Of course, the journalists should be kicking themselves that they got  
finessed out of the better story - Blears used her clout to get a  
civil servant fired for an emailed comment to her website.

On 6 Jul , at 23:52:05, paul perrin wrote:

> I think a similarly high profile 'right to reply' would be in order.
>
> 99.99% of the people reading the 'right to reply' will not have seen  
> the original story, and 99.99% of people who saw the original story  
> will not see the right to reply...
>
> So don't directly mention the original story in the 'right to reply'  
> - just say how wonderful 'mysociety' is, and mention in passing that  
> it is financed by public contributions (of time and money) and is  
> jealously independant so would not disclose any data unless obliged  
> by law etc...
>
> A google on "You are a disgrace (including all the other honourable  
> members)" (having uniquely weird grammar) shows mail, telegraph and  
> guardian from MSM.
>
> Paul /)/+)
>
> ps. looking further I have just seen the guaridan story is about the  
> mysociety denial! pump that publicity!!
>
>
> 2009/7/6 Tom Steinberg <[email protected]>
> I will ask all the journalists who published the story without
> checking (and perhaps the bloggers too) if they'd like to donate, as
> part of asking for corrections!
>
> Tom
>
>
>
> 2009/7/6 Alexander Harrowell <[email protected]>:
> > On Monday 06 July 2009 15:40:03 Matthew Somerville wrote:
> >
> >> > I would guess that - if the story is not actually invented out  
> of whole
> >
> >> > cloth, which has to be a live consideration - they picked up a
> >
> >> > confirmation e-mail coming *in*.
> >
> >>
> >
> >> Hmm, I guess there are chinks in my armour even when I try to be  
> totally
> >
> >> clear. You can't comment on TheyWorkForYou without registering, so
> >
> >> comments are either visible or reactively hidden if they're drawn  
> to our
> >
> >> attention. No comment equal to, or like in any way I tried, the one
> >
> >> quoted by the Telegraph exists in the site's database in any form  
> that I
> >
> >> can find. Just to be clear :)
> >
> >>
> >
> > I'm not arguing that the comment exists, just that a click-here-to- 
> confirm
> > message might have been detected by inbound e-mail monitoring.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Mailing list [email protected]
> > Archive, settings, or unsubscribe:
> > https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list [email protected]
> Archive, settings, or unsubscribe:
> https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list [email protected]
> Archive, settings, or unsubscribe:
> https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public

--
/*
Stefan Magdalinski
+447769 666528 (phone)
smagdali (IM/twitter/flickr/dopplr/skype/etc)
*/


_______________________________________________
Mailing list [email protected]
Archive, settings, or unsubscribe:
https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public

Reply via email to