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Here is my full comment (posted at 15.03 – as yet unpublished):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
