Nice try, but no cigar

Tweet

From time to time, I receive e-mail messages from a variety of organisations and individuals referring to this blog.  They range from those who say they are regular readers and then go on to prove that they most definitely are not by offering guest pieces on a range of unrelated topics, to those who are merely looking for a puff piece about a new book or report.  Whilst some of the books and reports are of interest, I don’t do puff pieces, and I don’t publish guest posts.

I had another one last week of a slightly different nature.  This one also claimed to “have been a reader of your site for a while”, told me that there “are loads of things we'll be doing during the campaign” (i.e. UK General Election) “that are relevant to Borthlas”, and asked me what sort of things would be of most interest.

I’d like to feel flattered that I have a fan base at Conservative Central Office, but somehow I suspect that what has actually happened here is that the ‘blogging coordinator for the Conservative Party election campaign’ has somehow put together, or acquired, a list of email addresses for political blogs; done little or no qualification as to which to include in his missive and which to exclude; and used a blanket mail merge to approach them.  Or else hope transcends experience.

The footer to the e-mail warns me sternly that I "must not disclose, distribute, copy or otherwise use this Email".  Do they really think that they can get away with sending targeted e-mails to people at random, and instruct the recipients not to reveal the contents?  It displays a remarkable failure to understand the nature of the medium they are using. 

I’ve seen one response from another blogger who has expressed his views in forthright fashion.  Not quite the way that I’d express it; but it can be taken as read that Borthlas will not be repeating Central Office propaganda.  However, it’s more than possible that I may choose to comment on some of what they have to say; it’s just unlikely that such comment will be favourable.

It's debate, but not as we know it

Tweet Plenty of other people have already commented about the Labour Party's new website launched today. The video gave me a good laugh, and had the same effect for many other Pleidwyr (or should that now be Plaidis?); although probably not for the reasons intended by its authors.

We shouldn't be too unkind on them though; after all it has been very solemnly endorsed by two very serious politicians, although I found it a little hard to believe that they'd actually read the product that they were endorsing. Somehow, the words they use don't quite chime with the content.

Same goes for the press story in today's Western Mail. The promise made by Alun Davies about a "positive and constructive debate" didn't seem to me to bear much relation to the reality of the website. Has he read it either, I wondered?

I suppose I should be flattered to attract a mention on their first day in action; it's a pity though that a site which starts off by saying "So it should be no surprise that the quality of journalism has suffered and coverage of politics has followed in a similarly depressing way" should immediately fall into the trap of regurgitating a half truth. I suppose their concern only applies to reporting of the Labour Party.

What was saddest of all for me is that I had previously thought that Eluned Morgan, Peter Hain, and Alun Davies were, although highly partisan in their approach, serious politicians, able to think about issues and debate them. Still, if this is what the 'brightest and best' of the Labour Party can come up with, I give it an unqualified welcome.