one that appears in instalments in real time. Updates, as they appear, will go at the top.

The starting point is the following Comment that I sent yesterday (4th Jan) at 19.00 hr approx London time to Ben Fenton's latest Telegraph blog post. It's entitled "We've played into Saddam's hands".



http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/ukcorrespondents/benfenton/jan07/saddammartyr.htm

Here's what I wrote, which I consider relevant to the topic, and which makes a serious point at the end.

It begin's by quoting a line from Ben's post:

"To others, the only good that can come from a bad deed is by the careful and judicial exercise of revenge."

Judicial exercise of revenge ? Is that not a curious juxtaposition of the sublime and ridiculous ? Since when has justice, and the entire apparatus of courts, been about revenge ?

The whole point of having proper legal channels for prosecution of crime is surely to prevent a relapse into a lynch mob society in which everyone feels it necessary to take the law into their own hands. Justice and subsequent punishment are about holding wrongdoers accountable for their actions, so that the victims of crimes, or their surviving relatives, do not suffer the added insult of feeling that criminals are allowed to get off scot-free.

Wanting revenge is natural, and some may indeed gloat over the imposition of a heavy sentence, but that is surely not the purpose of the punishment: it is to bolster confidence in the rule of law, and hopefully (but not assuredly) deter others from committing the same crime.

There are many, myself included, who in general oppose the death penalty for even the vilest of crimes. That can be for any number of reasons - on grounds of principle (all human life is sacred), or to avoid acting as God, or merely out of recognition that judges and juries occasionally get it wrong.

But in the case of Saddam Hussein, there were special, almost unique, circumstances. Given the man's track record in exacting the most terrible revenge on entire communities - women and children included, it could be seen as a gross injustice to Kurds, Shias, Marsh Arabs, Kuwaitis and others to have allowed that monster to get off with a prison sentence. It would have left open the possibility, no matter how remote, that he might one day have been released, say as a result of terrorist blackmail, to return to power as Mr.Invincible, only to initiate a whole new cycle of revenge.

I believe, reluctantly, that the death sentence was appropriate. What I do not understand is why he was denied his stated wish to die by firing squad, instead of a hangman's noose. Is it not enough that someone forfeits their life? Why inflict the added ignominy of selecting a particular form of capital punishment deemed appropriate for a common criminals (hanging) ? And with the wisdom of hindsight, admittedly, a firing squad gives less opportunity for sadists to surround the condemned man at the moment of death with their taunting and gloating.

On a final technical note, is it not time that we dropped the use of the "hanging" as a generic term. Saddam Hussein died by virtually instantaneous cervical dislocation , ie severing of the spinal cord in the neck, which is altogether different, and more humane, than hanging as carried out elsewhere, eg Iran, where the condemned are hoisted up on cranes. That type of hanging does not involve a drop, and so causes an unspeakably brutal, protracted death by slow throttling. Sorry to end on such a grim note.

At the time of writing ( 13.40 London time today, 5th Jan) my Comment has still not appeared, despite the latest crop of comments starting to go up at about 11.00 hours London time .

Now why is that you may ask ? Watch this space for further developments !

What got the President upset ?

There was a post yesterday by Toby Harnden in Washington on his Telegraph blog. The title was “Bush slams rude British reporters”. The gist was that the President has finally lost patience with the refusal of some of the British press corps to stand when he enters the room – apparently the only contingent not to do so.

Here’s a link to a YouTube video of his allegedly getting irate with a question from Nick Robinson of the BBC

Video link

Well, watch it for yourself, although it's quite long.

(Click on the green link above , then be patient: it takes a few seconds for the video to get moving)

The pictures above are a couple of freeze-frames that I captured from the site.

Here's the latest of three comments that I've placed on Toby's blog. As you will see, I am profoundly sceptical about Bush's response, long and emotional though it was, being linked to discourtesy on the part of our Washington media scrum, deplorable though it is (in my view) that they remain seated.

Run that past me again

I have just watched a replay of Bush's answer to Nick Robinson of the BBC. Angry response ? That's not how I would have described it. An initially startled, gob-smacked, rabbit-in headlights response, maybe, and then an emotional, back-to-the-wall posture. But there was no obvious personal rancour, and certainly no reference, or even hint, of chagrin against those journalists who failed to stand up.Sorry, can't see what all the fuss is about (unless Toby *Harnden's report is coloured or influenced by what he might subsequently have heard from the White House Press Corps).

Colin Berry at 14 Dec 2006 10:42

* Apologies, by the way, for misspelling as "Tony". There's a lot of distracting (roof repair) activity going on around me as I write !

The two earlier posts in the thread were to point out (casting modesty to the winds) that it had been yours truly who had first raised the matter of our journalists' conduct at White House press briefings. That was back in August, when Alec Russell was the Telegraph's man in Washington.

He had posted on the subject of the 2008 Presidential elections. Feeling that some of the current jockeying and polemics might look somewhat irrelevant in 2 years time, I wrote the following:

Boring and boorish

I can't imagine that a London-based journalist for the Washington Post would be salivating at the prospect of a UK General Election that was two years away. Yet Alec Russell seems here to be in the throes of a bad case of the local Potomac fever. Meanwhile, back here on Planet Earth, attention is fixed on the tragic events in Lebanon. I could forgive Alec and his fellow band of UK journalists in Washington if there were some consistency in their fixation with wannabee US Presidents. The US President is, after all, a Head of State, a position comparable to the Queen, though far more powerful because it's not above politics. So why does the UK press contingent refuse to stand when the President enters the briefing room at the White House ? I know they don't stand for the PM at home, but Tony Blair, despite his posturing on the world stage, is merely the head of a Government, not Head of State, and is not elected directly. I'm sure Alec Russell would stand if the Queen entered the room. But what happened anyway to the old dictum, "When in Rome ....". It seems to me boorish and discourteous in the extreme for a few to remain seated, drawing attention to themselves, when everyone else is standing. Don't misunderstand me - this is not about abject submission to a superpower, it's about elementary courtesy and good manners. If you think I'm someone who kowtows to George W Bush or to the USA, then open a thread, Alec, on the so-called "special relationship", and prepare for a broadside, all guns blazing.

Colin Berry at 08 Aug 2006 08:31

So imagine my (pleasant) surprise when Alec took this subject as the topic for his very next blog. Here's what he wrote:

In answer to the criticism of one Colin Berry who asks why British journalists stay seated when President George W Bush enters a press conference, I have to say I share his irritation.
The White House press corps can be a touch too self-important and grand. But to stand up when the head of state enters a room is not to compromise your objectivity, it is merely good manners.
If Colin had looked carefully at the footage of the last Bush-Blair press coverage or indeed the Bush-al-Maliki press conference a few days earlier he would have seen The Daily Telegraph’s correspondent upstanding.
So is this something to do with working for a newspaper of a traditional hue? I don’t think so. At least it appears that the Number Ten press corps is divided on the issue and not down ideological lines.
The other day when the two amigos strode into the East Room more than half the British press corps stood, the rest shuffled in their seat and stared defiantly ahead.

So when Toby posted yesterday, I reminded him of the provenance of this topic. Here's what I said, and his immediate reply.

Been there, done it ....

This debate induces a strong sense of déjà vu. Remember Alec Russell, erstwhile Washington correspondent for the Telegraph, who used to blog here ? He posted back in August on the subject of that despicable British-bum-on-seat brigade.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/foreign/alecrussell/august06/communistneocon.htm

How do I know ? Because I was the one who was first to give our discourteous fellow countrymen a ticking off: they more than anyone should know that the office of US President is more comparable to that of our monarch, as distinct from prime minister, and thus RISE TO THE OCCASION !

Colin Berry at 13 Dec 2006 17:10

Here's Toby Harnden's immediate reply:

Telegraph solidarity

Thanks for that Colin. It appears that Telegraph correspondents old and new think alike! Alec was my foreign editor for several years so maybe he helped instill the good manners in me (as well as my parents, of course). The new development I find particularly interesting is that Bush is personally annoyed by this. Also, it seems that views within the British press corps have hardened because virtually all the Brits remained seated last week. At the last joint press conference in May, as I recall, it was only a handful. And, according to Alec, in August it was split down the middle. At this rate, maybe the British ambassador will be remaining seated by the end of 2008!

Toby Harnden at 13 Dec 2006 18:02

Considering in retrospect that I came close to accusing Toby of plagiarism (which was certainly not my intention) then that's a very friendly and courteous reply. A worthy successor, wouldn't you say, to the breezy and congenial Alec Russell ?

Re Alec: one hopes fortune will soon smile upon him, if it has not done so already, given the shabby way that he, Colin Randall and others were treated by their bosses at Telegraph Head Office.

This post has to be somewhat "telegraphic" too, for reasons already mentioned.

Postcript added 15th Dec: received a friendly email yesterday from Toby Harnden. He concludes with the following welcome news re Alec Russell: "Alec is going to Johannesburg for the Financial Times so he has very much landed on his feet."

The MSM and those token gestures to bloggers

There have been two examples in the last 24 hours of what I would call token gestures on the part of the MSM towards us bloggers.


Sunday Times

The first, the more serious of the two, concerns an error in the Sunday Times, 29th October 2006. In a feature on that awful Corfu tragedy, in which 2 children died of carbon monoxide poisoning, it was confidently asserted , under the heading "Carbon Monoxide: the Facts", that the gas was heavier than air, and so built up as a layer from the floor.

That in fact is totally wrong - the gas is lighter than air- which I immediately pointed out here the same day, and then reproduced the short letter of correction that I sent to the ST the following day.

And then nothing happened, till last Sunday, 3 weeks later. I missed it, as I expect most readers did, because it appeared as a small item, at the botttom of "News in Brief" on Page 2. It read:

Correction The report "Lost to the Silent Killer" (Focus, October 29) incorrectly said that carbon monoxide was a heavy gas that built up from the floor to affect sleeping people. In fact, it is less dense -thus lighter- than air.

It was , in fact, an email from the ST Letters editor that alerted me to the fact that a correction had finally appeared.

But why did the corrction not appear, attributed, on the Letters page ?

Could it be because my letter included a link to this blog, saying that here was where the reader could find precise numerical data ?

Yes, of course it was self-publicity, but it also helped to keep the letter brief and uncluttered with numbers. So was that a mistake on my part?

And why the 3 week delay in making their correction for something that could have been confirmed on Google in a minute or two ? And why bury it on Page 2, column 1 ? An attempt to save face ?

Daily Telegraph

The second example is less serious, but it mentioned here, as a miniscule contribution to the sum total of blogging trivia.

Yesterday I sent a one-liner to Ceri Radford's latest post to her Telegraph blog. It was a somewhat crass response to her most treasured Hamlet soliloquy, and an even more irreverent swipe at the modern TV soap.

The box for entering one's text asked for one's "Home Page", assuming one had one. So I entered www.dreams-and-daemons.blogspot.com wondering what would happen.

Apparently nothing, at first glance. There was no visible reference to the URL. But on closer inspection, one noticed that one's name was in a microscopic pale-blue font, whereas others were in a grey. Clicking on blue names did indeed bring up one's blog. Fame at last !

That's a nice feature, but one that I suspect is little known outside the blogging fraternity. It's a token gesture, no more, to us. But it's so inconspicuous as to pose little risk of any casual visitor to the Telly's blogs being diverted away from the mighty Main Stream Media !