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

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 Guest 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 Guest 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 Guest 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 Guest 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 Guest 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 Guest 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

Keep things in perspective eh?

by surfmonkey 16.07.15 4:01

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

In 24 hour clock logic you are right, Verdi - but this is what some newspapers use as a timing online for material waiting to be released at the first stroke past midnight. Telegraph uses 12.01am and Guardian 00.01.

Today's (16/07) Telegraph and Guardian (I'm writing this at 04.00 in UK) have the same lead story on NHS and what Jeremy Hunt is going to propose - Telegraph 12.01am 16/07 and Guardian 00.01 16/07. And for good measure the Daily Mail goes with 00.00 for the same story on 16/07. So all correct as far as each paper is concerned and all around the same time.

by Guest 16.07.15 7:08

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

Wrong.

Totally.

by Doug D 16.07.15 16:56

DAILY TELEGRAPH ARCHIVE 4TH MAY 2007
04 May 2007 Archive
NEWS
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]	10.00pm
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]	10.00pm
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]	10.00pm
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]	7.01pm
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]	N/A
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]	4.30pm
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]	4.01pm
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]	3.00pm
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]	1.20pm
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]	9.10am
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]	12.20am
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]	N/A
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]	12.05am
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]	12.04am
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]	12.03am
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]	12.02am
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]	12.01am
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]	12.01am
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]	12.01am
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]	12.01am
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]	12.01am
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]	12.01am
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]	12.01am
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]	12.01am
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]	12.01am
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]	12.01am
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]	12.01am
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]	12.01am
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]	12.01am
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]	12.01am
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]	12.01am
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]	12.01am
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]	12.01am
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]	12.01am
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]	12.01am
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]	12.01am
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]	12.01am
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]	12.01am
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]	12.01am
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]	12.01am
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]	12.01am

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

……………………………………………………….

Not sure if this ‘proves’ anything, but certainly ‘pre-loaded’ stories hit the 12.01am release time to hit that days news, as you would expect.

Breaking stories during the day then pull up the times that they are released.

What I find very concerning is that the 4^th May archived story showing at 12.01am is not the couple of lines from the original 12.01 story, but the 6.10am story from the 5^th May, with the neighbour’s comments etc. and the following has been inserted as the archive report for the 5^th May and dated as 12.01am which is clearly not correct for time or date:

Police identify Madeleine suspect

By Nick Britten
12:01AM BST 05 May 2007

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

Just as an aside, half-way through this article are links to other articles dated both before and after this one:

Related Articles
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] 04 May 2007
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] 12 Apr 2008
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] 12 Apr 2008

reminiscent of the WBM ‘error’ maybe?

by whodunit 16.07.15 17:10

Verdi wrote:
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.

Please do not injure yourself Verdi. It should be obvious to anyone who is actually interested in discussing this issue that since you have failed to enlighten us I was taking a guess as to which mythical archiving process you are referring to which renders all timestamps back to a 'default setting' thus rendering all timestamps everywhere completely useless.

Just imagine the usefulness of such an archive! [all times approximate]

'Japanese Strike Pearl Harbor!' New York Times, December 7, 1941 ~~8:05 am~~ 12:01 am

'President Kennedy Shot Down in Dallas!' Dallas Morning Herald, November 22, 1963 ~~1:00 pm~~ 12:01 am

'World Trade Center Attacked!' New York Post, September 11, 2001, ~~9:40 am~~ 12:01 am

Why not a default datestamp too! Then everything could be archived with a 'default setting' of January 1, 1900. Who cares!

Do you see the problem here? Do not answer that, please. I'm not about to get into a pages long battle with another wall o' text Tag Team Act.

by surfmonkey 16.07.15 18:19

The FO it appears knew about the disappearance before midnight plus one minute on 4th May 2007. Madeleine's name is not mentioned- it is breaking news with more to come - FO made a statement very quickly. Someone had contacted the FO before 4th May began and a freelance report (staff and agencies)? was ready for release on the Telegraph webpage at 12.01am on 4th May.

Something happens, it is written up and makes the news as soon as the new day starts. In theory nothing wrong with that. I wonder who the FO spokesman was?

Well that's how I read it.

by Harriet94 21.07.15 21:33

RSS feeds. Is that how news agencies share breaking news with other agencies? With an RSS feed how do we find out who actually broke the story first?

by snook 22.07.15 3:23

Reading this thread what concerns me more than the timestamp on The Telegraph article is the speed with which the Foreign Office was contacted. Are we seriously to believe that during the first few hours of a child being reported missing, a resort accommodation member of staff has the forethought to make the call? Surely such things fall under the remit of the police?

As with most things McCann it seems a case of cart before the horse. And given that she could have been found at any time time, didn't the F O act with indecent haste? I am fond of saying that even the death penalty abroad doesn't get you a visit from THE British Ambassador yet in this case it seems these high level embassy staff were waiting with their bags packed, ready for the off before any crime had even been established, concocted or otherwise.

by Guest 22.07.15 7:58

snook wrote:Reading this thread what concerns me more than the timestamp on The Telegraph article is the speed with which the Foreign Office was contacted. Are we seriously to believe that during the first few hours of a child being reported missing, a resort accommodation member of staff has the forethought to make the call? Surely such things fall under the remit of the police?

As with most things McCann it seems a case of cart before the horse. And given that she could have been found at any time time, didn't the F O act with indecent haste? I am fond of saying that even the death penalty abroad doesn't get you a visit from THE British Ambassador yet in this case it seems these high level embassy staff were waiting with their bags packed, ready for the off before any crime had even been established, concocted or otherwise.

Yes the speed was amazing.

Who needs Amber Alert when you have this!

by inspirespirit 23.07.15 11:42

Talking of the Telegraph, they have uploaded and run an old story today about the McCann's covering up Madeleine's death, at the trial. Seems a bit odd to have uploaded that now. Wonder why? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/portugal/6974917/Madeleine-McCanns-death-covered-up-by-parents-who-faked-kidnap-court-hears.html

by lj 23.07.15 15:33

BlueBag wrote:
snook wrote:Reading this thread what concerns me more than the timestamp on The Telegraph article is the speed with which the Foreign Office was contacted. Are we seriously to believe that during the first few hours of a child being reported missing, a resort accommodation member of staff has the forethought to make the call? Surely such things fall under the remit of the police?

As with most things McCann it seems a case of cart before the horse. And given that she could have been found at any time time, didn't the F O act with indecent haste? I am fond of saying that even the death penalty abroad doesn't get you a visit from THE British Ambassador yet in this case it seems these high level embassy staff were waiting with their bags packed, ready for the off before any crime had even been established, concocted or otherwise.
Yes the speed was amazing.

Who needs Amber Alert when you have this!

While I cannot speak for British citizen services, for the US ones this is quite normal and is advised. Anything that does involve local police, hospitals, like accidents, death, disappearance, crimes, it is advised to call to consular officer on duty. That officer can help with local numbers, give information about the processes, can help with translation etc. Those are normal consular activities. So the making contact itself is quite normal, an ambassador coming out is not.