Saturday, November 14, 2009


Geoff Meeker at the The Telegram has dedicated yet another post to me. I am a little bashful about all the attention he is giving me. I only wish I had a commercial site so that I could capitalize on all of the traffic the Telegram has been sending my way.

Here is the response that I forwarded to The Telegram, it was pasted into the comment section at 10:12 PM, November 14, 2009. As at least one of my previous replies has been scrubbed,  I can not be sure that this one will be published, so for the public record, here it is:

Mr. Meeker:
This post sure proves how much of a  professional you are. I can not begin to tell you how satisfied I am with your approach.  Can I have your permission to re-post this on my blog as well?

I guess we can cancel that dinner date. I can unwrap that bound copy of the New York Times On-Line Correction Policy that I had for you and give it to someone who likes me. 

The real question is how much longer is the Telegram going to allow you to use this forum for your own personal agenda? Days, weeks, months?

I have no issue with you, this is not personal. Seems you can give it but not take it. For a fella that started a blog about media, I surprised that you refuse to participate in a sensible discussion about best practices.

I addressed every one of your concerns, provided various examples of best practices and developed a debate that many professionals have  participated in, excluding yourself.

Lets not forget that this all started when you suggested a journalist withe CBC "Suppressed" a story. Bad form, but hey it is your blog and obviously the Telegram is backing you up.... right!

The libel issue is the complicated one. It would appear that if Libel is inferred  most organizations will note that in the revised post. Obviously if libel is the issue, the comments have to come down.

In your case libel does not appear to be the issue, as you said "But is also a word with great potency for journalists. I have enormous respect for Cochrane. I realized that he was insulted by that word, and understandably so. After all, I wasn’t there that day to witness firsthand what transpired. So I decided to change the wording.". If that is the case and there was no threat of Libel, than you scrubbed, plain and simple. There is no legal reason for removing your words.

I understand from another anti-blogger that he complained about the Locke post and the they reacted by removing the contentious sections. They also noted that in the original piece, not deep down in the comment section after a good scrubbing. It would appear that the Canadian Journalism Foundation standards are higher than yours. As a matter of fact you do not seem to care about standards at all. However, I can only direct you to Locke and the CJF for answers.

I can not say that I am offended by your approach. The title "The Plot Sickens" says it all. You have deviated from being a respected commentator on media issue to becoming part of the story in your pursuit of all matter of plots and conspiracies. It was the genesis of this debate. You called out a fellow journalist because the story you would have preferred, one that would have cast Danny Williams in a negative light, was not perused. That Geoff was the problem from the get go. Your right, the plot does sicken.

Geoff I think you will find in the future that you will regret the fact that you made this post, it is emotional and it says a great deal more about you, than me.

Your a great tech columnist and a fantastic entertainment writer but a little advice, leave the hard news to the pros.

Now let the antis swarm!


David said...

"enormous respect for Cochrane."

What a hypocrite!

How can he say that when he accused the man of suppressing the news?

Winston Smith said...

If you're going to continue slagging everyone who disagrees with you, at least learn the difference between your and you're.

If P&P is supposed to be the local pulpit for online journalism standards, you could start by learning how to write and edit. And before you trot out the excuse that endless typos and grammatical errors are acceptable because you're writing online, please keep in mind that it's just that: an excuse for sloppiness.

As for the content of your little diatribe, complete with juvenile name-calling ("antis" alone must have taken hours to dream up), it speaks for itself. You may be a lousy writer, but you sure know how to start a fire. It seems that any attention is good attention when it comes to P&P.

Jay Lawrence said...

Personally, I've found arguments such as, "your argument is totally invalid because you misplaced an apostrophe" rather weak and pedantic. If you've nothing to add to the debate... why post? Especially anonymously!

Winston Smith said...

"Personally, I've found arguments such as, "your argument is totally invalid because you misplaced an apostrophe" rather weak and pedantic."

I said no such thing. I never said that P&P's argument is totally invalid because he misplaced an apostrophe. His argument is weak because it is weak.

I criticized the writing, which is the worst of any of the local blogs. You may not care -- perhaps only a few people care about online writing standards -- but I do.

As for the debate, there is nothing to add because it is no longer a debate. It may have started as a debate over online standards, but it's long since descended into name calling.

Anonymous said...

your all morons!

Winston Smith said...

If you're going to be juvenile, at least be funny.

Peter L. Whittle said...


I confess to having some issues with writing as I speak and not always catching those errors. I know that they cause some people lots of frustration. There are lots of people who might be so turned off buy it that they might not give P&P a second look.

My j school teacher, Dale Fitzpatrick aid she could never understand how someone who reads as much as I do could not seem to grasp the architecture of grammar more firmly. Perhaps I am just not focussed enough, perhaps I am in such a rush to get the story or an opinion out that I have become reckless.

If it empowers a person of your obvious intellectual skills to insult my writing than I feel sorry for you. If it was offered in the spirt of improvement it would be more than welcome.

You have much more to contribute than joining those that slag for the sole purpose of running folks into the ground. You have the best written, and perhaps the best researched blog in these parts. Let it go man. Put your talent into the stuff you do best. Your not really hurting me but those that are following the pettiness are forming new opinions.

Russ said...

Peter could have taught lessons to Nero on how to start fires! The meltdown of Geoff Meeker has been tragic and entertaining. The arrival of Winston/Ed/Mark only goes to confirm the alliance that has evolved between these people. One for and and all for one. Peter has taken on the hive. It is enough to make you believe in Karma

Winston Smith said...

When the discussion was still a genuine debate, part of it turned on the serious question of the standards to which bloggers should be held. My point is that if bloggers want to be taken seriously -- indeed, as seriously as professional journalists -- then they should write at the same level as journalists.

The comment by Wm. Murphy on your post dealing with the Liberal leadership illustrates the link between writing and analysis. Part of the problem that he identifies is due to insufficiently precise writing. Taking the time to edit would force bloggers to reflect on what they have said before rushing to post it immediately.

I have tried several times to point out that I am not affiliated with other bloggers, but there seems to be a deeply entrenched misconception that individuals cannot disagee individually with the Williams government. I'm not sure why so many commentators believe that there exists an anti-Williams cabal, but it's obviously a belieft that's not going away anytime soon.

And at that, I will indeed let it go.

Peter L. Whittle said...

RUSS 2:12

Can you please send me a note at

I have been approached by a lawyer who would like clarification regarding your post. I have also been asked to forward your IP address.

I am not inclined to delete your post but there are lots of legal terms flying around. Something more the than usual insult fest has happened as of late.

I am just being precautionary.

Peter L. Whittle said...

Meaker is paid to produce copy for the Telegram. The other bloggers around here all seem to do it on their own. That alone puts Meaker in a category of his own.

Anonymous said...

When people come here basing their argument on where Peter puts his commas, then we know you have nothing useful to contribute.

Keep up the good work Peter. At least you're not afraid of an open debate.

PS I suggest you stop giving Meaker traffic for his blog.

Winston Smith said...

If you're going to continue talking about Geoff Meeker, you could at least learn how to spell his name.

Or are you both being sloppy on purpose?

Anonymous said...

I think this is getting ridiculous. No matter what debate is going on here. Danny Williams is a terrible person to be in charge of anything. The idea that people have been trying to link this debate and being against Danny Williams is B.S. I dont care about this debate and find it pointless. But I still know that Danny Williams is a angry little man child with the patience of a fruit fly. Real Leadership. Yay!

Anonymous said...


While you offer grammatical and spelling tips to local bloggers, Simon Lono offers coaching on flame wars. "What I will suggest to all parties is that some comments clearly showed the need for some coaching in some of the finer points of waging and winning an online war." Is there any connection between your skittering away from the blog world this week, and Simon Lono reappearing at Offal News in the same week? Just curious, that's all.