I’ve been very gratified by the entirely positive feedback my articles about the Daily Telegraph and Jo Swinson yesterday have received. This is entirely in keeping with the broadly sympathetic reaction Jo has received on both the blogosphere and on Twitter.
That the story has had such a positive backlash is of course a good thing. The trouble with such stories however is that they often grow in the retelling. I’ve already cited how the BBC and Guardian have contributed to this. What if a candidate opposing Jo in the general election campaign were to base a dirty tricks campaign on this story? What happens the next time a newspaper decides to do a profile on her and a time pressured researcher finds the story via a quick Google search?
…internet search engines are changing the dynamic of negative stories. Whilst in the past the correct response was often to either say nothing or say very little and wait for a story to blow over, the big risk in the internet era is that as a result only one side of the story is laid out there waiting for search engines to find when people research the person or the topic in future years.
In short, we cannot afford to let this stand. That’s why I am encouraging people to write directly to the Telegraph, the BBC and the Guardian and demand a retraction and apology. (There are other media outlets which have repeated and embellished the original Telegraph piece but the original source and more reputable outlets are a good place to start).
So far, the response has been tremendous, but we need as many people as possible to do this so they cannot afford to ignore the issue.
Finally, a (non-exhaustive) list of blogs which have already commented on this:
- Caron’s Musings: When the Telegraph goes too far…..the truth about Jo Swinson and make-up
- Jennie Rigg: A random collection of things which have made me angry today
- Steve Beasant: MPs Expenses
- Himmelgarten Cafe: Guardian criticises MP for buying make-up with her own money
- Mark Reckons: James Graham is spot on about Jo Swinson
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Why you should read old election manuals
Boy the home office tried to deport at 9 wins British chess championship at 17
Clacton ad infinitum
Which is the most unworkable policy?
Peter Martin
Simon Horsman
Peter Chambers
Richard Whelan
Pawel Urbanski
3 Comments
Just sent to BBC feedback:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8047390.stm#swinson_jo
Except of course, she didn’t make any such claims – the Telegraph simply managed to maneuver you into inferring that she did.
So Jo Swinson *didn’t* spend any of my taxes on makeup. The BBC *did* spend some of my license fee on an incompetently credulous piece of cut-and-paste hackery. I wonder what I bought the writer for lunch while s/he surfed?
I’ve done all three letters, and commented on my blog – http://acomfortableplace.blogspot.com/2009/05/nadine-dorries.html – Never thought I’d mention Dorries and Swinson in the same breath.
Response from BBC:
===
Thanks for your email. The Daily Telegraph says the receipts it has
includes one for Jo Swinson featuring the cosmetics. Ms Swinson says she
did not claim for cosmetics. We have reported both these facts, with
clear attribution, and will be able to amend and judge for ourselves
if/when the Parliamentary authorities (or Ms Swinson) publish in full
all expenses claims and receipts.