Re: Daily Telegraph Report 4th May 2007 at 12.01am

by **Tony Bennett** 12.07.15 22:04

Nina wrote:Just an aside. Us, mere plebs, have to book flights be there 2 hours before the flight, and even if we live within spitting distance to the airport, it takes hours more than the 2 or 3 hour flight. So were the likes of reporters, cameramen, consulates and folk connected in some small way to HM government exempt from these hours?

You mean like Gerry McCann and his minders, when they didn't have to lower themselves to go through Passport Control and Customs when they travelled to England?

by Nina 12.07.15 22:09

Tony Bennett wrote:
Nina wrote:Just an aside. Us, mere plebs, have to book flights be there 2 hours before the flight, and even if we live within spitting distance to the airport, it takes hours more than the 2 or 3 hour flight. So were the likes of reporters, cameramen, consulates and folk connected in some small way to HM government exempt from these hours?
You mean like Gerry McCann and his minders, when they didn't have to lower themselves to go through Passport Control and Customs when they travelled to England?

Phew, well that too.
We had an urgent call to the UK from Spain a couple of years ago but even with buying a very expensive last minute flight it took at least 6 hours before we finally landed at East Midlands.
These VIP rushes through Customs are a concern Tony.

by Harriet94 12.07.15 22:23

Hi Tony, how are you so sure that the telegraph article was not published @ 12.01?

by Verdi 12.07.15 23:13

Tony Bennett wrote:
Verdi wrote:
Harriet94 wrote:Yahoo news also reported a child missing in Portugal around the same time as the Telegraph article. Did Wayback crawl the Yahoo Homepage on this date by any chance?
Pay no attention, no offence but this is like Wayback revisited. If you search the Telegraph archives for the same period you will find that the majority of articles are timed at 12:01 or 12:05 - it would appear to be some kind of archive default setting. Unless of course someone can produce a screen shot of the original press report showing the date and time it was released then I might be persuaded otherwise but somehow I doubt if that's likely.

There is enough to chew on without trying to make something out of nothing don't you agree?
Verdi is 100% right about this.

I investigated this a long time ago and for some reason it was indeed common for articles such as this, not only on the Telegraph but for other newspapers, to be archived, by default, to 12.01am on the date of publication of the article.

I'm satisfied that the article was published some time on 4 May but emphatically NOT at 12.01am.

Mind you, the swiftness and thoroughness of the Foreign Office is remarkable even if it took place later in the morning than 12.01, and there is evidence of much preparation behind the scenes during the night of 3/4 May. One recalls for example Olive Press editor Jon Clarke being summoned in the early hours of the morning by the Sun and making the 5-hour journey to Praia da Luz by car in time to be there before midday. A good and faithful Murdoch 'gofer', he has been rewarded for asserting that the McCanns are '100% innocent' by being asked to report on and even create stories like the ridiculous Marcelinho Italiano story (Angolan bouncer and basketball-player who claimed a violent paedophile gang had taken Madeleine to the U.S.).

Who ordered Jon Clarke out of bed at dawn, or before, to get over to Praia da Luz - when Madeleine could have been found alive before Clarke ever got to Praia da Luz.

Did someone very senior at the Sun just know that this was going to be the story of the decade?

I thank you!

The Foreign Office is another matter entirely - the rapid response to a non-story (at that stage) resulting in the British Ambassador winging his way down to PdL at a moments notice was totally off-piste and does not fall within the norm of ambassadorial remit. That's to say nothing of all the other miscellaneous UK bodies that descended before the Portuguese authorities had a chance to even evaluate the situation.

As I said previously, Murdoch is never very far away from this saga - a very powerful individual I think.

by Doug D 13.07.15 9:20

Verdi:

‘If you search the Telegraph archives for the same period you will find that the majority of articles are timed at 12:01 or 12:05 - it would appear to be some kind of archive default setting.’

TB:

‘I investigated this a long time ago and for some reason it was indeed common for articles such as this, not only on the Telegraph but for other newspapers, to be archived, by default, to 12.01am on the date of publication of the article.

I'm satisfied that the article was published some time on 4 May but emphatically NOT at 12.01am.’

……………………………..

From just a few random pulls on the Daily Telegraph archive page, I am not convinced this is the case. News stories get dates and times when published:

Blair set for ambassador role in Africa

By Andrew Pierce
10:00PM BST 04 May 2007

World agrees it can afford to tackle climate change

By Charles Clover, Environment Editor
4:30PM BST 04 May 2007

Anti-whaling advert 'boycotted' by MTV

By Andrew Pierce
4:01PM BST 04 May 2007

whereas ‘feature’ articles or stories fed in advance seem to pull the 12.01 ‘release’ time.

Why the elderly are easier to con

By Roger Highfield, Science Editor
12:01AM BST 04 May 2007

I believe you investigated this at an early stage Tony, when you submitted your FoI request, before the full deviousness of TM became apparent.

Did you investigate this further at a later date?

It is also of concern that the original very brief archived article has been ‘whooshed’ and replaced with the morning article from 5^th May when they had been to visit the neighbours etc for comment.

When is an archive (or a WBM capture) not an archive? Whenever it relates to the Mc’s so it seems.

by Amy Dean 13.07.15 10:15

I'm surprised that the time isn't given as 00.01 rather than 12.01 to avoid confusion between midnight and noon.

The time on computers is shown that way.

by Verdi 13.07.15 13:14

Doug D wrote:Verdi:

‘If you search the Telegraph archives for the same period you will find that the majority of articles are timed at 12:01 or 12:05 - it would appear to be some kind of archive default setting.’

TB:

‘I investigated this a long time ago and for some reason it was indeed common for articles such as this, not only on the Telegraph but for other newspapers, to be archived, by default, to 12.01am on the date of publication of the article.

I'm satisfied that the article was published some time on 4 May but emphatically NOT at 12.01am.’

……………………………..

From just a few random pulls on the Daily Telegraph archive page, I am not convinced this is the case. News stories get dates and times when published:

Blair set for ambassador role in Africa

By Andrew Pierce
10:00PM BST 04 May 2007

World agrees it can afford to tackle climate change

By Charles Clover, Environment Editor
4:30PM BST 04 May 2007

Anti-whaling advert 'boycotted' by MTV

By Andrew Pierce
4:01PM BST 04 May 2007

whereas ‘feature’ articles or stories fed in advance seem to pull the 12.01 ‘release’ time.

Why the elderly are easier to con

By Roger Highfield, Science Editor
12:01AM BST 04 May 2007

I believe you investigated this at an early stage Tony, when you submitted your FoI request, before the full deviousness of TM became apparent.

Did you investigate this further at a later date?

It is also of concern that the original very brief archived article has been ‘whooshed’ and replaced with the morning article from 5^th May when they had been to visit the neighbours etc for comment.

When is an archive (or a WBM capture) not an archive? Whenever it relates to the Mc’s so it seems.

With respect Doug D, you really have pulled some random archived material haven't you - selectively I think. If you care to take another random search you will find, as I said originally, the majority of reports are timed at 12:01 BST and 12:05 BST. I can't post up examples to counter your argument because I've apparently reached my 10 article limit for this month and I'm not prepared to pay 60 quid just to prove a point. It matters not, it's all there to read if anyone's interested.

Although I subscribe to the general conspiracy school of thought for many reasons, I can't go along with the idea that anything and everything has been whoosed just because it relates to the case of MBM - at least not without some positive indication to that effect.

by Verdi 15.07.15 0:08

Oh look what I've found - the much talked of Telegraph report allegedly whooshed by an unknown force..

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Note the time.. 12:01 BST 04/05/2007

Again?

by whodunit 15.07.15 2:42

With respect, that appears to be a reproduction of the article under discussion.

Verdi--"you will find that the majority of articles are timed at 12:01 or 12:05 - it would appear to be some kind of archive default setting.’"

I can find no evidence of any newspaper site, anywhere, using a 'default setting' for the timing of an article. In fact, the competition to be the 'first' paper/site out of the gate with an important story demands that a timestamp be accurate. Just go to the current edition of the Telegraph site and see for yourself by clicking on a random assortment of articles.

by Amy Dean 15.07.15 9:18

That's how it appears to me, whodunit. As you say, the time stamp needs to be accurate.

There can be no doubt surely that the story of Madeleine's "abduction" was being broadcast extremely soon after the event.

P.S. Coincidentally (or not?) this recent story is also timed at 12.01.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Verdi 15.07.15 12:33

whodunit wrote:With respect, that appears to be a reproduction of the article under discussion.

Verdi--"you will find that the majority of articles are timed at 12:01 or 12:05 - it would appear to be some kind of archive default setting.’"

I can find no evidence of any newspaper site, anywhere, using a 'default setting' for the timing of an article. In fact, the competition to be the 'first' paper/site out of the gate with an important story demands that a timestamp be accurate. Just go to the current edition of the Telegraph site and see for yourself by clicking on a random assortment of articles.

I give up - it's like banging your head against a brick wall.

by whodunit 15.07.15 16:42

The timestamp directly under the article is the exact time the article was originally filed. Archiving the article has nothing to do with this specific timestamp. If you mean archiving by WBM, the timing of their crawl is indicated in the coding and in the url of the archived page not on the page itself which is supposed to be a snapshot of the page as it looked at the time of archiving, complete with the site's own timestamp if any. EDIT: and the site itself archiving an article using a default setting makes no sense and defeats the purpose of having a timestamp in the first place.

by surfmonkey 15.07.15 17:35

From what I know and from checking embargoed press releases 12.01am is a common time for release of material which is ready to go out. It is usually 12.01 for the time zone in which the release is made. Happens with exam results to those privy to them eg AQA - release date 12.01am - as far as I know.

So if anything is held back until a specific day - and you want it released as soon as that day comes - 12.01am is the time it will show.

Just my opinion - I may be wrong and someone else may have already stated the correct answer.

by Richard IV 15.07.15 18:32

surfmonkey wrote:From what I know and from checking embargoed press releases 12.01am is a common time for release of material which is ready to go out. It is usually 12.01 for the time zone in which the release is made. Happens with exam results to those privy to them eg AQA - release date 12.01am - as far as I know.

So if anything is held back until a specific day - and you want it released as soon as that day comes - 12.01am is the time it will show.

Just my opinion - I may be wrong and someone else may have already stated the correct answer.

So, this piece of news may have been ready and waiting some time BEFORE 12.01am. Someone was keen.

by whodunit 15.07.15 20:18

Richard IV wrote:
surfmonkey wrote:From what I know and from checking embargoed press releases 12.01am is a common time for release of material which is ready to go out. It is usually 12.01 for the time zone in which the release is made. Happens with exam results to those privy to them eg AQA - release date 12.01am - as far as I know.

So if anything is held back until a specific day - and you want it released as soon as that day comes - 12.01am is the time it will show.

Just my opinion - I may be wrong and someone else may have already stated the correct answer.
So, this piece of news may have been ready and waiting some time BEFORE 12.01am. Someone was keen.

Exactly. surfmonkey is right, and this one was shot out of the gate like it was already locked and loaded.

by Guest 15.07.15 20:59

Newspaper websites "publish" their new paper (on the web) at Midnight.

These are pages created/written before midnight and are waiting and ready to go at the scheduled time.

That's why you get 12.00 and 12.01 for articles.

Sometimes they have a "stop press" (on the web) during the day and that gets the actual time of the day.

I'm pretty sure we went round this circle on 3As back in the day.

by Nina 15.07.15 21:10

BlueBag wrote:Newspaper websites "publish" their new paper (on the web) at Midnight.

These are pages created/written before midnight and are waiting and ready to go at the scheduled time.

That's why you get 12.00 and 12.01 for articles.

Sometimes they have a "stop press" (on the web) during the day and that gets the actual time of the day.

I'm pretty sure we went round this circle on 3As back in the day.

I always think of midnight as 00:00 not 12:00, surely that is mid-day?

by whodunit 15.07.15 21:22

@BlueBag--"Newspaper websites "publish" their new paper (on the web) at Midnight."

Yes, a lot of newspaper sites 'go live' at midnight, mostly with scheduled feature content, but the timestamp on the articles that 'go live' with it at that time would still be accurate ie, it reflects the actual time of the day..Is it your argument that the site went live at midnight yet the midnight timestamp on articles that went live with it are somehow inaccurate, ie did not reflect the actual time of day?

"Sometimes they have a "stop press" (on the web) during the day and that gets the actual time of the day."

'Stop press' meaning breaking news which would go online as soon as possible. In your opinion are we talking about breaking news or a sheduled feature? Either way, it is very hard to argue that the midnight timestamp was not the actual time of the day the piece was published but you go on ahead with your bad self.

Nina--"I always think of midnight as 00:00 not 12:00, surely that is mid-day?"

The timestamp specifies a.m.

by Guest 15.07.15 21:27

whodunit wrote: but you go on ahead with your bad self.

...right...

Whatever whodunit.

Same old dead horses from you.

by surfmonkey 15.07.15 21:37

Was this a breaking news story at 12.01am or had it been written before midnight? If this had been produced later in the day it would have been superfluous because the story is bare bones - no names just an outline that a 3 year old British child had gone missing in Portugal.

But there is a FO spokesman quoted (is this where CM comes in on his secondment to the FO?)- so things were happening at the FO from very early on 3/4 May 2007.

Just my opinion for what it's worth.

by Guest 15.07.15 21:52

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Is midnight 12pm or 12am?

Have fun.

by Nina 15.07.15 22:21

BlueBag wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Is midnight 12pm or 12am?

Have fun.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Verdi 15.07.15 23:04

whodunit wrote:The timestamp directly under the article is the exact time the article was originally filed. Archiving the article has nothing to do with this specific timestamp. If you mean archiving by WBM, the timing of their crawl is indicated in the coding and in the url of the archived page not on the page itself which is supposed to be a snapshot of the page as it looked at the time of archiving, complete with the site's own timestamp if any. EDIT: and the site itself archiving an article using a default setting makes no sense and defeats the purpose of having a timestamp in the first place.

I'm losing the will to live!

I can't understand why you think I might be referring to the Wayback Machine as I haven't mentioned it in any way shape or form. It has however occurred to me that this subject might be taking on a life of it's own, as has the Wayback v CEOP epic.

Still, who am I to stand in the way of a work of fiction like a good old fashioned whodunit - I will leave you to your theorizing.

by Verdi 15.07.15 23:09

surfmonkey wrote:From what I know and from checking embargoed press releases 12.01am is a common time for release of material which is ready to go out. It is usually 12.01 for the time zone in which the release is made. Happens with exam results to those privy to them eg AQA - release date 12.01am - as far as I know.

So if anything is held back until a specific day - and you want it released as soon as that day comes - 12.01am is the time it will show.

Just my opinion - I may be wrong and someone else may have already stated the correct answer.

Surfmonkey, there is no such thing as 12:01 am. It is either 00:01 am or 12:01 pm.

by Verdi 15.07.15 23:12

whodunit wrote:
Richard IV wrote:
surfmonkey wrote:From what I know and from checking embargoed press releases 12.01am is a common time for release of material which is ready to go out. It is usually 12.01 for the time zone in which the release is made. Happens with exam results to those privy to them eg AQA - release date 12.01am - as far as I know.

So if anything is held back until a specific day - and you want it released as soon as that day comes - 12.01am is the time it will show.

Just my opinion - I may be wrong and someone else may have already stated the correct answer.
So, this piece of news may have been ready and waiting some time BEFORE 12.01am. Someone was keen.

Exactly. surfmonkey is right, and this one was shot out of the gate like it was already locked and loaded.

Out of little rumours do mighty myths grow. yes