Join 3,421 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)

Big news at News of the World
July 7, 2011 9:31 AM   Subscribe

'News of the World closes' thread closes. I think this is a mistake, this is a huge event in the UK and important quite independent of the previous post.
posted by biffa to MetaFilter-Related at 9:31 AM (123 comments total) 4 users marked this as a favorite

Seconded. This is major news and a bad deletion.
posted by Happy Dave at 9:33 AM on July 7, 2011 [5 favorites]


No, it's directly following the news of the previous FPP. All discussion fits just perfectly there.

Also, MeFi is not a news site, major or otherwise. It's especially not a breaking news site. As has been said previously, MeFi does better with longer-form retrospective stuff.
posted by Eideteker at 9:35 AM on July 7, 2011 [3 favorites]


Yep, I talked it over with another MeFite. I wasn't aware that it was as big a deal. That said, a single BBC link and a "previously" to a thread from three days ago isn't a great way to make an updated post. If someone would make a new post about this, we'd appreciate it, I know it's big news and something you'd like to talk about outside of the context of the July 4 post.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 9:35 AM on July 7, 2011 [3 favorites]


Well, I disagree -- the first thread about the news which lead to the papers' closing is still open for comment.

And if you think the voicemail-hacking doesn't have anything to do with the paper folding, I've got a bridge to sell you.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:36 AM on July 7, 2011


Yeah, I think this post pretty much belongs in the previous thread, since it's pretty much an outcome of that particular thread. On the other hand, two threads pointing out what an evil institution this paper was is hardly a glut....
posted by GenjiandProust at 9:38 AM on July 7, 2011


Here you go. I think this is okay.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 9:43 AM on July 7, 2011 [4 favorites]


Honestly I think this is one of those occasions when the magnitude of the news and what it means for newspapers, the UK, the Murdoch empire and the media at large should overcome MeFi rules about where new information should go.

Especially as the previous post is from three days ago and well off the front page.

I see on preview there's a new, better thread up. Please don't delete that.
posted by Happy Dave at 9:43 AM on July 7, 2011 [3 favorites]


If someone would make a new post about this, we'd appreciate it...

NOW ASK FOR A MONKEY
posted by griphus at 9:43 AM on July 7, 2011 [5 favorites]


I would also like a monkey. Or a fruit bat.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 9:44 AM on July 7, 2011 [19 favorites]


"I wasn't aware that it was as big a deal."

This is a clue that it's not actually a big deal.
posted by Eideteker at 9:45 AM on July 7, 2011 [1 favorite]


Yeah, big news is big but unnecessarily thin posts are unnecessary. Glad someone took a more reasonable whack at the post.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:45 AM on July 7, 2011


And at any rate, the real news will be when these folks are brought up on charges. Right now, it's just the typical "higher ups bluster loudly about being outraged" (about being caught) while setting up the next mole to be whacked later. "Worldly News" launches in 3...2...
posted by Eideteker at 9:47 AM on July 7, 2011


Obviously this is a direct result of the phone hacking scandal but it also completely changes the UK media landscape and represents the end of a major UK institution.

EG I suggested it was important independent of the phone hacking scandal, not independent of the hacking scandal, see the difference?
posted by biffa at 9:48 AM on July 7, 2011


This is a clue that it's not actually a big deal.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. I don't have as much of a handle on UK newspaper politics as I'd like to, so sometimes we rely on users letting us know "hey you know this is sort of a big deal" and then we can make a more educated decision.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 9:48 AM on July 7, 2011 [3 favorites]


"hey you know this is sort of a big deal"

...in the UK. I know the site gets a lot of flak for being US-centric, but I don't think becoming more UK-centric is the fix for that. Globally, this is not a big deal.
posted by Eideteker at 9:52 AM on July 7, 2011 [1 favorite]


Eideteker: "This is a clue that it's not actually a big deal."

With respect, I note you're not in the UK, so I submit while it may not be a big deal to you, it is a big deal here.
posted by Happy Dave at 9:52 AM on July 7, 2011 [4 favorites]


Imagine the New York Post closing. That's how big.
posted by Jehan at 9:52 AM on July 7, 2011 [2 favorites]


Eid, this is a big deal.
posted by LobsterMitten at 9:54 AM on July 7, 2011 [8 favorites]


On the plus side, I saw a lovely red box and still get to read about this news in its own MetaFilter thread!
posted by Curious Artificer at 9:54 AM on July 7, 2011


I would like to trade this monkey for a llama.
posted by elizardbits at 9:54 AM on July 7, 2011


It's okay for stuff you don't care about to be a big deal to other people, Eideteker.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:54 AM on July 7, 2011 [12 favorites]


Eideteker: ""hey you know this is sort of a big deal"

...in the UK. I know the site gets a lot of flak for being US-centric, but I don't think becoming more UK-centric is the fix for that. Globally, this is not a big deal.
"

Not sure I agree. The clue is in the second half of the name of the parent organisation.

And seriously, posts are not finite natural resources to be jealously husbanded. If it's not a big deal to you, just stay out of the thread. The one we have now is better, with more context. The world will not end if this discussion is allowed to continue.
posted by Happy Dave at 9:54 AM on July 7, 2011 [3 favorites]


"Imagine the New York Post closing. That's how big."

While that would be a nice thing, it's hardly a big deal. People would have to get their sports book information elsewhere. The poor gamblers!

Also, no one reads newspapers anymore, amirite?
posted by Eideteker at 9:55 AM on July 7, 2011 [1 favorite]


Shadow Mods Episode S02E06, "The Fall of Eideteker"
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 9:55 AM on July 7, 2011 [2 favorites]


Eideteker: "This is a clue that it's not actually a big deal."

This is the closing of the second biggest English language newspaper in the world (behind the Times of India).
posted by MattWPBS at 9:55 AM on July 7, 2011 [15 favorites]


The fucktard person that owns News of the World also owns the Wall Street Journal and Fox News, so not entirely UK-centric.
posted by terrapin at 9:56 AM on July 7, 2011 [7 favorites]


The world will not end if this discussion is allowed to continue.

The world will not end if water cooler threads get deleted, either. (Is that how this argument thing works?)
posted by Wolfdog at 9:56 AM on July 7, 2011 [1 favorite]


If you lived in the Centre of the Universe, instead of New York City, you'd understand that this IS a big deal.
posted by Chuckles at 9:57 AM on July 7, 2011 [1 favorite]


(But they don't get deleted as long as a plausible number of words in the post are yellow, so you don't have anything to worry about.)
posted by Wolfdog at 9:57 AM on July 7, 2011


As someone who was in the process of writing up my own protest-META when this one got posted, I support this META and the posting of a new version of the breaking story.

"I wasn't aware that it was as big a deal."

This is a clue that it's not actually a big deal.


From yesterday's Globe + Mail:
Phone-hacking scandal likely marks end of media baron's control of British politics


Imagine now that this was FOX that just got caught. Yup, big f***ing deal.
posted by philip-random at 9:57 AM on July 7, 2011 [3 favorites]


it's hardly a big deal.

Being more inclusive is generally important to us. This is a decision we made. Enough people think it is a big deal that this seemed like the right thing to do. There is no objective assessment of what "a big deal" means and contextually, here, this means "a big deal to MeFites" which is the point I did not get and now get and so we left the latest post up.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 9:57 AM on July 7, 2011 [3 favorites]


"It's okay for stuff you don't care about to be a big deal to other people, Eideteker."

Where's the line? Because it's important to UK users? How is that any different from the usual "way too focused on the US" thing, other than a shift to another (Western) geographic location? If there's something that's "a big deal" to Tutsis, should it be an FPP? If there's a major shake up in a tribe in New Guinea, should it get two posts? I assure you, it's very relevant to the people in that tribe; they consider it a big deal.
posted by Eideteker at 9:58 AM on July 7, 2011 [1 favorite]


When I see a link to the The New York Post I'm always a little surprised that it still exists.
posted by octothorpe at 9:58 AM on July 7, 2011 [1 favorite]


"Imagine the New York Post closing. That's how big."

In daily circulation terms, it's more like imagining that the New York Times and USA Today closed at the same time.
posted by protorp at 9:59 AM on July 7, 2011 [3 favorites]


Eideteker, did that thread run over your granny, or something? If not, maybe you could let it go.
posted by veedubya at 9:59 AM on July 7, 2011 [17 favorites]


"From yesterday's Globe + Mail:
Phone-hacking scandal likely marks end of media baron's control of British politics "


There's actually a better case for making a separate FPP about this. If this is the real story, that should be the lead. Because I have zero confidence that the close of one tabloid is really the end of a media empire, but if there's actual evidence to the contrary, that's a bigger deal. Otherwise, it's just the standard, "Powerful people get caught, nothing actually changes." Which isn't news.

And FOX gets caught all the time.
posted by Eideteker at 10:02 AM on July 7, 2011 [2 favorites]


Sorry, I should have made my original post a bit more detailed so non-UK people (mods included) know what an huge deal this is, but I was just going out at the time and thought it was worth posting.

So: my bad, not Jessamyn's, if you ask me.
posted by dowcrag at 10:02 AM on July 7, 2011


It's the solitary top story on the NYT website right now.
posted by LobsterMitten at 10:02 AM on July 7, 2011


Huh, I didn't see this. I guess that other post won't get deleted.
posted by OmieWise at 10:02 AM on July 7, 2011


This is the new post.

Where's the line?

This is one of those ways in which "self-policing" tends to function okay. People talk to us, the mod team, and each other and we can understand each other and see where people are coming from. There is no line, there is a series of discussions, and ultimately we make the decision based at least partly on input from other people. That's how it works.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 10:02 AM on July 7, 2011 [4 favorites]


This also happened when my post about NY gay marriage was superseded by this post, which is clearly a breaking news discussion post.

In general I think it's kind of bothersome to follow the same discussion in both threads, and actually think for such occasions it might be a good idea to close up the old thread?
posted by lalex at 10:04 AM on July 7, 2011


"Imagine the New York Post closing. That's how big."

In daily circulation terms, it's more like imagining that the New York Times and USA Today closed at the same time.


Wow, I didn't know papers in the US were doing so poorly in terms of sales. I was referencing the paper's position and the role in fills in society: an old mass-market tabloid selling cheap "news" and indignation for shallow entertainment. I certainly imagine that the New York Post closing would be frontpageworthy.
posted by Jehan at 10:04 AM on July 7, 2011


If you lived in the Centre of the Universe, instead of New York City, you'd understand that this IS a big deal.

I don't think the people of Seattle are any more aware of UK news politics than people in NYC.
posted by nomisxid at 10:04 AM on July 7, 2011


[Let's try this again without bringing up other people's past posts/comments in weird snarky ways? Seriously?]
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 10:05 AM on July 7, 2011


"There is no line, there is a series of discussions, and ultimately we make the decision based at least partly on input from other people. That's how it works."

Well, thanks for listening to my input. I'll continue to input in future!
posted by Eideteker at 10:05 AM on July 7, 2011


In terms of importance to the UK media and politicis, I'd put this as closer to FOX News closing, but whatever.
posted by bonehead at 10:05 AM on July 7, 2011


"Where's the line? Because it's important to UK users?"


No, more because it's important in terms of media, rather than in terms of UK media. This is the second largest English language newspaper in the world, it's part of the largest news and media organisation in the world, the company has had a major influence on most areas of British political life for the last couple of decades (including decisions which impact outside our shores, like Iraq, Afghanistan, etc), and it has been forced to close by a mixture of investigative journalism and social pressure following a tipping point.

When was the last time you heard of a media organisation of that size having to do something like this?
posted by MattWPBS at 10:06 AM on July 7, 2011 [8 favorites]


This is NOT how a Shadow Mod behaves. Do you want to be written out in a tragic accident and have your long lost cousin take your place?!
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 10:08 AM on July 7, 2011 [1 favorite]


"When was the last time you heard of a media organisation of that size having to do something like this?"

10 minutes earlier, in the open post. Which is my point. [Ten minutes before the deleted FPP, if I read the timestamps correctly, is what I mean.]

That, and whatever seems most important to you isn't always to other folks.
posted by Eideteker at 10:09 AM on July 7, 2011 [1 favorite]


If there's a major shake up in a tribe in New Guinea, should it get two posts? I assure you, it's very relevant to the people in that tribe; they consider it a big deal.

If that tribe, and people who care about what happens to that tribe, make up a significant proportion of metafilter users then yeah, make two posts about it's shake up.

You don't want to fix the putative US-centric problem by posting things specific to just the UK, so what do you want instead? Only post things that people in every country are interested in? That would be a pretty short website. Kind of boring too, personally I like reading about what's important in countries other than my own.
posted by shelleycat at 10:09 AM on July 7, 2011 [2 favorites]


Eideteker is not a shadow mod.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 10:10 AM on July 7, 2011


Because it's important to UK users?

I'm not in the UK and I've never read NOTW, but it does seem like a big deal to me, because the paper isn't just some raggedy one-off, but has been (from what I understand) the main money-maker for the Murdoch empire. And Murdoch is a global force, in media and in politics.

Also, I'm sorry, but your line about how powerful people getting caught doing something bad isn't ever news is dumb. If George Bush got caught doing something bad of global import, should that just be passed by with a big meh?

That, and whatever seems most important to you isn't always to other folks.

Right. And just because it doesn't seem important, or isn't actually important, to some people doesn't make it not important.
posted by rtha at 10:10 AM on July 7, 2011


TVTropes: Rules Lawyer.
The Lawful Evil Rules Lawyer is a particularly annoying kind of player who believes that because he can find a rule about some action in one of the manuals, the Game Master is bound to allow him to take that action, even if it doesn't make sense, or would screw with what's going on. He's convinced that, with the power of the rules, he can outmaneuver the GM and get what he wants. He will attempt to employ every loophole, every odd circumstance, and every footnote he can. Expect the Rules Lawyer to have pored over most of the manuals, even those that players aren't supposed to read. And most annoyingly, he seems to remember only the parts that support whatever he's doing at that moment, intentionally ignoring whatever doesn't support his own case. (And insists on Exact Words.)

Usually, the first rule the Rules Lawyer conveniently "forgets" while making his arguments is Rule Zero: that the GM is always right. Squashing him with this early is the best bet; attempting to argue about rules with him only encourages his behavior.
posted by Wolfdog at 10:10 AM on July 7, 2011 [12 favorites]


There are some deleted comments here, but the fact of the matter is not that I'm saying there shouldn't be a post. I'm saying there shouldn't be a second post. Pointing out any of my past posts is irrelevant (and uncool by the site guidelines).

This is NOT how a Shadow Mod behaves. Do you want to be written out in a tragic accident and have your long lost cousin take your place?!

Dude, check the book. I'm supposed to be the rebel hothead. The contrarian, always swimming against the stream, up the grade. Of the stream.
posted by Eideteker at 10:12 AM on July 7, 2011 [1 favorite]


10 minutes earlier, in the open post. Which is my point. [Ten minutes before the deleted FPP, if I read the timestamps correctly, is what I mean.]

I thought your point was that this wasn't significant enough to warrant a new post, rather than it related to the previous post?
posted by MattWPBS at 10:13 AM on July 7, 2011


"If George Bush got caught doing something bad of global import, should that just be passed by with a big meh?"

Wow, did you miss his presidency?

If something comes of this (other than one head off the hydra soon to be followed by two new ones), then it's news.

Even so, there's an open thread. Discussion fits neatly in there. We have homunculus. Celebrate that dude. He's awesome.
posted by Eideteker at 10:15 AM on July 7, 2011


If there's something that's "a big deal" to Tutsis, should it be an FPP?

Tensions between the Tutsis and the Hutus were big news in the 1990's. Whether something's of widespread interest isn't really a function so much of who's involved as of what's happening.
posted by endless_forms at 10:17 AM on July 7, 2011 [1 favorite]


I'm in the U.S.. This is a big deal if only because of the News Corp connection.
posted by foggy out there now at 10:19 AM on July 7, 2011


I'm supposed to be the rebel hothead.

Heh, rebel hothead or rules lawyer...

Two minutes ago I thought about a comment something like this: "now is when one might troll through your posting history to find examples of your hypocrisy, but that would be uncool."

Now I'm thinking about holding a poll by favourite count:
If you think Eideteker is a rules lawyer, favourite this post.
posted by Chuckles at 1:15 PM on July 7 [+] [!]

If you think Eideteker is a rebel hothead, favourite this post.
posted by Chuckles at 1:15 PM on July 7 [+] [!]
But.. That would also be uncool :)

posted by Chuckles at 10:19 AM on July 7, 2011


Can we close this up now?
posted by schmod at 10:23 AM on July 7, 2011


We close up threads where there's a reason they should be closed, not just because someone asked a question that was answered. We'll leave it open in case people have additional questions unless it tuns into a lulzathon in which case, yeah.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 10:23 AM on July 7, 2011 [1 favorite]


Not sure why folks feel the need to make this personal, or about me. If you disagree, argue the point. I'm cool with it, I really don't mind.

As much shit as I stir on this site from time to time, I think I do a very good job of not resorting to name-calling, or holding grudges against site members. Half the time, I don't even read the byline to see who's posting. Because it's not about the people. You can't argue people. It's about the ideas; argue those instead.
posted by Eideteker at 10:23 AM on July 7, 2011 [2 favorites]


I updated the mefi wiki.
posted by zarq at 10:24 AM on July 7, 2011 [1 favorite]


Not sure why folks feel the need to make this personal, or about me.

This is just a guess from my point of view, but the style of commenting you're using here (Sort of flip, a little repetitive, and frequent) is sort of annoying, and may be revving up the wrong part of people's argument motors.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:30 AM on July 7, 2011 [6 favorites]


Well.... On the one hand, I'm sorry, and my posts are more personal than they probably should be. On the other hand, you are making it about you very effectively all by yourself.

For the record, the New York City thing came from the fact that the other vocal complainer is also in NYC, and MetaFilter as NYC's local blog has been a thing for years and years. The other.. Well come on, rules lawyer, cool :)
posted by Chuckles at 10:30 AM on July 7, 2011


Not sure why folks feel the need to make this personal, or about me.

You've made 20% of the comments in this thread. On a community website this sort of behavior doesn't scale and can crowd out the voices of other people.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 10:31 AM on July 7, 2011 [10 favorites]


WARNING to various Americans: you do run the risk of revealing your ignorance of international affairs if you just let your tongues flap on this one.

This seems a little nasty now. I've spent enough time traveling in the great US of A to understand full well how so many Americans can know so little about the rest of the world, and be so wrong about much of what they think they know. America's just so damned big, not just in terms of geography (Canada's slays it there) but also culture. There's so much going on that it's entirely possible to fill every news cast, every newspaper, every website with nothing but American news and you'd still be leaving piles of stuff out. In Canada on the other hand, well, once we've trashed the Prime Minister a bit and updated ourselves on the latest natural disaster, we definitely need some international input. This is particularly true once hockey ends.
posted by philip-random at 10:32 AM on July 7, 2011 [2 favorites]


I was surprised to see it closed. It's the top news story on CBC Canada right now.
posted by Frasermoo at 10:33 AM on July 7, 2011


Wow, did you miss his presidency?

Uh, not hardly.

The NOTW thing is not just a thing all by itself. It's also a culmination of a lot of Murdoch practices and policies. I don't think it needs to be more of a thing than it already is before it merits a (new) post.
posted by rtha at 10:34 AM on July 7, 2011


Only sort of annoying? Damn.

You fuckers annoy the hell out of me all the time, and I still put up with you; and without making personal attacks. Because I love you. It's not even a sacrifice.

"You've made 20% of the comments in this thread. On a community website this sort of behavior doesn't scale and can crowd out the voices of other people."

True, but it's a chicken-and-egg problem. The more I comment, the more it's about me, so the more there is for me to respond to. I guess the only solution is for me to not comment at all.

Hah! Gotcha!

No, seriously, though. I'm sorry that my engagement in the site and its running is destructive to conversation. I'll try to dial it back.
posted by Eideteker at 10:36 AM on July 7, 2011


Though I do find it funny that people are trouncing me for being overly US-centric by trotting out a post I made about a Canadian band (that happens to be my favorite)...

No, seriously, it's hilarious, and it's part of why I love you guys. Because I get the joke. And I appreciate the time you took to make it.
posted by Eideteker at 10:38 AM on July 7, 2011


enough already mate.
posted by Frasermoo at 10:39 AM on July 7, 2011 [9 favorites]


It's the top story on the New York Times website right now.
posted by Chrysostom at 10:40 AM on July 7, 2011


NO NO NO NO, IT'S NOT A BIG DEAL. DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?
posted by MattWPBS at 10:43 AM on July 7, 2011 [2 favorites]


I don't think they're trouncing you for being US-centric so much as being pretty Eideteker-centric, dude. Dialing it back would be fine.
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:44 AM on July 7, 2011 [2 favorites]


Eideteker, if people are getting their backs up it might be because your explanation of why it's not big news (big enough and unexpected enough to merit a second post) is mainly that:
- you haven't heard about it
(not a good metric because who among us has that level of important-story omniscience? Plus dismissive and naturally makes it "all about you" and what you know about and don't know about.)

or
- it's significant only to people in the UK, who are like a small, isolated tribe somewhere whose affairs have little connection to those of Americans.
(That's a weird comparison to make, seems designed to insult non-American users of all stripes, emphasizes an already contentious US-centrism here, and is wrong anyway because the company involved is very big in US media too.)
posted by LobsterMitten at 10:47 AM on July 7, 2011 [11 favorites]


Is it too late to ask for a team of lemurs?
posted by shakespeherian at 10:49 AM on July 7, 2011 [3 favorites]


"- you haven't heard about it"

Nothing to do with my argument. Jessamyn said: "I wasn't aware that it was as big a deal." Not that she hadn't heard of it. Jessamyn's a pretty world-wise and literate person. I'm not saying this to put words in her mouth, but to clarify an earlier part of the thread.

"- it's significant only to people in the UK, who are like a small, isolated tribe somewhere whose affairs have little connection to those of Americans."

Actually, I could give a fuck about most "major" US news as well. Like the Casey Anthony thing, which was supposed to be a big deal, according to the editorializing of the FPP (which, when I countered with a comment in that thread critiquing the editorializing, was told I should have made an entire MeTa post saying... I dunno? "This is not as important as you think it is"?). If this has a major impact on the future of global politics, as I said above, that's a bigger story. As it sits currently, the new FPP is just a continuation of the old one. I was seeking justification as to whether it justified a second post (and no, it doesn't, but the change in political influence link might; I said as much myself). The new post isn't coming down, but as Jess said above, they take everyone's input into account. So I gave my input.

Sorry for continuing to post in this thread, but I felt like clarifying a few things.

Anyone else have any questions, or can I go back to reading the rest of the site?
posted by Eideteker at 11:00 AM on July 7, 2011 [1 favorite]


My mistake, I was remembering you as having said you hadn't heard about it, but you didn't say that. Instead you were just saying the fact that someone else hadn't heard about it indicated it wasn't a big deal. I don't think that's a correct conclusion to draw, for the reason I mentioned -- we all have blind spots, etc. Sorry for misremembering what you'd said.
posted by LobsterMitten at 11:10 AM on July 7, 2011


Anyone else have any questions, or can I go back to reading the rest of the site?

How the hell did the jury find Casey Anthony not guilty?!
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 11:13 AM on July 7, 2011 [1 favorite]


There's a app thread for that!
posted by MCMikeNamara at 11:15 AM on July 7, 2011


Why does the Obama Social Security FPP have to be filled with so much noise to the point where I am actually almost angry?

Actually I know the answer to that one but I just needed to vent.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:16 AM on July 7, 2011 [1 favorite]


This is the closing of the second biggest English language newspaper in the world (behind the Times of India).

And its going down in what appears to be a metric fuckton of scandal, with ties to the police and major UK politicians. If it was just shutting its doors due to financial problems, it would be interesting...this (and I was unaware of just how deep things were running until today) is fascinating.
posted by never used baby shoes at 11:17 AM on July 7, 2011 [2 favorites]


The previous (and still open) phone hacking thread was doing a good job covering the NoW closure. Not sure why we need a new thread.
posted by KokuRyu at 11:19 AM on July 7, 2011 [1 favorite]


Good call, Mods. (Not that you need my approval, but I think it's worth mentioning you have it.)

Though this is technically a follow-on to an open thread, I think this is notable enough to deserve its own thread. The guidelines are good, and in times like this, a little flexibility in applying those guidelines is called for.

This isn't "only news in the UK," this affects media worldwide. I personally suspect that this is the first of many tabloid organizations that are going to finally get caught out doing Very Bad Things, journalistically (and legally) speaking.
posted by chimaera at 11:21 AM on July 7, 2011 [1 favorite]


the "why should i care" thread shitters are my least favorite of all the thread shitters.
posted by nadawi at 11:22 AM on July 7, 2011 [1 favorite]


the "why should i care" thread shitters are my least favorite of all the thread shitters.

Who are your most favorite?
posted by grouse at 11:31 AM on July 7, 2011 [3 favorites]


Does this mean that if I want to see nipples of a Sunday I'm going to have to look in the mirror (not The Mirror) now? Not a particularly enticing prospect, as anyone who's met me will confirm.
posted by Abiezer at 11:32 AM on July 7, 2011


Why does the Obama Social Security FPP have to be filled with so much noise to the point where I am actually almost angry?

Seriously what a terrible thread. 'SOME KIND OF THING THAT SOUNDS POTENTIALLY BAD MAY HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE, PLEASE SAY HYPERBOLIC THINGS WITHOUT DISCUSSION'
posted by shakespeherian at 11:34 AM on July 7, 2011 [2 favorites]


my most favorite are the hilarious, off topic ask metafilter answers. i understand why they have to get axed, but i love them while they stand.
posted by nadawi at 11:34 AM on July 7, 2011 [4 favorites]


never used baby shoes has it.

The really important things about this story are as much about the closing of a paper as Watergate was about a burglary.
posted by reynir at 11:48 AM on July 7, 2011 [3 favorites]


Seems like a pretty big deal to me with implications beyond just Murdoch's U.K. holdings and businesses.

The Murdoch Style, Now Under Pressure
"Risk-taking and line-skirting have always been just one more cost of doing business for Rupert Murdoch.

But the widening voice-mail hacking scandal at the British tabloid News of the World threatens to stain the company’s image in a way that other embarrassing incidents at News Corporation’s far-flung media properties — which also include the Fox networks and The New York Post — have not.

... Mr. Murdoch, weighing into the controversy for the first time since some of Britain’s leading politicians called for an investigation into the News Corporation’s news-gathering practices, called the accusations of hacking 'deplorable and unacceptable' and vowed to cooperate with any police inquiries.

... the widening voice-mail hacking scandal at the British tabloid News of the World threatens to stain the company’s image in a way that other embarrassing incidents at News Corporation’s far-flung media properties — which also include the Fox networks and The New York Post — have not.

... But with damaging revelations about the extent of the hacking emerging each day — the latest were reports that The News of the World had accessed voice mails belonging to family members of dead soldiers — Mr. Murdoch’s regretful expressions of disapproval could go only so far.

'Depending on where the investigation goes, how widespread it goes and who knew what when, this is something that could tarnish him seriously,' said Rem Rieder, the editor and a senior vice president for the American Journalism Review. 'This seems institutional.'"
posted by ericb at 12:00 PM on July 7, 2011


Dammit ... where's that 3-minute edit window?
posted by ericb at 12:01 PM on July 7, 2011


Joan Collins is discussing it on Twitter. It's a big deal.

At least, that's how I decide what's a big deal. I love Joan Collins.
posted by Astro Zombie at 12:04 PM on July 7, 2011 [2 favorites]


Dammit ... where's that 3-minute edit window?

Please see the other MeTa thread.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 12:04 PM on July 7, 2011


; )
posted by ericb at 12:06 PM on July 7, 2011


I'd just like to say that I am so fucking happy that the News Of The Screws is dead.

So. Fucking. Happy.
posted by Decani at 12:14 PM on July 7, 2011


Eideteker, did that thread run over your granny, or something? If not, maybe you could let it go.

No, but after his granny was run over it hacked her voicemail.
posted by EndsOfInvention at 12:37 PM on July 7, 2011 [3 favorites]


Joan Collins is discussing it on Twitter. It's a big deal.

That's Dame Joan to the likes of you and me.
posted by aught at 12:45 PM on July 7, 2011


I just figured it was one of those UK tabloids that UK users always chide US users for linking to here.
posted by smackfu at 1:36 PM on July 7, 2011


This is the closing of the second biggest English language newspaper in the world (behind the Times of India).

nitpick: Per wikipedia, The Sun is actually bigger.
posted by smackfu at 1:40 PM on July 7, 2011


This might be a bit redundant at this stage of the conversation but... Rather than blame people's ignorance of the importance of this on their location or whatever, I think it's really important to acknowledge that over the preceding 2 years that this story has been going on broadcasters and the press internationally and in the UK haven't touched this story with a barge pole.

Only the Guardian and the NYT have been reporting it until Tuesday, partly because of Murdoch's dominance internationally but also because other papers must have been guilty of the same practices and they want to keep their heads down. So in that respect I think it's understandable that people aren't aware of its significance.

I could rant on about the former press secretary for the Prime Minister being arrested, the fact that this might lead all the way up to Murdoch's son who allegedly signed papers authorising the hacking and bribery of the police on huge huge scale but I won't. Neither will I mention that there is a possibility that senior politicians have been hacked 'just in case' or that relatives of casualties of war were routinely hacked, possibly using tracking devices, breaking in to emails and so on. To be honest, if the events of the past week had happened over a couple of months I think there would have been about ten posts on the subject.

/rant
posted by pmcp at 2:13 PM on July 7, 2011 [6 favorites]


If quality links were provided to well-written and/or well-designed websites, in a thoughtful unbiased and interesting fashion, I would love to read a FPP about a major shakeup of a small tribe from New Guinea. One of the things the interweb allows me to do is understand faraway places - even the UK. That's kind of what MetaFilter does best, actually.

Alas, it turns out that fruit bats do not really make good pets at all.
posted by Devils Rancher at 2:50 PM on July 7, 2011 [1 favorite]


this entire situation makes me feel sorry for not_the_water, who did a great post on Jack Anderson that was promptly hijacked by people who could not even read halfway down the front page to see the post mentioned in here.

Is it too much for people to read the front page, even just below the first couple of posts, before threadjacking?
posted by mephron at 3:03 PM on July 7, 2011


It's almost exactly two years since I commented on the phone-hacking scandal: 'I don't think this story will go away, and I'm hopeful that we may see more significant revelations coming out in the coming days and weeks.'

I knew it would happen, I just didn't believe it would take so long. I underestimated the determination of Murdoch and his minions to keep the story buried.
posted by verstegan at 4:12 PM on July 7, 2011 [2 favorites]


In Australia, and this seems like a big deal. I avoided the other thread because I didn't know what the fallout will be. This is a bad deletion.
posted by Lovecraft In Brooklyn at 4:20 PM on July 7, 2011 [1 favorite]


"This is a bad deletion."

Did you see where it says a better post on the same subject was allowed to stand and is currently open for business?
posted by LobsterMitten at 5:48 PM on July 7, 2011 [2 favorites]


Did you see where it says a better post on the same subject was allowed to stand and is currently open for business?
WINNER
posted by Frasermoo at 7:11 PM on July 7, 2011


Eideteker writes "Where's the line? Because it's important to UK users? How is that any different from the usual 'way too focused on the US' thing, other than a shift to another (Western) geographic location? If there's something that's 'a big deal' to Tutsis, should it be an FPP? If there's a major shake up in a tribe in New Guinea, should it get two posts? I assure you, it's very relevant to the people in that tribe; they consider it a big deal."

The post that stands is well within the line. It probably can't even see the line it's so far inside. It isn't a border line case like a sandwich shop closing or a huge bagel distributor closing one of it's retail outlets.
posted by Mitheral at 11:51 PM on July 7, 2011 [2 favorites]


Fucking Brits and their numerous posts about their tiny little backwater country. Here's the dealio people. If you can't imagine the post being of interest to a Woody Allen character, or it isn't something they'd talk about on This American Life or if you don't mention Steve Jobs or you're not talking about whatever 8 bit thing the hipsters currently like, THEN DON'T POST IT.

It's that simple. THIS IS METAFILTER. It is not parochial post challenge. It's not FreeSocialistEuroPostingZone.co.eu

It's not moaning about countries I'll never visit like Africa or Asia.

It's Metafilter. Sandwich shops on 2nd Avenue are important. 80's movies are important. Your tiny tabloid newspaper is not important, and unless they use the remnants of it to make a micro-brew that's sold exclusively in Manhattan, I'm NOT INTERESTED.
posted by seanyboy at 1:14 AM on July 8, 2011 [14 favorites]


The number of interesting threads that are closed on Metafilter is incredible. I pick them up via my reader, which is just as well since a significant proportion of interesting stories are deleted or closed. Some deletions are frankly incredible. Interesting links, with great comments, closed for spurious reasons.

Closing threads because there is "already a discussion on this topic" is fine if there is a recent thread with a manageable number of posts and the story is not current or particularly important. But this example breaks all of those guidelines.

Some admins should go back to school and study Information Architecture 101 and Psychology 101.
posted by bobbyelliott at 2:16 AM on July 8, 2011


Some admins should go back to school and study Information Architecture 101 and Psychology 101.

Which ones? Remember that Jessamyn is currently doing a course looking at Shrill Overreactions and Cortex is currently studying Advanced Doughnutry.
posted by panboi at 5:35 AM on July 8, 2011 [2 favorites]


Closing threads because there is "already a discussion on this topic" is fine if there is a recent thread with a manageable number of posts and the story is not current or particularly important. But this example breaks all of those guidelines.

Guidelines that you made up and don't necessarily (always) apply to this particular site.

And did you read jessamyn's comment here? About why the original post was deleted? And a new one was made and is currently under discussion on the front page.
posted by rtha at 6:18 AM on July 8, 2011


TWO. POSTS.

The question is if we need TWO POSTS about the same event. Not if we need one post about a bagel shop closing (*yawn*) or whatever.

Why are you not getting this? Outrage blindness?
posted by Eideteker at 6:31 AM on July 8, 2011 [1 favorite]


And did you read jessamyn's comment here? About why the original post was deleted? And a new one was made and is currently under discussion on the front page.

The problem is, in her wording of the deletion, she made no comment about the post being thin, only that the story was already being discussed, which to my mind, missed the point. When a scandal concerning journalistic impropriety becomes the END OF ONE OF THE WORLD'S LONGEST LASTING AND MOST READ NEWSPAPERS, the story has changed.

Now, if the existing thread had been all over this, fine. But it wasn't. It got mentioned and a handful of comments got made but in no way did have remotely the same action (community interest) that the deleted FPP had for the few minutes it was alive.

And so we got this META. And if we hadn't got this one, we would've got the one that I was putting together as this one was posted. We also quickly got a fresh (better worded) post on the shutting of the News Of The World, which is good. Metafilter fumbled the ball but then recovered it a few yards further down the field. First down.
posted by philip-random at 9:41 AM on July 8, 2011 [2 favorites]


The problem is, in her wording of the deletion, she made no comment about the post being thin

Yup. And someone [politely] schooled me and now I have been schooled. We all learn. This is how the system works, if we're lucky.

The number of interesting threads that are closed on Metafilter is incredible.


This is MetaTalk, feel free to point to some examples if you'd like to talk about them. We delete very few posts here. This is the only one we've deleted in the last day and a half that wasn't obvious SEO spammery. If what you're saying is that you don't agree wth the guidelines, fine, we can talk about that, but we do have guidelines and they appear to be different from yours.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 9:51 AM on July 8, 2011 [3 favorites]


FYI, never challenge Jessamyn to a game of one-on-one hoops. She will school you. Politely, but the schooling will still occur.

If you don't think so, I dare you to challenge her. Go ahead.
posted by Eideteker at 10:38 AM on July 8, 2011


The number of interesting threads that are closed on Metafilter is incredible.

Because I'm feeling massively unproductive today (guess who'll be doing some work this weekend!), I went through and looked at deletions since June 8. I guess "closed for spurious reasons" is a point open to interpretation and debate, but here are my results:

Self-link/spam: 3

Double/open thread*: 33

Thin#: 34

Try Again Tomorrow%: 2

Poster's Request: 2

Meant for AskMe: 2

Test by pb: 1

* Most things in the double/open thread category were doubles - like "this sole link that makes up your post has already been seen here" kinds of doubles. Some were multilink posts that had one or more links in common with open-thread fpps (see: GoT threads) with no new! startling! information or content.

# Thin posts were mostly please-not-another-single-link-from-cracked.com and this-is-outragefilter-and-people-hate-it.

% Try Again Tomorrow were in the category of "links are good, less editorializing would be better."

It amuses me that one the one hand, people often complain that the quality of posts has gone down and that more things should be deleted. On the other hand, people often complain that posts that are just-like-that-post-over-there got deleted but the other ones haven't.
posted by rtha at 11:11 AM on July 8, 2011


So can someone explain the difference between Goths, Emos and Shadow Mods?
posted by Anything at 3:40 PM on July 8, 2011


It amuses me that one the one hand, people often complain that the quality of posts has gone down and that more things should be deleted. On the other hand, people often complain that posts that are just-like-that-post-over-there got deleted but the other ones haven't.

Perhaps they are different people?
posted by grouse at 3:42 PM on July 8, 2011


Oh sure, they probably often are. Still kind of funny to me, though.
posted by rtha at 4:08 PM on July 8, 2011


So can someone explain the difference between Goths, Emos and Shadow Mods?

About 6 ounces of black eyeliner.
posted by Devils Rancher at 4:46 PM on July 8, 2011 [1 favorite]


Who knows what crappy posts lurk in the hearts of men? The Shadow Mod knows!
posted by meehawl at 10:14 PM on July 9, 2011


« Older Has the moderation team ever t...  |  Whatever happened to introduci... Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments