To further clarify…

May 29th, 2011 | Filed under Uncategorized

So the Daily Mail has picked the story up.

They didn’t have anything new to say, they’re just basically copying what the Sunday Times said, adding the odd bit of information from my blog, but nothing significant (and certainly none of the actual points I was trying to make).. The reference to “patient zero” originating with the spread of HIV in the USA was unnecessary – it’s a common phrase to mean the first person in any sort of virus – in this case, the idea of “viral information”.

That said, they do have the added bonus of using a picture without permission. They can’t attribute copyright to the Sunday Times, because they do not hold that copyright. Worth bothering about? Probably not..

In spite of being cheap churnalism, the Mail still manages to get some extra details wrong. For example, the Sunday Times said:

There is nothing like being told you cannot know something to pique your interest. “Curiosity got the better of me,” said Webley.

The Daily Mail reports:

‘There is nothing like being told you cannot know something to pique your interest. Curiosity got the better of me,’ said Webley.

Spot the difference in what part of the sentence is attributed to me, eh?

They also seem to think that I made those comments on Twitter. I’d like to see where they think I did that. If you don’t know where a quote came from, don’t just make something up…

And finally, the assertion that my tweet was “rapidly retweeted” – not really the case. It was retweeted twice. Twice. That’s as far as it went. The original story that I took the information from got tweeted about something like thirty times. More than that, stats on the page suggest links have been followed to it over 8,000 times from that shortening service alone. The later tweet by @theurbaninsider got hundreds of retweets, if memory serves, and attracted enough attention to be served with a take-down notice. Once again, like a broken record, I dispute my significance to the story. It’s almost like the mainstream media doesn’t understand how information spreads online…

  1. Steve Kuncewicz
    May 31st, 2011 at 11:07
    Reply | Quote | #1

    Looks like you may have a claim in defamation against the papers if they’re wrong! May be worth letting them know.