Why do you suppose they would want to keep paying RDK for a chess column at all, even if it were original? Can there really be anyone out there whose decision whether to buy the paper is swayed by the inclusion of an old game with brief notes?
In reply to Jacques, that's what I can't make out. It's obvious from a single glance that his column is shite. I would have thought that was the issue, rather than the fact that it's also recycled and/or stolen shite.
From a chess point of view, maybe. From a journalistic or ethical point of view, I wouldn't have said so. Still, from any point of view, it's hard to see why they retain Ray, let alone cover for him as they do.
The situation with the Times column is weird in general though. RDK says that he has some bizarre advanced deadline for submission of articles (4 weeks or more I can't recall) which would seem strange for a monthly magazine let alone a daily column. If that is really true, then it's hardly surprising that a sh*te column is produced, leaving plagiarism and recycling aside. One wonders on the latter note whether if that because it has been going on so long, and the editors have knowingly allowed it for so long, there wouldn't be some sort of significant employment tribunal claim if they got rid of him (whilst maintaining the column).
BTW - on recycling - how can one refer to this without once mentioning "it's Hastings so it must be time to (re)produce Steinitz-von Bardeleben"? The challenge on that one would not be to discover it being recycled, but to see if it's ever been used more than once for the same Hastings tournament ;)
Actually he only quoted a deadline (8 weeks!) for the Sunday paper, but the implication was of significant advanced deadlines on the daily columns. Which matches the pattern of his reporting on large tournaments eg. the British where he sometimes will mention "expected participants" when non-participation is known significantly in advance.
During the second half of the British Championships this year, the Times column contained some games from earlier rounds. So that at least contained timely original material. Some of the games in the Bulletin had already been annotated but in a wordless variation only manner.
11 comments:
Hah! Matt T is way ahead of me - I'd have sent you that piece myself if I hadn't been 600 miles away from my computer when I saw it.
Why do you suppose they would want to keep paying RDK for a chess column at all, even if it were original? Can there really be anyone out there whose decision whether to buy the paper is swayed by the inclusion of an old game with brief notes?
Maybe they sell a few extra copies to people who want to try and guess where Ray has copied his notes from that day?
In reply to Jacques, that's what I can't make out. It's obvious from a single glance that his column is shite. I would have thought that was the issue, rather than the fact that it's also recycled and/or stolen shite.
From a chess point of view, maybe. From a journalistic or ethical point of view, I wouldn't have said so. Still, from any point of view, it's hard to see why they retain Ray, let alone cover for him as they do.
The situation with the Times column is weird in general though. RDK says that he has some bizarre advanced deadline for submission of articles (4 weeks or more I can't recall) which would seem strange for a monthly magazine let alone a daily column. If that is really true, then it's hardly surprising that a sh*te column is produced, leaving plagiarism and recycling aside. One wonders on the latter note whether if that because it has been going on so long, and the editors have knowingly allowed it for so long, there wouldn't be some sort of significant employment tribunal claim if they got rid of him (whilst maintaining the column).
BTW - on recycling - how can one refer to this without once mentioning "it's Hastings so it must be time to (re)produce Steinitz-von Bardeleben"? The challenge on that one would not be to discover it being recycled, but to see if it's ever been used more than once for the same Hastings tournament ;)
Richard
RDK says that he has some bizarre advanced deadline for submission of articles
Any idea where he's said that? I'm sure there is such a deadline, but four weeks sounds improbable.
http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3358#p69697
Actually he only quoted a deadline (8 weeks!) for the Sunday paper, but the implication was of significant advanced deadlines on the daily columns. Which matches the pattern of his reporting on large tournaments eg. the British where he sometimes will mention "expected participants" when non-participation is known significantly in advance.
Richard
During the second half of the British Championships this year, the Times column contained some games from earlier rounds. So that at least contained timely original material. Some of the games in the Bulletin had already been annotated but in a wordless variation only manner.
RdC
I'm clearly missing something. What's the connection between Keene and Kamm?
1. Plagiarism.
2. Keene works for Kamm's newspaper.
Post a Comment