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

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
Blair set for ambassador role in Africa	10.00pm
Australians turn to local knowledge for rain	10.00pm
Water baby making waves as a swimmer	10.00pm
Council uses thermal imaging spy plane	7.01pm
Seville solar thermal power plant	N/A
World agrees it can afford to tackle climate change	4.30pm
Anti-whaling advert 'boycotted' by MTV	4.01pm
Worries ease over osprey project	3.00pm
Deadline for science writers extended	1.20pm
Do you have faith in British democracy?	9.10am
Is Scotland ready for independence?	12.20am
The week in pictures	N/A
How can we do the right thing for our planet?	12.05am
A Georgian haven fit for Jane Austen	12.04am
Doctor's diary	12.03am
FEATURES CHOICE
How to let happiness find you	12.02am
How to let happiness find you	12.01am
Call for balance in GM argument	12.01am
How green are you?	12.01am
Why the elderly are easier to con	12.01am
Cost of living forces new mothers to work	12.01am
Working nine to five is a thing of the past	12.01am
Church failed to act against sex abuse vicar	12.01am
Tories report early gains in the north	12.01am
We let firebrand preachers plant terrorist seeds - now it's too late	12.01am
I'm proud to be British, says cleared Muslim	12.01am
Britons 'plotted to use dirty bomb on area the size of Manhattan'	12.01am
Media studies wastes good brains, says Sugar	12.01am
Star Wars exhibition opens its doors	12.01am
Post offices, too, are part of our national heritage	12.01am
Labour fights to head off SNP onslaught	12.01am
Motorists prepare for Bank Holiday jams	12.01am
Family ticket 'rip off' at British attractions	12.01am
Only minority feel pride in Britain, says study	12.01am
Three year-old feared abducted in Portugal	12.01am
Murder in verse 'Running from Paul Kelly'	12.01am
A wall of silence after poet points at killer	12.01am
Now you can buy an MP3 player for £28	12.01am
Abigail's Party updated for 21st century	12.01am
Barometer makers hit by mercury ban	12.01am
My ex-husband can't read a comic, says Mellon	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
Three year-old feared abducted in Portugal 04 May 2007
I felt my family was as safe as it could be 12 Apr 2008
When every parent's nightmare becomes a frightening reality 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.

Log in for more topics