Comments for CounterValue http://www.countervalue.com Media, future publishing and other stuff Mon, 06 Oct 2008 22:00:11 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 Comment on How the Guardian, Times and Independent are all happy to rip off other sites’ content by Charles http://www.countervalue.com/2008/10/03/how-the-guardian-times-and-independent-are-all-happy-to-rip-off-other-sites-content/#comment-349 Charles Fri, 03 Oct 2008 10:17:09 +0000 http://www.countervalue.com/?p=371#comment-349 Matt makes a good point - it's been such a habit for years for papers to refuse to acknowledge that they've ripped pieces off - er, made them available for their readers - that as a culture it changes only very, very slowly. Sometimes it's been absolutely shameless (tabloids grabbing entire interviews). Obviously I'm shocked - shocked! - to find that everyone in Fleet Street hasn't simply left the Tele's story alone so it could figure prominently-ish on its site. And I'm sure it's a relief that the Today programme etc didn't rip it off to broadcast it. That would be *awful*. Still, at least we all tend to leave each other's comment pieces alone. Except, obviously, when they're written by cabinet ministers possibly touting for a new job... Matt makes a good point - it’s been such a habit for years for papers to refuse to acknowledge that they’ve ripped pieces off - er, made them available for their readers - that as a culture it changes only very, very slowly. Sometimes it’s been absolutely shameless (tabloids grabbing entire interviews).

Obviously I’m shocked - shocked! - to find that everyone in Fleet Street hasn’t simply left the Tele’s story alone so it could figure prominently-ish on its site. And I’m sure it’s a relief that the Today programme etc didn’t rip it off to broadcast it. That would be *awful*.

Still, at least we all tend to leave each other’s comment pieces alone. Except, obviously, when they’re written by cabinet ministers possibly touting for a new job…

]]> Comment on How the Guardian, Times and Independent are all happy to rip off other sites’ content by Matt B (Thanet Star) http://www.countervalue.com/2008/10/03/how-the-guardian-times-and-independent-are-all-happy-to-rip-off-other-sites-content/#comment-348 Matt B (Thanet Star) Fri, 03 Oct 2008 08:13:17 +0000 http://www.countervalue.com/?p=371#comment-348 It's little wonder the papers don't properly attribute blog sources then? It’s little wonder the papers don’t properly attribute blog sources then?

]]> Comment on More from those halcyon Telegraph days… by Matt B (Thanet Star) http://www.countervalue.com/2008/09/18/more-from-those-halcyon-telegraph-days/#comment-345 Matt B (Thanet Star) Tue, 30 Sep 2008 16:44:29 +0000 http://www.countervalue.com/?p=351#comment-345 Not all citizen journalists work for nothing - they just don't charge for access to what they write. Not all citizen journalists work for nothing - they just don’t charge for access to what they write.

]]> Comment on This is not blogging, Roy. It’s execrable tittle tattle by Justin Williams http://www.countervalue.com/2008/09/25/this-is-not-blogging-roy-its-execrable-tittle-tattle/#comment-327 Justin Williams Thu, 25 Sep 2008 20:51:21 +0000 http://www.countervalue.com/?p=367#comment-327 Roy, I know who your female correspondent is and I'm not surprised but I'll take your word for it and prepare to be shocked and surprised by the identities of the others. As you know, there's a box marked "It's shit here" in every newspaper office and it only takes one person to stuff their ballot paper in to it before the disgruntled element is doing the same. The Telegraph is no different. Neither, I suspect, is The Guardian. What irked me is that you were prepared, without checking, to publish two inaccuracies - the first being the salaries of the content editors and the second over the false allegation that our newsdesk cuts and pastes competitors' content. I'm the guy interviewing for and appointing the content editors and I can tell you, categorically, that you and your correspondent have grossly distorted the truth to paint a picture of a Telegraph that's little better than a sweat shop. Your correspondent was wrong, Roy, and you should be prepared to admit it. The second claim - that we cut and paste content from other websites - is more serious but equally inaccurate. I have explained that we do not and why it is that UK newspaper websites appear to have similar content. I urge you to correct this falsehood - you've seriously offended and upset some of the very good people on our newsdesk. In your justification above, you've chosen to ignore both of these major inaccuracies to make a point - the point being that there are ton of people complaining that the Telegraph is a dreadful place to work. Well, it isn't. Far from perfect - yes. But, overall, a good place to be. Invite comments from any workforce about conditions and you're sure to get a sack of complaints from the vocal minority. Nothing you have said has convinced me that your recent posts about the Telegraph are anything more than a small minded attempt to paint a picture of an unpleasant organisation hell bent on garnering unique users at the expense of its employees. It is a picture that I - and others - do not recognise. I do not understand your motivation here, Roy. It looks and smells like shit stirring. I hope that I'm wrong. Justin Roy,

I know who your female correspondent is and I’m not surprised but I’ll take your word for it and prepare to be shocked and surprised by the identities of the others.

As you know, there’s a box marked “It’s shit here” in every newspaper office and it only takes one person to stuff their ballot paper in to it before the disgruntled element is doing the same. The Telegraph is no different. Neither, I suspect, is The Guardian.

What irked me is that you were prepared, without checking, to publish two inaccuracies - the first being the salaries of the content editors and the second over the false allegation that our newsdesk cuts and pastes competitors’ content.

I’m the guy interviewing for and appointing the content editors and I can tell you, categorically, that you and your correspondent have grossly distorted the truth to paint a picture of a Telegraph that’s little better than a sweat shop. Your correspondent was wrong, Roy, and you should be prepared to admit it.

The second claim - that we cut and paste content from other websites - is more serious but equally inaccurate. I have explained that we do not and why it is that UK newspaper websites appear to have similar content. I urge you to correct this falsehood - you’ve seriously offended and upset some of the very good people on our newsdesk.

In your justification above, you’ve chosen to ignore both of these major inaccuracies to make a point - the point being that there are ton of people complaining that the Telegraph is a dreadful place to work. Well, it isn’t. Far from perfect - yes. But, overall, a good place to be. Invite comments from any workforce about conditions and you’re sure to get a sack of complaints from the vocal minority.

Nothing you have said has convinced me that your recent posts about the Telegraph are anything more than a small minded attempt to paint a picture of an unpleasant organisation hell bent on garnering unique users at the expense of its employees. It is a picture that I - and others - do not recognise.

I do not understand your motivation here, Roy. It looks and smells like shit stirring. I hope that I’m wrong.

Justin

]]> Comment on This is not blogging, Roy. It’s execrable tittle tattle by Roy Greenslade http://www.countervalue.com/2008/09/25/this-is-not-blogging-roy-its-execrable-tittle-tattle/#comment-326 Roy Greenslade Thu, 25 Sep 2008 18:33:57 +0000 http://www.countervalue.com/?p=367#comment-326 Justin, I think you would be surprised at the identities of the Telegraph complainants. I get, as you would surely expect, lots of emailed tittle-tattle week after week. I ignore them or reply politely and move on. The reason I took up these particular cases was due to the seniority of the people involved, their level of experience, and the fact that two of three were clearly not motivated against the online world, nor against multi-platform journalism. They are not from the normal whingeing brigade. I have also had supporting emails today, one from a another current member of staff and another from someone who left earlier this year, that suggest the emailers have not exaggerated. I have also had conversations with other staff members too that broadly support their views. Now, of course, I'm not calling you a liar. As with every newspaper office I have worked in, there appear to be contrasting, but strongly-held, views about a supposedly single reality. I just want to make it crystal clear that I did not rush to publish on my blog without ensuring that the emailers were not bearing grudges. The two main complainants have a story to tell that fits the jigsaw of other, less coherent, internal critics. Of course, I wish they would go "on the record", but we all know what would happen if they did. In the circumstances, I was glad to give them a platform to air grievances they - and others - hold. regards, RoyG Justin, I think you would be surprised at the identities of the Telegraph complainants. I get, as you would surely expect, lots of emailed tittle-tattle week after week. I ignore them or reply politely and move on.
The reason I took up these particular cases was due to the seniority of the people involved, their level of experience, and the fact that two of three were clearly not motivated against the online world, nor against multi-platform journalism. They are not from the normal whingeing brigade.
I have also had supporting emails today, one from a another current member of staff and another from someone who left earlier this year, that suggest the emailers have not exaggerated. I have also had conversations with other staff members too that broadly support their views.
Now, of course, I’m not calling you a liar. As with every newspaper office I have worked in, there appear to be contrasting, but strongly-held, views about a supposedly single reality.
I just want to make it crystal clear that I did not rush to publish on my blog without ensuring that the emailers were not bearing grudges. The two main complainants have a story to tell that fits the jigsaw of other, less coherent, internal critics.
Of course, I wish they would go “on the record”, but we all know what would happen if they did. In the circumstances, I was glad to give them a platform to air grievances they - and others - hold.
regards,
RoyG

]]> Comment on This is not blogging, Roy. It’s execrable tittle tattle by JTownend http://www.countervalue.com/2008/09/25/this-is-not-blogging-roy-its-execrable-tittle-tattle/#comment-325 JTownend Thu, 25 Sep 2008 10:34:32 +0000 http://www.countervalue.com/?p=367#comment-325 So, if the articles she's talking about are lifted from agency copy, Roy's post should really have been a criticism of 'churnalism', rather than an accusation of copying from rival publications. But it's difficult to ascertain since we don't know journalist #2's name, or which articles she's talking about. So, if the articles she’s talking about are lifted from agency copy, Roy’s post should really have been a criticism of ‘churnalism’, rather than an accusation of copying from rival publications. But it’s difficult to ascertain since we don’t know journalist #2’s name, or which articles she’s talking about.

]]> Comment on More from those halcyon Telegraph days… by Justin Williams http://www.countervalue.com/2008/09/18/more-from-those-halcyon-telegraph-days/#comment-317 Justin Williams Sat, 20 Sep 2008 18:11:05 +0000 http://www.countervalue.com/?p=351#comment-317 Thanks so much. I know two people in Abu Dhabi - you're either a V or an R. That's the end of anonymous comments - if people haven't got the backbone to put their names to their words, then no comment Thanks so much. I know two people in Abu Dhabi - you’re either a V or an R.
That’s the end of anonymous comments - if people haven’t got the backbone to put their names to their words, then no comment

]]> Comment on More from those halcyon Telegraph days… by someone who knows you http://www.countervalue.com/2008/09/18/more-from-those-halcyon-telegraph-days/#comment-315 someone who knows you Sat, 20 Sep 2008 13:57:35 +0000 http://www.countervalue.com/?p=351#comment-315 "Funny thing that - writing about things that people are interested in. It would be a … er … radical editor who went to his bosses and said that his reporters would, henceforth, only write about things that people weren’t interested in." it would be a radical editor who would say stop rehashing the 'wiifit girl' story four times in one day and go out and find some proper news wouldn't it? “Funny thing that - writing about things that people are interested in. It would be a … er … radical editor who went to his bosses and said that his reporters would, henceforth, only write about things that people weren’t interested in.”

it would be a radical editor who would say stop rehashing the ‘wiifit girl’ story four times in one day and go out and find some proper news

wouldn’t it?

]]> Comment on guardian.co.uk’s extraordinary effort to stay top by Terry Collmann http://www.countervalue.com/2008/09/19/guardiancouks-extraordinary-effort-to-stay-top/#comment-308 Terry Collmann Fri, 19 Sep 2008 16:57:44 +0000 http://www.countervalue.com/?p=354#comment-308 <i>What possible reason (other than trying to maintain short-term positions) can there be for buying keywords for breaking news stories?</i> Well, for a start, Justin, to increase consumer awareness of your brand - if people don't know you're there, a paid-for click will at least have brought them to you. After that, a percentage of those clickers will then put you on their favourites list, and/or remember to go back to you the next time they're looking for information. How cost-effective that is as a strategy, I haven't a clue, but I'm sure the Guardian knows, since it will be able to track how many people arrived from a paid-for click and then came back for more over subsequent days, weeks and months. So paid-for clicks aren't all about maintaining short-term positions ... What possible reason (other than trying to maintain short-term positions) can there be for buying keywords for breaking news stories?

Well, for a start, Justin, to increase consumer awareness of your brand - if people don’t know you’re there, a paid-for click will at least have brought them to you. After that, a percentage of those clickers will then put you on their favourites list, and/or remember to go back to you the next time they’re looking for information. How cost-effective that is as a strategy, I haven’t a clue, but I’m sure the Guardian knows, since it will be able to track how many people arrived from a paid-for click and then came back for more over subsequent days, weeks and months. So paid-for clicks aren’t all about maintaining short-term positions …

]]> Comment on guardian.co.uk’s extraordinary effort to stay top by Journalism.co.uk Editors’ Blog » Blog Archive » Grauniad.co.uk v Torygraph.co.uk: Round 374 http://www.countervalue.com/2008/09/19/guardiancouks-extraordinary-effort-to-stay-top/#comment-307 Journalism.co.uk Editors’ Blog » Blog Archive » Grauniad.co.uk v Torygraph.co.uk: Round 374 Fri, 19 Sep 2008 16:34:49 +0000 http://www.countervalue.com/?p=354#comment-307 [...] in another post, Williams took a swipe at the Guardian’s system of buying sponsored links and keywords. He reckons it is well in excess of that of the Telegraph and the [...] [...] in another post, Williams took a swipe at the Guardian’s system of buying sponsored links and keywords. He reckons it is well in excess of that of the Telegraph and the [...]

]]>