Where we publish a comment that the Times chose not to publish under its court report today. J’accuse is sorely tempted to start one of those useless facebook campaigns and call it: “It’s the Blog, Stupid”. Incidentally feel free to call us pedants. We’ll take the liberty to call you stupid.
Here’s the significant bits of the Times report of one of the extensions of Plategate:
“The incident happened after the Magistrate gave evidence in the case instituted by the police against Ms Caruana Galizia for allegedly slandering the magistrate in various blogs on her website. (…) During her evidence, Magistrate Scerri-Herrera read out the parts of the blogs which she considered as being offensive and denied all claims that had been made. (…) The court turned down a request to issue a protection order for the magistrate by ordering a ban on the publication of blogs mentioning the magistrate.”
The Times proves to be as informed as Lou Bondi on the subject matter of blogs. It is evident here that the reporter had absolutely no clue about the difference between a blog, a post on a blog and a comment on a blog. The “various blogs on her website” bit is the huge giveaway. The website is, incidentally, a blog. It’s a blog called “Running Commentary” (or as we affectionately call it at J’accuse: the runs). What the magistrate probably read out are posts on the blog – the equivalent of mini-articles: which is why there were “various”.
Also, the Times correspondent should note that the request by the prosection would probably have been to order a ban on the publication of posts mentioning the magistrate – or alternatively a ban on the blog being published as a whole (the blog being The Runs). I tried to leave a comment for the Times – a few other comments have been published later but mine seems to have been left out : I wonder why? they could have at least amended the article but I guess they have no clue on using the right terminology.
Here is my full comment (posted at 15.03 – as yet unpublished):
Another comment from the Unofficial Representative of the Non-Existent Guild of Bloggers in Malta.
The case deals with one (1) blog – Running Commentary by DCG.
What the Magistrate presumably read out in court were POSTS not BLOGS.
One can also presume that what the request before the presiding magistrate is to prohibit any POSTS on the BLOG mentioning the magistrate and not, as reported, “a ban on the publication of blogs mentioning the magistrate” – as the latter would mean that more than just the allegedly offending blog would be affected.Times (and other) reporters please take note. It’s really not that complicated.
www.akkuza.com – blogging made easy
12 replies on “It's the Blog, Stupid”
stupid pedants
P.S. Still unclear whether some kind of ban does or does not exist. Here is http://www.di-ve.com‘s version of the events insofar as bans on publication are concerned:
“Magistrate Micallef Trigona turned down a request for Mr Musumeci’s case to be heard simultaneously with Magistrate Scerri Herrera’s. This will remain under Magistrate Edwina Grima. It also turned down a request for the defense lawyer to be from the Attorney General’s Office as Dr Tonna Lowell is a private lawyer. The court also ordered Ms Caruana Galizia will immediate effect to stop writing about the magistrate in her blog.”
Which sounds like a ban to me. It was not easily deciphrable from the convoluted last sentence in the Times report.
anke fl-artiklu ta Father Peter ilbierah bdew ihawwdu ….jitkelmu fuq bloggers meta jridu jireferu ghal dawk li jikkumentaw…
di-ve.com link: http://www.di-ve.com/Default.aspx?ID=72&Action=1&NewsId=70307
I was just going to point out that di-ve and times are contradicting each other…so which is it, has there been a ban on the blog posts against consuelo or not…who would know?
Just do as I do – keep on posting the comment until they publish it….!
But it does make you think – if a journalist can’t sensibly point out that the magistrate seemed to be getting his blogs mixed up with his posts, then we truly do live in a proper parrot cage.
Many people of the older generation (including my professors, many government officials, journalists, architects, lawyers etc) seem to think that each post on a blog, is in fact, a blog; curiously, they also insist on labelling everything found online “the blogs”, even something like Google Groups, which more of a discussion board/forum.
*sigh*
The Times wish to maintain the delusion that they’re the epitome of correct usage of English in Malta, which is probably why they never publish comments pointing out their increasingly frequent howlers.
Hehe, are you old enough to remember a time when, as older children/young adolescents, we’d be told to read the “Times” (of Malta) to improve our English?
ok so this debate is not up my street so may i ask one question (make it two…is not ‘blog’ both a noun and a verb? if it is also a verb, does that not make the use of the word ‘blog’, by the times, correct?
@danny
The verb “to blog” normally refers to the act of working on your blog e.g. updating or adding posts. When adding a “post” you are more correct in saying that you are “posting to your blog” though I am sure that “blogging” would be right too.
The problem I have with the Times is that they give the impression that DCG (in this case) has multiple blogs. there is only one blog as afar as I know: The Runs, hosted on the web address http://www.daphnecaruanagalizia.com. Other than that nada. When the Times reporter said “read out various blogs” he or she meant “various posts”.
The rest we will leave to the Oxford Dictionary to specify.
now i’m with you. thanks…and by the way happy birthday…and thanks for providing a corner of sanity…