Comments on: Well-connected amateurs?

By: misharialadwani

misharialadwani — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 01:14:06 +0000

True enough.If the piece had shown some evidence of wit,of self-awareness,of charm-in short,of any quality that might make you want to keep reading,the reaction would have been very different.The nepotism was a side issue.The real issue was why the Grauniad thought it could get away with insulting our intelligence.The subsequent attempts at damage limitation were even worse than the offending article.A sorry saga.

By: Tom

Tom — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 14:50:15 +0000

Hmmm. Frankly, I don’t think the whole thing as got anything to do with UGC, either for or against. Beyond the hardly earth-shattering revelation that open comment threads can be a) hilarious and b) scary, everything that’s wrong with the article is related to traditional editorial commissioning structure, and what people are saying should be done about is equally an offline issue (like, “don’t hire cocks”).

I agree that the comment you highlight is wrong to say that Gogartygate is an indictment of UGC, but they were right to point out that the Guardian’s take on this – “One thing that came out of yesterday’s posts was that you want to hear a lot more from real people rather than journalists, so I’m going to be putting up a lot more readers’ recommendations and writing” – was also total balls. I didn’t see anybody saying that in the comments. What I got out of it was that people don’t care what the source is or what content filtering architecture was used to get the writing in front of their eyes – they just care that it be good.

By: Chris

Chris — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 10:43:50 +0000

He may have little experience but it’s clear from his aspirations and the fact he’s hanging onto daddy’s coat-tails that he is pursuing a professional writing career (the Guardian have made no attempt to deny he is being paid for his efforts). He is indeed piss-poor at it, but being a terrible writer is no obstacle to a career in journalism.

By: Dave Onions

Dave Onions — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 10:34:13 +0000

Sorry, but you’re quite wrong. Max Gogarty has written a sum total of nothing professionally. He is not a professional. Those of us who actually spent time EARNING our journalistic qualifications through study agree with the sentiment that sites offering PROFESSIONAL journalism should not be choked with AMATEUR nonsense by people who have no idea what they are doing, like Max.

By: Chris

Chris — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 10:33:43 +0000

You’re absolutely right, it is a piss-poor excuse. I take the apology back and it’s duly struck from the record.

By: B�te de Jour

B�te de Jour — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 18:04:30 +0000

“And it was written with his tongue firmly in his cheek.”

That’s what Peter Gogarty (if it was actually him, which I reckon it was) said about his son’s article in the CiF follow-up. But at least he didn’t apologise for it. Stand by your profanity, man! Where’s your loyalty?

By: Chris

Chris — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 17:31:26 +0000

Yeah, sorry about the swearing. The second half of this post is actually taken verbatim from the email I sent back when discussing this – the profanity was tongue in cheek though.

By: Pinksy

Pinksy — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 16:53:05 +0000

It’s very funny anyway. He was asking for it really.

By: Armand

Armand — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 16:48:20 +0000

Ha. Eloquently (expletively?) put. The comments are hysterical.