Comments on: Philip Webster story in The Times suffers major printing error http://www.libdemvoice.org/philp-webster-1180.html Our place to talk - an independent website for supporters of the Liberal Democrat party in the UK. Sat, 11 Feb 2012 22:30:10 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: dizzy http://www.libdemvoice.org/philp-webster-1180.html#comment-27858 dizzy Thu, 16 Aug 2007 12:12:19 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/philp-webster-1180.html#comment-27858 I suck at proof reading and type too fast I suck at proof reading and type too fast

]]> By: MatGB http://www.libdemvoice.org/philp-webster-1180.html#comment-27820 MatGB Wed, 15 Aug 2007 15:50:38 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/philp-webster-1180.html#comment-27820 See, the real question from this comment thread is not about crediting stories, but more whether Dizzy was deliberately aping the Graun's spelling style or whether he really is that bad at proof-reading comments... @Mark: Teh Graun is charitable trust and probably figures its readers are unlikely to go read the other papers anyway, no real competitors for their market anyway. The Times isn't in that position and needs to watch market share a bit more because people jump ship to Torygraph, Mail and Indy at times, ergo it doesn't credit. Plus, y'know, Murdoch=git, it's probably NewsInt policy or summat. See, the real question from this comment thread is not about crediting stories, but more whether Dizzy was deliberately aping the Graun’s spelling style or whether he really is that bad at proof-reading comments…

@Mark: Teh Graun is charitable trust and probably figures its readers are unlikely to go read the other papers anyway, no real competitors for their market anyway. The Times isn’t in that position and needs to watch market share a bit more because people jump ship to Torygraph, Mail and Indy at times, ergo it doesn’t credit. Plus, y’know, Murdoch=git, it’s probably NewsInt policy or summat.

]]> By: Mark Pack http://www.libdemvoice.org/philp-webster-1180.html#comment-27814 Mark Pack Wed, 15 Aug 2007 14:22:25 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/philp-webster-1180.html#comment-27814 From what I remember, The Guardian - for example - is rather more generous when the roles are reveresed. But also why should this be standard practice and accepted? Imagine how you'd feel if I kept on lifting stories from your blog but without credit or link ... :-) From what I remember, The Guardian – for example – is rather more generous when the roles are reveresed. But also why should this be standard practice and accepted? Imagine how you’d feel if I kept on lifting stories from your blog but without credit or link … :-)

]]> By: dizzy http://www.libdemvoice.org/philp-webster-1180.html#comment-27800 dizzy Wed, 15 Aug 2007 11:47:17 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/philp-webster-1180.html#comment-27800 I don't get it. It's standarrd practice across the board between papers that the following day strois exclusive to one often get metnioned in the other with prhases like "it has emerged" Also part of the Guardian figures are wrong anyway, because some of the annoucnements were reannouncements with a bit of dodgy double counting. I don’t get it. It’s standarrd practice across the board between papers that the following day strois exclusive to one often get metnioned in the other with prhases like “it has emerged”

Also part of the Guardian figures are wrong anyway, because some of the annoucnements were reannouncements with a bit of dodgy double counting.

]]>