Posts
Bloggerheads.com and Iaindale.com: Back to Feuding
Bloggerheads has been pursuing the Great Dale Robbery under which he covers a story - a new twist in the tedious MPs priority for muffins bun fight - many hours after it has first broken by Kerron Cross, as if new and all his own work.
It seems that I threw the first stone on this one but had no idea what a storm of comments, many of them deleted, then ensued. I understand Iain told me in his best jeery tones to stop jeering!! Hilarious.
Iain says he got the story from another source. Kerron is one of the more established of Iain's daily reads and it was a hell of a long time - more than 14 hours - after first publication but hey ho, things like this do happen. The wheel probably was reinvented quite a few times after all. I tend to believe Iain when he admits not paying attention and Kerron does too, so that's all right then?
Not quite. Iain says he always gives hat tips. This claim is not fair or accurate. He certainly doesn't. So not everyone will believe him in this case. It is fairly rare for Iain to admit when he is wrong, even when he has made serious false allegations, completely misunderstood something technical, or otherwise Daled Up badly.
Yet he is forever calling on others to apologise, resign, recant, call an election, hold a referendum, get to the back of the muffin queue. It's a case of "what i say, not what I do".
There is another traffic driving trick. Mr Dale credits a source openly but reproduces a whole article, extended quotes or the real meat of that article. He's not the only one to do this. There are a few blogs that do an awful lot of republication of other people's work.
But Iain Dale's is an important blog. It is the country's leading political blog. It's official. According to Iain's own list. So he should be setting a better example.
This practice cuts off the water supply from the true source and becomes the focus of most if not all further referrals. Even immediate commenters think it's Iain's story, calling it "great digging" etc.
Powerful nations have been to war over less.
Iain did this today with the Spectator's early spot of the Independent reproducing a Foreign Office statement almost verbatim but without attribution. He rather rashly jumps to a probable wrong conclusion - collusion - rather than to the sub-editor who missed a few words identifying the progenitor of the statement.
Almost like failing to give a hat tip. But less serious.
ASIDE: We still have not discovered why Iain Dale did not appear in the Right One Hundred list. Did he decide he was a journalist? Or that Guido Fawkes and Tim Montgomery were in fact much more important bloggers then himself? And that various council leaders, ginger group chiefs and obscure PPCs were far more important too?
6 comments:
I don't think the feuding ever ceased, there was just the common purpose with the common enemy over the Usmanov affair.
As you know, I called Iain Dale both a liar and a hypocrite when I caught him out in both of these activities. I think Tim is right that Iain Dale cannot take the criticism.
My view is if you dish it out you must be prepared to to take it.
Right, in your quest for the truth it's a shame you don't pay more attention to accuracy on your own blog.
1. Your Spectator/Independent allegations are ridiculous. Full attribution was given from the start - in the first line. It reads: "The Spectator Coffee House blog reveals a disgraceful tale of connivance with the government by The Independent. Here's an extract from Neil O'Brien's story". Can you not read?
2. Ireland launches wars with me from time to time. I now ignore him. He knows he is banned from making comments on my blog and then bleats when I delete them. And he knows why he is banned from my blog. He says I have used his images without permission, yet now says they are on my Flickr profile not my blog. He never actually says which images, so he knows I can do nothing about it. I am not a bloody mindreader. The Flickr collecttion is just a collection of things over the years I have collected and found amusing. Big ******* deal.
3. Kerron Cross knows me. You don't. He accepts my version of events. Why can't you? I do read Kerron's blog but possibly not as often as I sued to. If I had known it was from Kerron I would have attributed it as such. If ever I post something which turns out to be have been done elsewhere first I try to correct asap. Just as I did in this case. I really couldn't give a damn if you don't believe me, I don't need tour approval, or of the 3 other people who believe I have deliberately set out to take Kerron's story as my own.
4. You make an allegation that I don;t always give hattips. Back it up. Show me the colour of your money. If I have ever failed to give a hattip it has not been done deliberalty and I have rectified it as soon as it has been pointed out to me. In two years I can thonk of about three or four occasions in 4700 blogposts where that as happened. But I have always recitified it and you won't be able to prove otherwise. So withdraw.
5. You write "There is another traffic driving trick. Mr Dale credits a source openly but reproduces a whole article, extended quotes or the real meat of that article. He's not the only one to do this. There are a few blogs that do an awful lot of republication of other people's work." Er, not guilty., It is rare that I ever reproduce a whole article and when I do so there is a reason for it. I ALWAYS link to the original. Normally I will quote a couple of paras and then give a link to the whole thing. Most bloggers encourage me to do that becaude it drives traffic to them. Most bloggers actually admit that a lot of their traffic comes from links I provide. And I suspect your blog is the same. It's just that you rarely write anything worth quoting I am afraid. I find it unbelievable the number of stories you write which mention my name, almost as if you are begging me to link back to you. I would indeed do so if you ever said anything interesting.
7. Now you rehash the tired old list thing. U may have an ego the size of a mountain, but even I would not include myself on a list I was compiling of the Top 100 Influential People on the Right. I didn't exclude myself on journalistsic grounds - I did it on the grounds that it would be ridiculous. Ah, you will no doubt say, why did you include yourself on the list of Top 100 bloggers? Simple. People voted me there. The ten people who attended the dinner which helped select the Telegraph list were all excluded. I was not the only one.
But I am delighted you think I should have included myself. I must be doing something right then :)
Iain Dale said...
Right, in your quest for the truth it's a shame you don't pay more attention to accuracy on your own blog.
Ahhh, Iain pray do explain ... ah, I see you're going to a welcome change from the "pout, clout and out":
1. Your Spectator/Independent allegations are ridiculous. Full attribution was given from the start - in the first line. It reads: "The Spectator Coffee House blog reveals a disgraceful tale of connivance with the government by The Independent. Here's an extract from Neil O'Brien's story". Can you not read?
I not only read that I also acknowledged it in my post. As you must surely realise? This is one of the shorter examples of this traffic driving trick. But nonetheless the extract contains the full story. It's like a spoiler for a book or a film. But as I pointed out one of the comments at your post complimented you on your digging. I didn't notice you correcting that illusion. IDD rather than Coffee House will get the traffic.
2. Ireland launches wars with me from time to time. I now ignore him. He knows he is banned from making comments on my blog and then bleats when I delete them. And he knows why he is banned from my blog. He says I have used his images without permission, yet now says they are on my Flickr profile not my blog. He never actually says which images, so he knows I can do nothing about it. I am not a bloody mindreader. The Flickr collecttion is just a collection of things over the years I have collected and found amusing. Big ******* deal.
Ask him to identify them? Or try to remember which ones you NICKED from him without crediting them. I'm sure you can work out at least some of them and show willing? It's not that hard.
3. Kerron Cross knows me. You don't. He accepts my version of events. Why can't you? I do read Kerron's blog but possibly not as often as I sued to. If I had known it was from Kerron I would have attributed it as such. If ever I post something which turns out to be have been done elsewhere first I try to correct asap. Just as I did in this case. I really couldn't give a damn if you don't believe me, I don't need tour approval, or of the 3 other people who believe I have deliberately set out to take Kerron's story as my own.
I DID accept your version of events. Despite what you say you DO HAVE A HISTORY of not hat tipping or hat tipping less than completely honestly. You are not the most scrupulous man in the business on this matter.
And you certainly rarely if ever apologise. Example being when you claimed I'd not covered something when I clearly had done so - as had one of the other two bloggers you accused the third being on a break.
You are usually immediately arsey when you respond to comments and rarely tackle the substance just a jeer or a dig. I try to do the opposite.
And the charge that you can dish out criticism but not take it gathers more and more evidence by the day. Don't you think?
But REPEAT I do believe that in this case you didn't see Kerron's story or know that whoever sent you the picture had got it from there ... but you might want to ask that source next time?
It clearly came from somewhere. A bit of research on provenance should be doable?
4. You make an allegation that I don;t always give hattips. Back it up. Show me the colour of your money. If I have ever failed to give a hattip it has not been done deliberalty and I have rectified it as soon as it has been pointed out to me. In two years I can thonk of about three or four occasions in 4700 blogposts where that as happened. But I have always recitified it and you won't be able to prove otherwise. So withdraw.
I can think of more than three or four occasions but if you think I'm going to scrabble around in your archives and find them you are quite mistaken. You admit it is true yourself. So what's the rationale for asking me to withdraw the point when you admit it? But I'll tell you next time I spot one if there is a next time. Let's hope not.
You quite often don't credit images. And I have the impression that on occasion you have hat tipped one of the people further up the food chain than the place where you actually read the story. But that's just an impression. Let's leave that between you and your conscience. If you say it ain't so I'll accept your word.
For example XY or Z links to A. A blogger reads it on Y but just links straight to A as they don't like giving Y credit or can't be bothered to do two links or whatever other reason.
5. You write "There is another traffic driving trick. Mr Dale credits a source openly but reproduces a whole article, extended quotes or the real meat of that article. He's not the only one to do this. There are a few blogs that do an awful lot of republication of other people's work." Er, not guilty., It is rare that I ever reproduce a whole article and when I do so there is a reason for it. I ALWAYS link to the original. Normally I will quote a couple of paras and then give a link to the whole thing. Most bloggers encourage me to do that becaude it drives traffic to them. Most bloggers actually admit that a lot of their traffic comes from links I provide. And I suspect your blog is the same. It's just that you rarely write anything worth quoting I am afraid. I find it unbelievable the number of stories you write which mention my name, almost as if you are begging me to link back to you. I would indeed do so if you ever said anything interesting.
Gulp. What a lot we've got here. You do repeat whole stories from time to time. Jailhouse is someone else that does it. Often with less comment (even none) than you provide.
You often repeat big chunks. And this means there is little or no reason for your readers to go to the other blog that originated the publication. You have a money making blog as you admit. One of the few outside the MSM as you proudly assert. Fair enough. But the blog or publication gets LESS not MORE traffic when you repeat a whole article from them. There is NO REASON to visit the source when you give the whole post or a spoiler for the pay off. You even repost your own Telegraph pieces complete. they must be delighted!
As to linking here? That's up to you Iain. You link to who you want to. And I'll do the same. It's not like when I link to you I'm parasitically passing off your stories as my own. Sometimes I think you're right or have got a story. Other times I don't.
Whereas you do get a lot of traffic from here I don't get much from you because barring those lists you almost never link here. I'd rather you did every now and then but if you don't think I deserve it then that's fine.
7. Now you rehash the tired old list thing. U may have an ego the size of a mountain, but even I would not include myself on a list I was compiling of the Top 100 Influential People on the Right. I didn't exclude myself on journalistsic grounds - I did it on the grounds that it would be ridiculous. Ah, you will no doubt say, why did you include yourself on the list of Top 100 bloggers? Simple. People voted me there. The ten people who attended the dinner which helped select the Telegraph list were all excluded. I was not the only one.
Well, that's interesting at least. Both the lists - Left and Right - appeared to be selected by yourself and Brian Brivati. The rubric changed between the two lists to exclude journalists and media in the second.
If panel members should or should possibly be on a list and they're not then surely the great DT reading public deserve a foot note as to who's been excluded by their judicial chores?
Or they should be commentators who are clearly not in the 100 concerned. Although some think Brian is to the right he's not going to make the Right 100 so that's fine.
I thought the Right list was absolutely ridiculous in various ways. The Left one was pretty ridiculous also - but not so bad ...
BTW You say that I have an ego the size of a mountain?! Oh my god, coming from you that is five-star hilarious Mr ID you!
But I am delighted you think I should have included myself. I must be doing something right then :)
Well, I'm delighted that you're delighted though to be honest you seem to be mostly furious! Clearly Guido is a laughing stock. If he's there you should be too.
****
All told there are NO reasonable points of accuracy. You dispute some of my opinions and bizarrely you challenge me to withdraw points you admit. But it is good of you to spend the time to give your point of view. I appreciate that.
I have to fisk Iain here:
Ireland launches wars with me from time to time.
No, I object to one small thing, and you refuse to admit where you may have got it wrong (on those rare occasions that do admit to making a 'an honest error', you rarely do so graciously). It's when I press the matter and you repeatedly refuse to admit that you've got it wrong (or lied outright) that you try to sell it to your readers as a war or vendetta.
I now ignore him.
No you don't... you bitch about me elsewhere instead of addressing the issue(s) with me and/or delete me from your blogroll as part of your usual hissy fit.
He knows he is banned from making comments on my blog and then bleats when I delete them.
A lie. You do allow comments of mine on your website when you think you have an answer to them or no answer is required; the rest of the time, you just delete them.
I caught you doing this just this afternoon.
And he knows why he is banned from my blog.
No I don't. Please tell me. I'm quite bored with this Double Secret Probation nonsense.
He says I have used his images without permission, yet now says they are on my Flickr profile not my blog.
You're lying again. I've made it clear that you have images of mine that you are using without permission or link credit in your Flickr account *and* on your weblog.
He never actually says which images, so he knows I can do nothing about it. I am not a bloody mindreader.
I suppose you're not my researcher, either? Here's a clue for you, jack... under your Flickr account (as I have already patiently explained to you); my work that you've stolen and marked 'copyright Iain Dale' is clearly watermarked and/or part of the fun and games with Tim Yeo that you personally congratulated me for when you first began sucking up to me for a blogroll link.
The material you host on your weblog may be a bit harder for you to identify, but you only have yourself to blame because of your bad habit of cropping watermarks (which, I believe, relates somewhat to Chris Paul's point about content lifting... or do you prefer the word 'repurposing'?)
The Flickr collecttion is just a collection of things over the years I have collected and found amusing. Big ******* deal.
And I have made a clear request that you remove my items from that collection (and on your weblog)... mainly because of repeated image theft on your weblog.
Nothing to say in reply, Iain? Tch. And yet you seem so mouthy when I'm not around.
A little bird told me that Iain dismissed one of my blog posts as worth discussing on Doughty because "he's obsessed". Presumably he didn't mean with Galloway that that post was about.
I'm obsessed? Apart from being very rude to his studio guest this must be meaningless to 99% of the Doughty audience who probably haven't the faintest idea what he is obsessing about.
Whereas it is only natural for me to wake up every day and see the massive bright sun that is Dale's blog in the firmament. Round which we all orbit dutifully.
But it is very odd for him to keep referring to the eighth moon of the fifteenth planet of the 47th star. Little me.
Post a Comment