"Children are smarter than any of us. Know how I know that? I don't know one child with a full time job and children." ~ Bill Hicks

A few words on blogging recklessness

Posted: March 8th, 2007 | Author: Aaron | Filed under: meta, politics, scandal, uk | 55 Comments »

Many of you have no doubt noticed the recent emergence of quite a few combative political blogs. This blog welcomes all newcomers to the UK political blogosphere, but it also has a few words of warning to some of those with ambitions beyond blogging.

Look, it’s easy to see why someone would write a combative, confrontational blog. Controversy breeds interest. Interest means traffic. And traffic equals exposure. If you wanted to break into the UK blogosphere, and are not prepared to blog in obscurity, slowly building your contacts and profile, what better way to make a splash than to pick a fight with someone already at the top?

In truth the above method works a treat. Trawl some high-profile blogs and find a post you disagree with. Write about the offending post on your blog, adding liberal helpings of sarcastic scorn and pejorative language, and hey presto – you have a high-profile blogger pissed off and on your case. And that means Traffic! Traffic! Traffic!

But remember, and please forgive the patronising Yoda speak, the easy way is often the path to misfortune.

Hitting the blogosphere with a bellicose splash has its downside. For one, you’re going to be very inexperienced in political blogging. Picking fights with people who have been scrapping online for years is unwise (even this kindly blogger cut his teeth for several years on US political forums). Also, the veteran political bloggers are invariably tech-savvy, so they’ll enjoy skills you don’t. So be wary.

Recently, some of the pricklier Tory blogs are making more pronounced errors. They are making enemies they simply don’t need. Take ‘c4’ who writes the Conservative Mind Blog. Here is a guy who on his profiles writes:

I have had an interest in politics since I was young and my ultimate ambitions are to be a great and influential international statesman and Cabinet minister.

He has over the last few days picked a fight with Unity of Ministry of Truth, a blogger with a lot of experience in digging up scurrilous tit-bits and one with time on his hands. Now I would point this blogger in the direction of this recent article from The Washington Post – Harsh Words Die Hard on the Web. Interesting, eh? Now of course your statement on your profile could be tongue-in-cheek, but if you do have any serious intentions of getting into politics proper, you should keep your enemies to a minimum and conduct yourself in a manner that will not return to haunt you.

Now we all have our moments of naivety, and I assure ‘c4’ I am not being deliberately condescending, but I would advise that before you pick a fight, you ensure it’s one you can afford to lose.

Another blogger who is desperately seeking to boost his profile by attacking ‘Labour bloggers’ is PragueTory, who has taken no time at all in becoming an online pariah in some circles. PT does a great line in faux-outrage and disingenuous pomposity, and more often than not, he comes unstuck and does a bunk. Again, here is a blogger with clear ambitions to become a player, yet makes simple, rookie errors.

Luckily I’m not strongly aligned to any political party. I’m a liberal (in the classical sense) and have no serious political intentions. I’m a writer, so I have little to lose from a bit of controversy, but I assure you if I did, I’d be careful of the commentary and conduct I put my name to.

Sphere: Related Content

55 Comments on “A few words on blogging recklessness”

  1. 1 B4L said at 8:25 pm on March 8th, 2007:

    C4 does have a bit of a track record: he used to hang around on Jo Salmon’s blog, and was was banned at least once on the basis of the comments he left.

  2. 2 Praguetory said at 8:55 pm on March 8th, 2007:

    I haven’t come unstuck once. The weight of the counter-attacks are perfectly correlated with the effectiveness of my initial attacks, nothing else. For example, from being touted as the Labour blogger who might be able to challenge the successful Tory bloggers, Bob Piper has become famous for one thing. I had a small role in highlighting that. That drew a lot of counter fire for a short time. Nevertheless Bob’s site is now a parody – these days his most prolific commenter killed an old woman with an axe. I have repeatedly challenged Recess Monkey effectively, most successfully in the last few days by ensuring that everyone was fully aware that his “obit” error was a jibe. My political stance means that I am happy to say that I stand diametrically opposite to the likes of Tim Ireland and Dave Lambert. The only way I wouldn’t have come into dispute with them is if I was utterly unsuccessful. Making “enemies” with them doesn’t take away from what I am trying to achieve at all. In terms of material to unleash on my favourite targets, you’ve only seen the tip of the iceberg. My notoriety will make my future attacks all the more powerful.

  3. 3 Praguetory said at 8:57 pm on March 8th, 2007:

    Oh and my disappearance was due to having things other than blogging in my social and work calendar.

  4. 4 B4L said at 10:10 pm on March 8th, 2007:

    The only way I wouldn’t have come into dispute with them is if I was utterly unsuccessful.

    I must have missed something, PT, because you were utterly wrong on the “blacked-up” Cameron spoof, and took the same sanctimonious approach that the Iain-Dale-commenter calibre of Tory blogger has so recently taken over the “Maggie Dead” non-story.

    What have been the socially/intellectually-valuable effects of your attacks?

  5. 5 Crushed by Ingsoc said at 10:25 pm on March 8th, 2007:

    Very interesting post.
    Thank for the tips.
    Though I don’t see why people would blog to attack others. Clearly they do, but life’s too short.
    I will be returning…

  6. 6 Praguetory said at 10:53 pm on March 8th, 2007:

    It is valuable for me to show Labour hypocrisy on race (Piper), that Labour doesn’t care about the minimum wage (Danny Dewsbury) and that there are Labour apologists who delight in not apologising properly for falsely, irresponsibly and unkindly reporting Thatcher’s death. I think right-wing bloggers need to do this stuff because the MSM fails to.

  7. 7 Bob Piper said at 12:00 am on March 9th, 2007:

    Dominic’s real problem is that PragueTory is having a fantasy love affair online. He is deeply in love with Dominic Fisher. His blog is not a parody, it is a lengthy love letter to Dominic Fisher. Post after post is about nothing in particular other than the dreary life of…. ermmm, Dominic. The claim that Labour doesn’t care about the minimum wage (introduced by Labour – opposed by the Tories on the grounds that it would create mass unemployment) is just the latest example of his lack of any political sense, the equivalent of his assertion that george Osbourne took hard drugs (hastily withdrawn). Why should anyone apologise to this self-important dickhead about posting news of the old with’s death by mistake?

    Oh well, let’s all tune in to see what Dominic has to say about Dominic next week… maybe another fawning letter from someone saying, Dom, how wonderful you are.

    The boy is Iain Dale without the wit, intelligence or readership. Basically… a prick!

  8. 8 Tim Ireland said at 12:05 am on March 9th, 2007:

    Praguetory, if you’re so big/tough/right, how come you run away like a little girl every time you’re faced with a straightforward debate in an arena where you can’t delete awkward comments or ban certain people outright?

    PS – I’m waiting for you right over here, sweetums:
    http://www.ministryoftruth.org.uk/2007/03/05/cwy-y-y-y-innnnng-over-yooooooooou/

    Key questions remain unanswered in that thread. For instance, you said:

    “Is it OK to slur someone as a paedophile? My answer… is no.”

    And yet you continue to suck at Guido’s teat (and fight his battles for him, because he’s a coward much like yourself)… even after this:
    http://www.bloggerheads.com/archives/2006/01/our_legal_advic.asp

    Why?

    No means no, right?

    Here’s your chance to prove that your outrage is of the genuine variety and not a matter of partisan convenience.

    (waits)

  9. 9 Tim Ireland said at 12:10 am on March 9th, 2007:

    PS – “I haven’t come unstuck once.”

    PT speaks the truth at last!

    It’s more like half-a-dozen times now. It would be more if he didn’t keep deleting comments (and entire *posts*) at his weblog whenever he felt himself in trouble. The pussy.

  10. 10 Praguetory said at 12:18 am on March 9th, 2007:

    I like annoying you, Bob and I enjoy the praise. Is that so wrong? *Stirs*

  11. 11 Tim Ireland said at 12:24 am on March 9th, 2007:

    Ah, good… you’re up. Now, if you would be so kind as to deal with a few outstanding questions…

  12. 12 peteblogging said at 12:37 am on March 9th, 2007:

    Dominic

    Shall we have a small wager? That, say, despite your ambitions you won’t get within an ass’s roar of elected office? Ever?

  13. 13 Tim Ireland said at 12:44 am on March 9th, 2007:

    Pete,

    I think it’s disappointing that Praguetory’s blinkers blinded him to the significance of the 1986 article about ‘Guido’. That was the moment that Staines guaranteed that – despite his ambitions – he wouldn’t get within an ass’s roar of elected office. (It has been suggested to me that perhaps this is why Guido despises MPs so much and has such an unhealthy* level of interest in their dirty secrets.)

    [*Did you see that children? That is what they call in the business 'briefing'.]

  14. 14 jailhouselawyer said at 2:11 am on March 9th, 2007:

    I popped over, as I heard that there was a party. I am afraid it took me a long time to find any life in it. Interesting post, I note praguetory’s attack on Bob. “Nevertheless Bob’s site is now a parody – these days his most prolific commenter killed an old woman with an axe”. Didn’t he read the article? In any event, if Bob’s is a parody, it is not clear what it is that he is parodying. Praguetory fails to illuminate. Not surprising as those posts I have read of his on worst criminal of the year post (which he is at pains to point out is not a reference to me), he engages with the stupid commenters in an attack on me that is reminiscent of the Dark Ages. I am a frequent commenter on Bob’s blog because I find it interesting. As to the latter part, I can’t see the point unless he has an axe to grind with me? If it is a social comment, I think the ’so what?’ will suffice.

  15. 15 tyger said at 6:52 am on March 9th, 2007:

    Note comment no8 is new.

    Had to be moderated for having two links.

    note:

    Please don’t include more than one link per-comment (these will be filtered by anti-spam software).

  16. 16 Praguetory said at 7:08 am on March 9th, 2007:

    Tim Ireland – As far as I could see you showed no interest in condemning Terry Kelly. You show no interest in criticising Tom Watson and Bob Piper when they don’t accept comments (you attacked me for complaining about Tom and I’m banned at Bob’s place). That makes you a hypocrite by the benchmarks you set. I have “nil” interest in finding out about some old problem of yours and no time. You are an unreliable witness.

  17. 17 Tim Ireland said at 7:18 am on March 9th, 2007:

    Noted on links… but it seemed to be live last night.

  18. 18 tyger said at 7:24 am on March 9th, 2007:

    It’s cool Tim – comments do have a habit of acting illogically on WP.

    PT,

    My notoriety will make my future attacks all the more powerful.

    Seriously, everytime you print this hubristic rubbish I groan and roll my eyes. You really have to have the ’skills to pay the bills’ to be bigging yourself up like that. And to be honest dude, you don’t seem to have them yet.

  19. 19 Tim Ireland said at 7:25 am on March 9th, 2007:

    Praguetory: Unlike yours, mine is not a full-time political gossip/attack-blog (I didn’t mention Patrick Mercer yesterday… hope that’s OK with you). Your claims about being censored at Tom’s were baseless. Your long history of going after Bob, even when you have no case, makes a ban totally understandable.

    And you are dodging the question.

  20. 20 Praguetory said at 7:56 am on March 9th, 2007:

    Tyger – if you think I’m arrogant on blogs, you should see how I play pool or cards. Tim – there is a role for gossip/attack blogs – although I’d argue that only 10 to 20% of my posts are attacks or gossip. Again, I will reiterate that I didn’t hear you condemn Councillor Kelly – besides I don’t have the time or inclination to investigate the rights and wrongs of some perceived slight against you. I note the irony of your defence of Bob. It’s why you’re banned at my place. End of communication.

  21. 21 tyger said at 8:29 am on March 9th, 2007:

    PragueTory

    Interesting that you should mention the banning of Tim/Bob. I have never quite seen the point of banning one’s political foes. In my experience, simply allowing Conservatives the opportunity to express their views and express their character, ensures I win any debate.

  22. 22 Praguetory said at 8:31 am on March 9th, 2007:

    Like the swagger, Tyger.

  23. 23 Tim Ireland said at 8:33 am on March 9th, 2007:

    Praguetory: YOU DODGED THE QUESTION AGAIN!

    Terry Kelly made one snide remark that was over the line:
    http://councillorterrykelly.blogspot.com/2007/02/smoke-filled-rooms-provosts-awards.html#comment-8230933235510316554

    Your Tory chums (and fellow commenters over at Staines’ blog) published a person’s name, face and location and first suggested then claimed outright that he was a paedophile (i.e. they pretty much invited some random nutjob to do him an injury). This is way beyond ‘a perceived slight’ (and it wasn’t aimed at me… please pay attention).

    Over Terry Kelly, you went mental. Over the other matter? Not a word. Even when it was brought directly to your attention. Months ago.

    It’s still an ongoing matter, by the way. David Cameron’s office has twice been provided with evidence of his activists’ involvement, but Mr Nice Guy refuses to do anything about it. (I think I know why now… look out for a fresh post soon.)

    Now, can you please answer my question? You don’t need to investigate the rights or wrongs. It’s all there in black and white and you have stated quite clearly that it is wrong.

    You claim that it’s unacceptable in your eyes for anyone to slur someone as a paedophile. Paul Staines* (aka Guido Fawkes) did exactly this, and continues to defend the action. Yet you remain one of his staunchest defenders and constantly fight his battles for him. Why is that?

    (*Recess Monkey was there at the time, too. Does that help?)

  24. 24 Praguetory said at 8:53 am on March 9th, 2007:

    Hang on Tim, I thought that unlike Guido you could fight your own battles. I have heard that something was said on a radio show but haven’t listened to the show – seems like you’re the only person talking about it now. I havent got the latest on Kelly but last time I visited his blog he was allowing the comment to stand in black and white. I haven’t blogged on the four Labour councillors on Kelly’s council being investigated for corruption either – how reprehensible of me to be so selective.

  25. 25 Tim Ireland said at 9:15 am on March 9th, 2007:

    Praguetory, the issue here is your hypocrisy. Oh, and either you’re incapable of following hyperlinks, or you’re being deliberately disingenuous. I provided direct links to my report on the podcast and to Terry Kelly’s comment.

    I’ll provide that podcast link again for you…
    http://www.bloggerheads.com/archives/2006/01/our_legal_advic.asp

    … and repeat the question that frightens you so:

    You claim that it’s unacceptable in your eyes for anyone to slur someone as a paedophile. Paul Staines (aka Guido Fawkes) did exactly this, and continues to defend the action. Yet you remain one of his staunchest defenders and constantly fight his battles for him. Why is that?

  26. 26 Tim Ireland said at 10:04 am on March 9th, 2007:

    Oh dear… he’s only gone and run away again.

  27. 27 tyger said at 12:25 pm on March 9th, 2007:

    Mr. Tim Ireland

    Can you please stop bullying my readers?

    PragueTory has kindly added me to his blogroll. Although I am now an “attack blogger” under the terrifying nom-de-plume ‘easy tyger.’ Obviously I am suitably delighted to be given such a moniker, if somewhat befuddled…

  28. 28 Praguetory said at 12:31 pm on March 9th, 2007:

    Tyger – When I get a chance, I’ll introduce you to my readers.

  29. 29 trafficOne said at 1:01 pm on March 9th, 2007:

    Tyger, it’s great that yu have drawn the fight to yr blog. I am so pleased…….. and it is good to see the tenacious Mr Ireland in action.

  30. 30 tyger said at 1:11 pm on March 9th, 2007:

    Prague,

    I’m sure you will. I can’t wait to see the Praguester’s acid pen in action.

    Oh, and I prefer a blunt knife with lots of little jabs. Make me feel the pain. :)

  31. 31 tyger said at 1:12 pm on March 9th, 2007:

    Entirely unintentional Mr. Traffic.

  32. 32 Tim Ireland said at 1:24 pm on March 9th, 2007:

    Praguetory is still dodging the question.

  33. 33 Praguetory said at 2:57 pm on March 9th, 2007:

    It will be generally complimentary, tyger. Attack blogs are a legitimate form of expression. Tim – why should unleash you from your impotent fury?

  34. 34 Tim Ireland said at 3:02 pm on March 9th, 2007:

    Tch. Even if you’d answered my question at last, it would have been 30 seconds too late:
    http://www.bloggerheads.com/archives/2007/03/praguetory.asp

    I advise you to read that post now, BTW.

  35. 35 tyger said at 3:04 pm on March 9th, 2007:

    It will be generally complimentary, tyger. ~ Prague

    Now that would hurt.

    I don’t actually consider this an attack blog. I do occasionally tease, but this site is primarily just a place for me to hang out. You see people generally find me to be bit of an obnoxious, over-opinionated cock. So it’s less a blog, and more of a psychological crutch.

  36. 36 Tim Ireland said at 3:09 pm on March 9th, 2007:

    Re: ‘attack’ blogs

    I never tire of watching liars and bullies cry foul when they get what’s coming to them.

  37. 37 Mike Ion said at 3:30 pm on March 9th, 2007:

    Tyger

    I have read the thread of comments and I think (in light of reading them) that your original posting is accurate and pertinent. Much of what is written is political but it is at the level of micro-personal politics or ‘cyber office’ politics – and very boring.

  38. 38 tyger said at 3:44 pm on March 9th, 2007:

    Mike,

    Quite often us provincial politicos can be guilty of navel gazing and pointless infighting. For this we offer a grovelling apology. Obviously, serious Westminster types would never be so trivial… ha!

    No, seriously Mike, the irony of being labelled an ‘attack blog,’ on a thread warning about the pitfalls of ‘attack blogs,’ is not lost on me. I can only assume that PragueTory is very, very clever.

  39. 39 Praguetory said at 4:19 pm on March 9th, 2007:

    Er… thanks in advance for the traffic, Tim. I understand that signing in to make a comment at your place is time-consuming so I won’t bother.

  40. 40 Tim Ireland said at 4:30 pm on March 9th, 2007:

    Praguetory: So you’re not going to answer my question or challenge any of the points I raised?

  41. 41 Praguetory said at 4:55 pm on March 9th, 2007:

    Can you boil it down to ground I haven’t previously covered with you?

  42. 42 Tim Ireland said at 4:59 pm on March 9th, 2007:

    ‘Previously covered’… would that be the stuff you’ve dodged/ignored then? Like this?

    You claim that it’s unacceptable in your eyes for anyone to slur someone as a paedophile. Paul Staines (aka Guido Fawkes) did exactly this…
    http://www.bloggerheads.com/archives/2006/01/our_legal_advic.asp

    …and continues to defend the action. Yet you remain one of his staunchest defenders and constantly fight his battles for him. Why is that?

    PS – ‘Thanks for the traffic’ was old when Guido first tried it on. Ditto for ‘long and boring’.

  43. 43 tyger said at 5:04 pm on March 9th, 2007:

    Speaking of traffic…

    *tyger tips his hat before heading for the door*

  44. 44 Tim Ireland said at 5:14 pm on March 9th, 2007:

    Heh. My weekend starts here, too. Cheers all.

    See you on Monday, Praguetory.

  45. 45 Praguetory said at 5:18 pm on March 9th, 2007:

    Doffs hat – see you.

  46. 46 C4' said at 12:43 pm on March 10th, 2007:

    I believe in freedom and as such I have nothing to hide from anyone.

    As for Jo Salmon, I recall telling a Lampeter University Students’ Union meeting in October 2002 when she was Deputy President for Welfare that “men don’t need political representation”. A few months later, she openly praised Hitler’s unemployment policies in the Old Bar of the Students’ Union building.

  47. 47 tyger said at 7:14 am on March 12th, 2007:

    It’s Monday morning dudes.

    Time to punch in.

  48. 48 Tim Ireland said at 2:04 pm on March 12th, 2007:

    Sorry it’s late, sir.
    http://www.bloggerheads.com/archives/2007/03/a_tricky_questi.asp

  49. 49 Tim Ireland said at 2:04 pm on March 12th, 2007:

    I got held up by some blog-spammers, sir:
    http://www.bloggerheads.com/guido_fawkes/2007/03/one-of-our-sock-puppets-is-missing.html

  50. 50 tyger said at 2:08 pm on March 12th, 2007:

    No excuses Ireland.

  51. 51 Tim Ireland said at 2:10 pm on March 12th, 2007:

    Now, Praguetory…

    You have suggested over on your weblog that I am ‘unreliable witness re: Guido’, therefore my transcript of the Oaten podcast cannot be taken at face value.

    Very well.

    I have a copy of that podcast as a 1.58 MB MP3 – and it is yours for the asking.

    From here you could listen to the podcast for yourself, or take me at my word knowing that I would be quite unlikely to offer proof if none existed… but the unanswered question remains:

    You claim that it’s unacceptable in your eyes for anyone to slur someone as a paedophile. Paul Staines (aka Guido Fawkes) did exactly this…
    http://www.bloggerheads.com/archives/2006/01/our_legal_advic.asp

    …and continues to defend the action. Yet you remain one of his staunchest defenders and constantly fight his battles for him. Why is that?

  52. 52 Tim Ireland said at 2:12 pm on March 12th, 2007:

    (Tyger: But they made me look at *porn*, sir. I had to report it and go and see the nurse for some eyewash and *everything*, sir!)

  53. 53 tyger said at 6:55 pm on March 12th, 2007:

    It seems PT doesn’t have any answers…

  54. 54 Tim Ireland said at 11:09 am on March 13th, 2007:

    I would tend to agree.

  55. 55 Crushed by Ingsoc said at 9:12 pm on March 19th, 2007:

    Knives are out round here. It’s very scary.
    I’m off to find somewhere happier…