7 ms·
British Press Banned from Reporting Parliament. Seriously.
- ionfish 17y agoI thought links to sources were preferred over blogs regurgitating them? It would have been just as easy to simply link to the Guardian article [1]. Supposedly this is related to their reporting on the oil company Trafigura's alleged cover-up of intentional pollution in west Africa. [1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/12/guardian-gagged-from-reporting-parliament http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/12/guardian-gagged-... [2] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/16/trafigura-oil-ivory-coast http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/16/trafigura-oil-iv...
- ErrantX 17y agoWell as the guardian is prevented from publishing the question it probably makes sense to link to someone who can tie up the whole story...
- danw 17y agoIn which case pointing the story link at wikileaks which carries the report, the MPs question and a link to the Guardian "we're gagged" story would have been best.
- ErrantX 17y agoYou mean rather like this blog does... ;) Sorry I don't mean to "fight" over it but the Spectator is press as well.
- ionfish 17y agoThey're still a secondary source, regardless of how well they happen to be credentialed.
- ErrantX 17y agoAs is Wikileaks
- ionfish 17y agoWikileaks is a provider of primary sources, like any good historical archive. In this case it's providing a PDF of the Minton report. The summary Wikileaks provide is, of course, a secondary source, but people are linking to the page because it hosts the PDF, not because it happens to summarise the contents of the report and its historical context. The Guardian, reporting on the Trafigura case, are a secondary source (when referencing the report), and a primary source when writing about the gagging order that has been applied to them. The Spectator blog article is a secondary source writing about the gagging order. These distinctions are standard in both historiography and journalism.
- adw 17y agoThe Spectator's press too - it's more or less Time with a PhD and a serious crush on Thatcherism.
- patio11 17y agoThe Guardian and I rarely see eye to eye on anything and, honestly, its been a while since I would have assumed that factual representations made on its pages should be treated to a presumption of accuracy. That said, for once, I appreciate the righteous indignation about the sacred mission of the press (usually invoked in the service of their own power and privilege, not in the interest of the public per se) and the writing is a masterpiece of British wit. ("Legal obstacles, which cannot be identified, involve proceedings, which cannot be mentioned, on behalf of a client who must remain secret." is beautiful.)
- danw 17y agoHere is the question asked in the parlimentary records: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/cgi-bin/newhtml_hl?DB=semukparl&STEMMER=en&WORDS=trafigura&ALL=trafigura&ANY=&PHRASE=&CATEGORIES=&SIMPLE=&SPEAKER=&COLOUR=red&STYLE=s&ANCHOR=muscat_highlighter_first_match&URL=/pa/cm200809/cmordbk2/91013o02.htm#muscat_highlighter_first_match http://www.publications.parliament.uk/cgi-bin/newhtml_hl?DB=... And here is the report in question on wikileaks: http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Minton_report:_Trafigura_Toxic_dumping_along_the_Ivory_Coast_broke_EU_regulations%2C_14_Sep_2006 http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Minton_report:_Trafigura_Toxic_dum... What's interesting is some Guardian staffers are tweeting links to the wikileaks on their personal accounts. Are they covered by the gag order on The Guardian itself?
- ionfish 17y agoThe #trafigura hashtag on Twitter is going a bit crazy. http://twitter.com/search?q=%23trafigura http://twitter.com/search?q=%23trafigura On the one hand, it's good that news that needs to get out gets out. On the other, I can't help thinking how easy it is to rustle up a lynch mob these days.
- danw 17y agoTurning a few hours of online outrage into something actionable that fixes the problem is hard. Like with the Iran elections.
- tarkin2 17y agoStill, it's good to see how modern technology has allowed ordinary people a) to access to such censored documents, and b) to gain access to those who are willing to do the research to obtain a, and advertise such. Without it I'd just be reading the Guardian, getting fairly outraged. In fact, I probably wouldn't have heard about it, as I wouldn't have flicked through the Guardian had it not been online (I don't like it so much to spend one pound on a paper when I'm generally only interested in a couple of articles, on average). It's a step in the right direction. Not the whole solution, just yet.
- jrockway 17y agoIt would be a "shame" if the information the Guardian has was leaked to a US-based newspaper. UK laws do not apply over here :)
- patio11 17y agoUK laws do not apply over here In actual practice US and UK courts routinely enforce each other's judgments ("comity"), which is why libel tourism works. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121599561708449643.html?mod=googlenews_wsj http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121599561708449643.html?mod=...
- dtf 17y agoCarter-Ruck, "London's best-known and most feared libel lawyers", obviously still have a thing or two to learn about PR in the internet age. If Trafigura are trying to shy away from their their bad guy image, this isn't helping.
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- jlees 17y agoThe Guardian successfully challenged the ban: http://twitter.com/arusbridger/status/4833101511 http://twitter.com/arusbridger/status/4833101511
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- robin_reala 17y ago…and their associated article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/13/guardian-gagged-parliamentary-question http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/13/guardian-gagged-...
- axod 17y agoBoring politics belong on Reddit IMHO. Not at the top of HN.
- Zarkonnen 17y agoWell, this is about allegations of toxic waste dumping done on behalf of Trafigura, which has poisoned hundreds and possibly killed some people. I'm sorry if you feel that corporate murder is a boring topic.
- axod 17y agoI just prefer reading about this sort of thing other places. Not on HN. You're right though, reading about corporate murder doesn't interest me :/ Just like reading about serial killers doesn't interest me all that much. You seem to be implying somehow that I think corporate murder is ok or not a serious issue :/ An odd leap you're making there.