Greenwich Time – LOL

One thing that made me chuckle about the Southeastern Olympic trains fiasco was Greenwich Council’s initial reluctance to kick up a fuss in public.

853 reader Chris Ferguson, who writes a blog called Abstractnoise, wrote a piece for its weekly newspaper Greenwich Time. But it got spiked. According to him, it had scrapped the whole piece because it mentioned “a blog”.

According to Greenwich Time’s assistant editor Peter Cordwell, in a reply copied into Greenwich Council’s head of press:

“I think it would have had more of a chance if the blog entry had not been mentioned because not everyone is into blogs (they say there are lots about GT, including personal ones about me, but I’ve never seen any of them). Perhaps if you made your points again without the blog reference, we could consider it again.”

I wonder if that’s the same Peter Cordwell, ex editor of the Mercury, who commented in typically witty, yet punchy fashion on the On Blackheath festival post here?

Now, I’m not quite sure if the council’s propaganda paper has heard of sub-editors but in case they haven’t, they’re a wonderful breed who can go through copy and take out references to things they don’t like. (Indeed, I can sub-edit like a dream and am presently looking for work. Ahem.)

So, with Greenwich Time’s readership presumed to be so clueless about modern internet trends, a piece of genuine interest was spiked because of the word “blog” – I wonder how the strapline “LOLfest” managed to creep into this week’s copy?

(Unless, of course, Up the Creek is putting on a show about blokes from the 1970s called Lawrence, mind.)

What’s more important to Greenwich Time? Bringing council tax payers news of things that might affect them, or making silly gestures to get at those who criticise it? I don’t think anyone can even pretend it’s not a propaganda paper after this little episode. And we’re paying for it.

5 comments

  1. Not quite sure what you’re trying to say in the last para, but I’ve used that exact same strap at least once before for the comedy festival last year.
    Wouldn’t use it in body text, no, but I think it’s fine for one of those throwaway little strap lines.

  2. Hello Rod. The whole point of the post is – why is one piece of web-speak (LOL) fine, but another (talking about blogs) not, and causes a whole piece from a resident to be spiked?

    Is it because blogs are critical of the council, and comedians aren’t?

  3. That’s the nature of the pages I do though – ‘LOL-fest’ wouldn’t have gone in anywhere else in GT.
    TBH, (that’s ‘to be honest’ kids, To Be Honest) I’m going off it by the minute…and had I known my careless LOLLING was going to be a t’internet sensation I’d probably have used some other outdated acronym. ‘ROTF-fest’, possibly…

  4. Rod – I think Darryl’s point was it rather exposes the paper-thin excuse, sorry, explanation provided by the newspaper.

    What amazes me by your reaction is that it appears you believe that Greenwich Time has some kind of editorial line worth defending.

    FYI (for your information, to use your annoying format), your readers think it’s dull council propaganda and when they are told they are paying for it are genuinely disgusted.

Comments are closed.