A few clarifications…

May 29th, 2011 | Filed under Uncategorized

Okay, a few basic points then..

Evidence Item 1.

This is the site I got the information from on April 14th, at around 10pm.

Based on the timestamps on the site, by that time, the link to that article had been posted on Twitter eleven times (how else would I have found it?), and that had already included at least one reference to Ryan Giggs here:

Evidence Item 2, Evidence Item 3

These by a Manchester United blogger, both tweets since deleted, but visible on the trackbacks of the original article.

My tweet was thus:

Evidence Item 4.

And was only retweeted by two people, for a total audience of 1,200 followers. In Twitter terms, that’s tiny. That it was only retweeted twice is probably a consequence of it being entirely unattributed speculation, on a day when all sorts of players were being pondered on (Michael Owen, Robbie Keane, and so on).

The tweet that went out advertising the site in the first place received at least nine direct retweets (see here) and was, in the first instance, posted by a person with 3,000 followers. I think they win, when it comes to generating publicity for the idea..

I therefore renounce any claim (not that I ever made one) to being the first person on Twitter to mention it. Even the article concedes that it appears to be one of the earliest tweets, but let’s face it, probably isn’t. That the flow of information from my account seems to hit a dead end quite promptly (seriously, two retweets? You can get more retweets than that talking about your breakfast, right..?), I still dispute my relevance to the story.

I would also challenge the conclusion of the article which is that actually, this in some way vindicates the mainstream media, and shows that it’s just “ordinary people” involved. It’s not. A “contact” of a former photographic agency worker leaked the story, and that person then posted it online. I’m not making any accusations that this was in some way orchestrated by the media, but the circumstances certainly don’t rule it out. That same person then tweeted the story on Twitter – granted, they left out the name of the footballer involved, but nevertheless, they brought the story to the Internet.

That one of the later links in the chain turned out not to have media connections says nothing of the upstream process, where the real leak actually happened.

No comments yet.