Gary Andrews

Just as stopped clocks tell the correct time twice a day, so a politician occasionally makes a valid point without perhaps realising it, often because it’s difficult to distinguish from the rest of the words that tumble from the mouth and make little sense.

Hazel Blears’ speech on blogging and the internet is a prime example of a politician just simply not getting how social media works, but there’s also a couple of interesting points in there. We’ll come to those later, but chief amongst the proclamations is this gem:

“But mostly, political blogs are written by people with disdain for the political system and politicians, who see their function as unearthing scandals, conspiracies and perceived hypocrisy.

“Until political blogging ‘adds value’ to our political culture, by allowing new voices, ideas and legitimate protest and challenge, and until the mainstream media reports politics in a calmer, more responsible manner, it will continue to fuel a culture of cynicism and despair.”

Christ alone knows exactly what she’s on about here when she talks about ‘adding value’. Blogs that are on message? That agree with the government line? That don’t insult politicians?

Maybe I’ve missed the point, but I always thought blogging allowed new voices (anybody can start a blog and get involved), new ideas, legitimate protest and challenge. I thought that was blogging in a nutshell, and one of the joys about it – that it encouraged new ideas, and developed those ideas through comment and discussion.

If you’re interested in politics, you can still start a blog even if you’ve got no connection to any political party or come from a particularly political background. Which, given that she’s also trying to get more people from outside the political class involved in politics (one thing I do agree with her on), you’d have thought would be an ideal place to start to look to re-engage a cynical public.

As for the cynicism and despair, then perhaps Blears best look closer to home. It’s difficult not to be cynical and despair of large swathes of what this government does. Not that either of the other two parties seem a great deal better, but the cynicism, despair and malaise set in long ago. Blogs mainly reflect that. If blogging had been around on a large scale back in 1997, it would have been no surprise if an outgoing Tory minister had uttered similar words.

She does, however, raise an interesting point when she says:

“Perhaps this is simply anti-establishment. Blogs have only existed under a Labour government. Perhaps if there was a Tory government, all the leading blogs would be left-of-centre?”

It’s not a completely daft hypothesis, even if the main blogs she mentions – Gudio, Iain Dale, etc – are hardly representative of all political blogs. They just happen to be the ones that, rightly or wrongly, get the most mentions in the mainstream media.

There’s also plenty of left-leaning blogs who are also fed up with this government, as Unity points out:

“It’s all very well flagging up that its only around half a dozen right-wing blogs, at most, who’ve been putting up the big traffic numbers and suggesting that this is ’simply anti-establishment’ and due to blogging having emerged only during the period in which Labour has been in office, but if that’s what she’s thinking then how does she account for the fact that most of the leading liberal and left-wing blogs are equally anti-establishment across a range of key issues from Iraq through to the government’s near-constant assaults on civil liberties and the systematic construction of the database state.

The problem that the current government has isn’t that there’s a general lack of popular or influential left-of-centre blogs, its that its policies on Iraq, etc. cost it the support of the vast majority of major players in the left-of-centre blogosphere, most of whom are at least semi-detached from the Labour Party if not operating fully within a broad ‘independent left’ category.”

It’s telling that when you compare the attitude of British politicians to the internet with their American counterparts, we come across as a lot less enlightened. Hell, a large part of Barack Obama’ success was built on the fact he managed to mobilise support online across the country:

“You know the executives that balk at implementing social media campaigns, well Barack Obama and John McCain showed that social media is no passing fad. Both candidates embraced blogs, social networks and Web video

***

The Obama campaign created a social network, MyBarackObama, on its official Web site. Members of that network at times criticized the candidate over his various positions.”

So while Obama, and the 72-year-old John McCain were busy getting their message out online, listening to their core support and, if necessary, modifying policies, this government is busy looking for more ways to regulate the internet and follow every part of our lives online.

Is it any wonder that this country is a bit disillusioned with politics, especially online, when it can look across at America and see how politicians are actually trying to engage with voters? As I’ve said, had this been 1997, there’s a good chance we could have been seeing a similar reaction to Tony Blair as we have to Barack Obama.

Tom Watson’s mentioned in the article. Although I don’t necessarily agree with a lot of his politics, I do wish his own party would look at what he’s doing online and even consult him occasionally on any policies towards the internet, as he’s one of the (sadly) very few MPs who seem to remotely get social media.

written by Gary Andrews \\ tags: Barack Obama, Hazel Blears, political blogs, Politics, politics and the internet, Tom Watson

It’s a brave PR who’d pitch to the Devil’s Kitchen blog. It’s a particularly stupid one who, when emailing said blogger, gets basic information in that email concerning one of the most profanity-filled blogs on the internet so badly wrong:

Here’s a tip for you PR people out there (especially given that I am disinclined to punt your clients’ products simply because you ask**): if you want me to plug your product, may I suggest that you actually get the name of my blog correct?

Under the circumstances, the Devil was surprisingly restrained.

Seeing pitches like this posted on blogs like that annoys me. Not because it’s been posted, but because it makes the rest of us working in similar fields look bad, and suggests the majority of PRs don’t know their blogging arse from their internet elbow.

Cold-pitching to bloggers is a tad unnerving, as you never know how they’re going to react. A lot of PRs I know are still a tad reluctant to engage precisely for the reason, and when they get pulled up online about to, use that as an excuse to ignore social media communities altogether.

Their loss.

At the risk of sounding like a long-playing record, pitching to bloggers isn’t hard. It’s the same as pitching to journalists, just in a different medium and with a slightly different technique.

You wouldn’t email, say, Zoo magazine and address it to Loaded. Or to the Sunday Times Travel Section to suggest a piece for the Guardian. And neither would you send the same pitch for the same product to the Sunday Times as you would to Zoo.

The same goes for bloggers. Each blogger is different, has different likes and dislikes and there’s normally enough information on the blog to give you a good idea of what they’re likely to be interested in, and if they’re likely to take a pitch badly.

So in the case of The Devil’s Kitchen, even a cursory glance will tell you of an interest in politics, libertarianism, alcohol, and Apple products. And while he may come across as an angry young blogger, there’s also a lot of humour and incredibly well-argued pieces on his blog.

This could all be worked out in half an hour, although if I’m pitching to bloggers, I like to spend at least a week reading around their writings to get a good feel for the site – it helps if you know who you’re pitching to. And the better you know your blogger, the better – and, more importantly – and more relevant it’ll be.

It’s not rocket science. It’s simply modifying dealings with journalists and bringing them into a more Web 2.0 way of working. And if you’re scared of having your pitch torn to pieces on a blog, I’d suggest you lack confidence in said pitch. If it’s well-written, well-researched and you’ve taken time to read and appreciate the blog, life should be a lot smoother.

Bloggers are usually as good as journalists at spotting bad PR. The difference is bloggers have an instant medium to detail the worst examples of PR. Journalists tend not to (although there are a few instances in my journalism career where the PR was so bad that blogging about it would have been very cathartic).

Some may be scared by this. Personally, I think it’s a great reason for all PR professionals to use the web as an excuse to up their game, assuming they haven’t already.

written by Gary Andrews \\ tags: Devil's Kitchen, pitching to bloggers, PR

Libel laws and the internet have long since needed readjusting, probably ever since Godfrey v Demon back in 1999. Since Alisher Usmanov succeeded briefly taking down Craig Murray’s site (along with others, including Boris Johnson’s) the matter’s been an ongoing hot topic on the internet.

I’d put my name to a pledge of support for Craig Murray and Tim Ireland’s campaign against Schillings, Usmanov’s lawyers. Since then, the occasional inbound link has popped up in relation to this, and there’ve been a few further examples. And then, this morning, there was the rather miserable link that came in from, erm, the Miserable Old Fart.

Essentially, it concerns some kind of political spat in Scotland I don’t know much about and, frankly, care even less about. But it’s resulted in one councillor threatening a Labour blogger with a libel action due to something she’s posted on the site, an the Miserable blogger is taking us all to task for not leaping onto our keyboards and defending her:

“All of the following blogs were willing to support bloggerheads. Was their support real? Or was it just an opportunistic way of getting a hit on Technorati?

I hope that each and everyone of them will say a word in favour of Kezia’s right to freedom of expression – but I won’t hold my breath!”

If he wants to drum up support he’s got a funny way of going about it – having a pop at everbody on the list without pausing to consider that it probably hasn’t registered on many bloggers’ radars.

Usmanov was high-profile. This is perhaps a little more regional. Judging by the comments, I wasn’t the only person who’d never heard of it. Largely because I tend to avoid politics and political spats online these days, especially if they’re miles away and have very little relevance to anything I’m interested in.

Plus, there’s a lot that’s not as clear cut here. I don’t know the background or the ins and outs. It also makes a difference if any of the papers involved have been served with libel papers. I don’t know that either. The fact it feels more like a local political spat doesn’t help either. I was turned off from politics partly because of these spats a while ago.

So, without knowing the ins and outs and background (and not really having any real inclination to want to find out more), all I’ll say is if the libel action’s been taken specifically against the blogger than that’s wrong – and she shouldn’t have had to take it down. But that’s just an ‘if’, and I’m frankly less inclined to jump on any kind of free speech bandwagon because of the way it was approached. A little bit of politeness goes a long way, especially if you’re trying to draw support to a cause that nobody’s really heard of.

written by Gary Andrews \\ tags: Alisher Usmanov, Craig Murray, Kezia Duggdale, libel, Miserable Old Fart

A good few years ago, when I was still at university, I ended up watching a lot of Manchester City on TV. One of my best friends was a huge Man City fan, and often after lectures or at the weekend we’d head down the pub for a few drinks and the football.

When Thaksin Shinawatra brought the club a couple of seasons ago I asked said friend what he made of it. “Not best pleased,” was the response.

My friend’s response wasn’t typical. By and large, Man City fans embraced Thaksin “Frank” Shinawatra, reasoning – not necessarily incorrectly – that his money could take them into the top four.

It’s not hard to see why they were excited. Cash, one of the best available managers and some excellent signings like Elano and Martin Petrov gave City fans a sense of hope and expectation not always seen around Eastlands.

Yet Thaksin’s takeover always seemed a disaster waiting to happen, for me at least. Even if you take away the repeated accusations of human rights violations (which would have been enough for me to cancel a season ticket), his financial source was not exactly stable and, even if there was a good case for the corruption charges being, in part, politically motivated, he wasn’t the cleanest of characters. That he passed the Premier League’s fit and proper person’s test was both surprising and depressingly predictable.

In recent weeks, the excrement has seemed to be creeping closer to the fan at Eastlands. Thaksin’s wife has been convicted, the family have fled Thailand and there’s a huge question mark over just how much, if any, cash Shinawatra has to pump into City.

Last week, when the whole issue raised its head, I thought that Manchester City fans may start to edge towards the idea of a life without Thaksin sooner rather than later. They didn’t. If anything, assorted message boards and blogs comments seem to be defending him even more voicifourously.

I don’t get it. Am I missing something here?

Perhaps I’m too cautious and suspicious after seeing Exeter run to the verge of liquidation by a couple of fraudsters. Perhaps I’ve seen too many owners in the lower leagues come on board for their own egos, royally shaft the club, and walk away without a second thought. Perhaps I just don’t understand how the Premier League works (other than you need a VERY rich man to even think about challenging for a UEFA cup spot).

But, seriously, did the majority of Manchester City fans think it would be plain sailing and a good idea to jump into bed with a man who’d already tried to buy Liverpool (who, I hasten to add, would have probably been just as happy to share a duvet were it not for the then board’s dithering) with government money?

Were Blues supporters really happy to see a “serial human rights abuser” (according to Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International) and man with a few question marks about corruption, not to mention around £800m in frozen assets, take control of their club?

I keep coming back to Manchester United – a club I’ve no particular love for – and the protests that greeted the Glazers’ takeover. Or Arsenal, not renowned for being the most vocal of supporters, who weren’t best pleased at seeing Alisher Usmanov try to take control.

Shinawatra’s past wasn’t exactly difficult to find out, contrary to some claims. A quick Google could have told you about some of the more questionable parts of his character. Yet he’s still seen as a saviour and shining beacon by many City fans. Why? Am I missing something again, other than the money?

About a week ago I stepped outside my usual topic of lower league football and wrote a somewhat strong critique of Manchester City’s current woes at Soccerlens. It didn’t start out as a criticism of the supporters, and wasn’t intended to be, but the more I put the article together, the more it felt, to me, as if the fans should at least take a portion of responsibility for their current situation when they welcomed Thaksin with open arms, and continue to keep those arms open. Or perhaps I’m missing something again here?

Predictably, Manchester City supporters weren’t happy. Predictably, I was called a Manchester United supporter. I was kind of expecting that, but it was still bewildering to see just how defensive the fans got.

On one level, it’s understandable. Football fans do tend to get quite defensive when anybody has a pop at their club. I’ve got unnecessarily angry at stories about Exeter that make ridiculous assumptions or just patronise us as a small insignificant club (or, worse still, assume Uri Gellar has anything to do with the club).

But on the other hand, I’ve met enough football fans and posted on enough forums to see supporters question their board, especially when there’s a question of odd goings-on at boardroom level. That just doesn’t seem to be happening with Manchester City.

Today, Manchester City fan and one of the best football journalists in the business, David Conn, wrote a piece on the club’s current plight. The comments make interesting reading. There’s more of a mixture of fan views here, but still a very vocal and sizeable chunk complaining that the article shouldn’t have been written.

Now, it probably was one of Conn’s weaker pieces given that he’s written very similar articles before but it doesn’t stop him nailing many of the key issues, and showing that the concerns at the takeover are the same concerns surrounding the club today.

But there’s still been a lot of Blues fans calling it a cut and paste job and asking why he isn’t writing about other Premier League clubs. That isn’t the point. If Conn’s cut and pasted, it’s from his own work and the reason there’s an article about Manchester City’s backroom going ons is because they’re in the news right now, whether the club’s fans like it or not. Plus, Conn’s probably covered most of the 92 league teams and beyond at some point or other.

Weirder still – and this is one thing I REALLY don’t get – is the Millwall-esque attitude that seems to have enveloped a large chunk of the support, with repeated claims of a media conspiracy or vendetta against the club.

You could certainly make a valid point about the media’s fawning over the Big Four and looking down on other clubs. Witness the FA Cup last season, where it was labelled a waste of time as soon as they were eliminated. Or the treatment of Martin Jol once they’d decided Spurs didn’t deserve to be in the Champions League (not that Spurs make life easy for themselves…).

But a huge media conspiracy to do down Manchester City at every opportunity? Perhaps I’m missing something by not being a Man City supporter here, but, you wot?

So, while I don’t want to see Manchester City, or any other club bar Franchise FC, go down the swanny (and I’ll be surprised if they do, although it may be a long season) the attitude of a large section of their fans in refusing to even countenance the idea that Thaksin could be anything less than the Second Coming does not make it easy to give sympathy. Or understand.

Like I say. Perhaps it’s me. Perhaps I just don’t get it. I don’t know. But I can’t see this going away or ending in anything other than tears. And I really don’t feel like lending a handkerchief.

[And this is all without mentioning the odious Garry Cook, the club's new chairman. I would have nothing but contempt for him no matter which club he was at, including Exeter. Sadly, he seems to be exactly the type of person who would happily pitch in to relaunch Game 39 or, if he were a turkey, vote for Christmas because he was pretty sure he knew the farmer and would be spared the chop.

And as somebody in the Guardian comments pointed out, the idea of Cook and Sir Dave Richards sitting down to talk fit and proper people to run football clubs is a very bitter joke, especially fi you're a Sheffield Wednesday fans.

I'll leave the response to Cook to Two Hundred Per Cent:

"In an amazingly wrong-headed interview with The Times, Cook proposes a closed shop, fourteen club Premier League with no Premier League, with no promotion or relegation. It is, of course, a massive coincidence that fourteen clubs would be exactly the right number to just about guarantee Manchester City’s inclusion in it, safeguarding their future against inconveniences such as being completely bloody useless and getting relegated, which is, let’s be honest, something that Manchester City are prone to doing every once in a while.

It is a fairly timely reminder of how the minds of those running the Premier League work. Cook is blithely dismissive of the interests of fans, stating that, “the sport will change and the fans will find a way to get passionate about a piece of it”. Oh we will, will we? We’ll like it because you tell us to? When questioned about whether this new look league will be of less interest to sponsors, he states that, “you would create that excitement in another way, wouldn’t you?”, although he fails to elucidate on how this would be. The Lord alone knows that the Premier League is dull enough anyway these days, so what benefits would there be for anyone other than the fortunate fourteen themselves?"

And Two Footed Tackle:

"I oppose this proposal on ALL counts. Cook is clearly not a football man. He is working for a [removed by my lawyers] with seemingly no remorse. And football needs to get back to basics, not continue on this tragic path to global obsolescence. Sooner or later, most of us will ditch our Premier League clubs out of frustration. But not because of the beliefs of the likes of Garry Cook.”

Quick note: I know this is generalising and there are a lot of City fans who aren’t keen on Thaksin. But on message board and online they’re a lot quieter.

written by Gary Andrews \\ tags: David Conn, Eastlands, football fans, Garry Cook, Manchester City, Manchester City fans, Thaksin Shinawatra

I’ve also had a bit of a soft spot for Manchester City. One of my best friends at university was a fanatical City supporter and I’d frequently become a de facto Blues supporter when watching them down the pub. In return, he got the dubious fare of the likes of Exeter v Accrington and Exeter v Grays.

Thankfully, said friend has never been too happy at Thaksin Shinawatra’s takeover at Eastlands, unlike the majority of Manchester City fans, who were happy to brush corruption charges, frozen assets, questions about cash flow and a poor human rights record to one side in pursuit of a place in the European Big Cup.

That said, City’s current situation – with Thaksin on the run and questions about cash flow – should come as a surprise to absolutely nobody. Other than the fans who chose to bury their head in the money-shaped sand.

Needless to say I’m not impressed. The resulting article can be seen at Soccerlens. I’m expecting a fair bit of stick in the comments. I’ve already been called a United fan, though, which is probably as about as bad as it’ll get.

written by Gary Andrews \\ tags: football, Manchester City, Soccerlens, Thaksin, Thaksin Shinawatra

Closing your eyes and diving into the unknown is a somewhat frightening prospect. It’s a little like how I feel pitching to bloggers.

The lines of communication between traditional media and PR are well established and any combustion is usually smoothed over. With bloggers it’s a bit different. Often there’s no existing relationship, and you have no idea how the blogger will react. Not everybody who blogs will appreciate PR bods butting in on the conversation and they’re under no obligation to write anything about whatever it is you’re pitching. Frankly, most of the time they don’t actually need whatever it is you’re pushing, and can happily carry on their conversation without you.

Worse still, get it wrong and the blogger’s got an immediate platform to (justifiably) complain about your cackhanded methods, which will do nothing for your Google juice. And, if you’re really bad, you could end up on a blacklist.

(And given that there appear to be some people out there who aren’t able to pitch to journalists properly, that’s not an unrealistic scenario.)

It’s understandable than some people in all areas of the media are somewhat cautious, even reluctant at reaching out to bloggers. But it would be a mistake to avoid attempting to make contact with bloggers for fear of getting it wrong. If your content, and pitch, is good enough then hopefully you can work into the start of a good working relationship that can be beneficial to both sides.

Strangely, as I started doing some ‘cold’ pitching to bloggers last week I also got an excellent and unexpected example of a ‘cold’ pitch in my own inbox. An email that contains the phrase “And unfortunately I come with no offers of pies, nor biscuits,” in the opening paragraph will get my attention as it’s clearly that

1. It’s been written by a human.

2. They’ve actually made an effort to read a bit about me.

The pitch, from Hyperlaunch, was concise, explained why I’d been contacted, and was detailed on the product I was being pitched. If I’d received it as a journalist and not a blogger [1] I’d have mentally been sketching out a story or a feature in my head by the final paragraph. That’s a sign of excellent PR, even more so when you consider the product being pitched – music site Muzu – wasn’t something I’d normally have paid much attention to. It was professional, personal and an textbook example, if such a thing is possible, on how to make cold contact.

I’ll come to Muzu in another blog post, mainly because I don’t want to head off on a tangent (chance would be a fine thing).

Now contrast this with the only other two pitches I’ve had directed to me-as-blogger. One was a generic press release which was half interesting but I didn’t have time to write about it and there was no sign anybody had made any effort to engage with me. Frankly, if you’re emailing a blogger who runs a one-man site and blogs under his own name, I don’t think it’s asking too much to at least add a hello.

But it was the second pitch that was a classic example in how not to pitch to a blogger. Not only was it something I wasn’t overly interested in, the pitch (now-deleted) went something along the lines of (and I’m condensing and paraphrasing here): “Hello. You’re a blogger. Here’s something we want you to write about. Because you should be grateful we’re bothering with you, please blog this before next week and let us know when you’ve done this.”

This was followed up 18 hours later with a second email along the lines of: “Hello. You’ve not responded to our email. Please indicate if you’re going to blog about it and if you’re lucky we may send you other stuff that we want you to blog about.”

Ok, so I’m being a bit facetious here. But you get the idea. Needless to say, they got a curt ‘no thank you’.

Based on my own experiences, both as a pitcher and a pitchee, it doesn’t seem rocket science to find the correct way to engage with bloggers. To be honest, it’s no different from cold pitching a journalist, and if you can do that, you’re probably not going to hack off the person you want to engage with.

So, for what it’s worth – and these aren’t exhaustive or necessarily to be applied in every situation – a few tips:

1. Do your research. If you know a bit about the person or blog you’re pitching to it helps. No different from any publication, in that regard.
2. Don’t assume that because they’re bloggers, they’ll gratefully hoover up any old shite. Group blogs especially will probably exercise a fair bit of editorial control. Much like any newsroom.
3. Don’t assume that because they’re bloggers, they’re amateurs. Many bloggers are also journalists, or have some experience in these field. Others blog because they know the topic inside out. Or at least better than you do.
4. Make it relevant. Even if it’s perhaps a bit tenuous, you’ve got to give the blogger a reason why they should be interested in what you’re promoting. Like you would to a journalist.
5. Be prepared for an open and honest response. A lot of blogs will be happy to build links with PRs, but that doesn’t mean to say if they don’t like what you’re offering, they won’t criticise it. Like journalists should do.
6. Don’t get offended by an open and honest response. Because since when has screaming down the phone (or email) at anybody ever achieved anything than making you feel better?
7. Don’t abandon the blogger after they’ve blogged about whatever it is you’re publicising. If they’re favourable to your initial approach, it’s a good opportunity for a long relationship that could be mutually beneficial to both sides. Disappearing after getting what you want leaves the blogger feeling like they’ve just had a less-than-fun one-night stand.
8. Include a note at the end to say that if the pitch isn’t welcome, then you’re sorry and won’t contact the blogger again. It’s just a nice bit of courtesy at the end of an unsolicited pitch.

[1] And there’s no reason why these can’t be one and the same.

written by Gary Andrews \\ tags: blogging, Hyperlaunch, Muzu, PR, PR and blogging

It’s hard not to raise a smile at Dave Hill’s gentle fisking of his local newspaper’s rather arbitrary leader on why teh blogging is rubbish. The column is the kind of thing you’d have expected half or dozen a so years ago when blogging wasn’t as mainstream or as popular as it is now, and everybody (read: the media) seemed convinced citizen journalism via bogs was going to take down traditional media and rule the world and journalists were worried they’d become redundant. Or something.

Fast forward to today (or, if you happen to be reading this light years in the future, 2008) and bloggers haven’t exactly killed off the medium of print, although they have changed the nature of journalism, and how that change will finally pan out is unclear.

But the two are sitting, if not exactly comfortably together, in closer proximity than perhaps was expected. Most major papers now have blogs where journalists and, horrors, the great unwashed interact. Even more shocking is the number of journalists who maintain their own blogs. In their own time! Lawks! Who’d thunk it. Look, there’s one. And here’s another. And, my gosh, another. They’re bloody everywhere.

And what’s more it’s not just journalists who can write and have opinions. A lot of other people do it rather well, often in a niche area. One of the trouble with journalists is, unless we end up seriously specialising, our knowledge is spread a little thin and there’s invariably people out there who know more about the topic than we do. Which is, I think, largely a good thing. Holding the fourth estate to account and all that. And, blimey, occasionally you can learn something. Hell, transparency, which is pretty hot on the web these days, is a good thing. After all, journalists call for it all the time, right?

Ok, blogland does have more than its fair share of tub-thumping nutters who do like causing a shit-storm and enjoying the controversy. That’s largely the nature of a free and open platform for publishing. I’d hazard a guess than the majority of the tub-thumping nutters can also be found among the retired colenels in the letters pages of local newspapers. At the very least, they’re no less nutty than some of the people who write in.

But one of the great things about blogs and other social media is how they’ve changed the nature of newsgathering.

Certainly, today’s journalists are as likely to be tracking a breaking story online using Technorati, Summize and Twing as they are door-knocking (and both have their merits and disadvantages, and are best used in conjunction). Similarly, they’re turning into a great source of news as more newsworthy people get blogs. 

So it’s just slightly depressing to read the following comments in the leader column:

“It’s accepted practice – particularly if a public figure makes controversial remarks on a blog – for newspapers to use them as source material for their follow-up story, subject to the paper contacting the person quoted to check that what appeared is accurate.”

“For a blogger to moan that what they themselves put in the public domain has somehow been pillaged because a newspaper hasn’t acknowledged them smacks of breath-taking petulance.”

“Too often, blogs seem like slags or slogs, probably both; disappointing slogs through slaggings off. Perhaps when blogs have grown up a little more they’ll be better. For many, still, maturity seems a long way off.”

written by Gary Andrews \\ tags: blogging, Dave Hill, Hackney Gazette, journalism, Web 2.0