Yesterday’s post about The Standard disgrace earned the honour of a response from lprent (Lynn Prentice), the guy who runs The Standard. So I’ll respond to him.
We generally don’t put our names or psuedonyms to work that we don’t create. It winds up as either being “notices and features” (aka The Standard psuedo) or “Guest post”. Since this has been floating around on facebook for at least 4 days that I know of, then whoever put it up quite correctly didn’t claim it as their work.
That’s a weak excuse. It’s normal for bloggers to post under their own names or pseudonyms. And it’s also normally regarded as correct on blogs to hat tip the source of material, – even The Standard does this when they choose to.
However I’ll happily put my hand up for
1. Popping it up on the top of the site
At least you own up to actively supporting and promoting it, so you must think it is appropriate material for The Standard.
It’s interesting that you seem to be denying posting it yourself – but the time of the post, 10:57 am, September 7th, 2012, is while the blog was down and you were working on it, as you explain here when the blog came back online at 7 September 2012 at 2:45 pm.
2. Adding the text to the right purely to piss off and flush out pious hypocrites (and because it was a hard night with hardware last night).
I think you’re flattering yourself there, I know you like to piss people off but it’s hard to see why you think that would flush anyone out. And I don’t see what’s hypocritical about openly criticising something one thinks is disgusting.
3. I thought it was ‘funny’ in the long satirical tradition of the political blogs all the way back to latecomers like Punch.
That is hardly in “the long satirical tradition of the political blogs”. It’s an attempt at a purely political smear job playing to the worst of The Standard.
It’s interesting to see who at The Standard have joined in the thread – and who hasn’t. I’m sure it is a cringe for many, and I suspect most of the other authors won’t be happy to have that sort of standard dragging their own efforts down. But you probably didn’t think of considering them.
You defend Standard authors against mild criticisms and are happy to crap on the blog reputation with this. What a wonderful sysop you are.
But I guess that would involve you having to think – not something you are noted for.
I’m not noted for thinking like you do for sure. And you are noted for being intolerant of people with different thoughts to your own.
4. Wondering when I’ll see said pious hypocrites look back at the photoshopping of Labour politicians on to porn photos that Whale, Farrar, and their faithful readers thought ‘funny’ and pointing out how they hated that as well.
Wondering when I’ll see you back up your accusation with some actual evidence.
From what I’ve seen on various blogs it’s common when they have caption contests to say something like ‘Captions should be funny, not nasty.” Like this one. And usually they are candid photos, not crudely photoshopped.
Ummm you selectively ‘forgot’ about that? Not particularly balanced..
Ummm, no I didn’t, but this is a typical accusation from The Standard. When I criticise something I don’t make a habit of making sure I make other completely unrelated criticisms in the same post to ensure ‘balance’.
I have a reputation for speaking up against material and comments I think is distasteful on blogs other than The Standard, including Whale Oil and Kiwiblog. People there don’t like their poor judgement being confronted either.
5. And I rate your opinion as being that of one of the hypocrites and therefore of little concern to me.
Youb haven’t explained what is hypocritical about what I’ve done.
Talking about hypocrisy, it’s somewhat hypocritical of you to accuse me of being ‘Not particularly balanced.’
Through all of the comments you made at The Standard I can’t think of any that showed more than a superficial level of thought past the partizan.
Funny. You’re accusing me of a superficial level of partizan in my comments at The Standard. Compared to who? ‘Eddie’? “Zetetic”? “James Stephenson”? Lprent?
Did someone mention the hypocrisy word?
If you don’t like that then it is your problem not mine…
I’m not crying about your disapproving lectures. It’s generally regarded as a badge of honour to flush out some of your bluster.
6. Thanks for the traffic. It was a slow day overall. Gave me time to look down the links..
It was a busy day here, with your lack of decent standards contributing significantly. But I’m not obsessed about traffic. I just say what I think.
And I make no apology for continuing to call for better standards on political blogs and in parliament (alongside a number of MPs).
In the meantime, The Standard of Labour takes another hit to it’s reputation. I think that’s sad, but it’s your call what you try and promote your blog with.