MSM and blogging
Just finished listening to Sarah and Damien on Media Matters on Newstalk. Dear god we bloggers are the lowest of the low, unregulated guns for hire according to Roger Greene. Now given the opposition to regulation and a press council, pot kettle, calling and black comes to mind. But he is a broadcaster so is regulated. Or maybe just afraid? Fair play to 1169 and counting for getting their plug in for a vote - unfortunate that Roger mucked up your text with another of an anti islamist!
posted by Maman Poulet @ 2/12/2006 12:48:00 p.m.
20 Comments:
Yes, the whole anti-Islamist text left a sour taste. Instantly the text was attributed to a blogger! Silly.
That was a crappy plug, as far as I can tell. I heard no reference to a URL or a location / date!
I've been on radio and in the media few times because of my blog (the old one) - and was treated like some sort of a freak "you have a wha'?"
Doesn't look like it's gotten any better.
Well it would have been a great plug and lightened the interview considerably if Roger had not got all excitra and delightra at the sight of an anti-Islamist text msg and tagged it to the plugging text. He was just dying to label us all as unpoliced, racist, hatred inciting and legally risky and at risk.
Maybe they should have pointed out that it was news papers not bloggers that "broke" the liam lawlor story.
There was a plug for the site. He asked where people could go to look at who was nominated and who to vote and I said www.awards.ie No way I wouldn't have got my plug in.
Saying that it shows how far bloggers need to go to counter some of FUD
eh.... Damien we were talking about the 1169 and counting plug for votes not the www.awards.ie mention.
Ah ok, mea culpa, just thought Tom meant the event itself when he mentioned date and location.
*turns defensive mode off*
I did rather like Sharon's plug though.
ah right so, well I'll leave Tom to explain himself. /me makes Damien cup of camomile tea.
Yeah, I just meant 1169 not getting the URL read out.
Media Matters should do a full show on weblogs, and the defence for weblogs should be debated online first and then brought into the show to hammer the "proper journalists" with :-)
I just thought he laboured the point too much. There's a lot to be said about blogs, a whole lot, not just the libel issue. We'll have to arrange for someone else to do it..
Hi all !
I did'nt want to take a chance on possibly 'confusing' Roger by including the full URL of our blog in my text , so I thought it safer to simply mention '1169 And Counting' .
And I texted back regarding his screw-up over our plug and the Islamist text he bastardised our text with , but was apparently too late to get 'on air' with my comments re same . If you are of the opinion that Roger and/or 'Newstalk' attempted to paint us bloggers in a bad light , then please register that complaint .
By voting for '1169 And Counting' as 'Best Political Blog' .
There really is no limit to which I won't go , is there ....! ;-)
Sharon .
Maybe they should have pointed out that it was news papers not bloggers that "broke" the liam lawlor story.
In case we forget, there were also a couple of bloggers who repeated every 'fact' printed on Lawlor's death in the O'Reilly press.
And there was some legally risky behaviour indulged in when the Northern Bank robbery cash was allegedly discovered in Cork.
Yes, the whole anti-Islamist text left a sour taste. Instantly the text was attributed to a blogger!
There was a certain blogger who reprinted the cartoons in question on his blog, and then accompanied that with a post entitled "Was the Prophet Mohammed a paedophile?".
Mr. Greene wouldn't have needed to go far to find evidence for his claim - the individual in question occasionally pops up on Newstalk of a Saturday morning!
EWI, I'm not exactly a fan of Richard Waghorne, but I really think that you're devoting far too much time writing about him.
EWI, I'm not exactly a fan of Richard Waghorne, but I really think that you're devoting far too much time writing about him.
Colm, *shrug* whether or not that's true is irrelevent to my raising the point. RW did prove Richard Greene's point. That he gets away with it so much because he's "one of us" is fairly disgraceful, in my opinion.
I agree with Colm. I found myself putting a warning the last time I made a post that just mentioned Richard because of previous posts getting anti-Richard comments. - http://www.mulley.net/2006/02/10/building-up-the-gay-agenda/
It's the last warning I'll be putting up too.
I found myself putting a warning the last time I made a post that just mentioned Richard because of previous posts getting anti-Richard comments.
First thing - I purposely didn't mention RW's name (in order to avoid the very thing you talk about); someone else did. If you don't already closely follow his blogging, then you wouldn't have known who it was.
Second - this is a post about the perception of blogging being a conduit for irresponsible behaviour. Accompanying replication of the offensive cartoons in question with a post claiming that the Prophet ws a paedophile was the clearest-cut case of this behaviour in the past week, bar none. I'm sorry if he's a friend of some people here, but there it is.
Third (and most pertinent) - there's been a hell of a lot of wind from Jarvis et al. about the sins of the "MSM", yet the cosy fraternity of the pundits is just as much in evidence here right now.
(Damien...?)
I think ye can continue this between yourselves elsewhere?
Guns for hire? You mean you can make money at this lark? Where do I sign up?
Post a Comment
<< Home