Koptalk uses the Sun boycott again

Desperate times for Dunk. Hits are falling (really, really falling). Members are leaving in their droves. Time to fall back on an old favourite – THE SUN.

If you are new to this blog, you may not know this –

Duncan Oldham, dictator at Koptalk, knows about the boycott of The S*n. He chooses to not only ignore the boycott, but to make money out of the boycott. He knows that most Reds won’t read the Sun. So a story made up by the Sun will be news to most Reds who read it on Oldham’s website mid-morning. His hits go up, because he’s the only Liverpool site running that particular made-up story.

More often than not Dunk’s headlines are vague, created to make you click through. “Striker in talks with Liverpool” would turn out to be that one of the existing strikers with three years left on his current deal had mentioned he was already discussing his next contract extension. Every other site would say, “Players-name starts new contract talks”. Clear and honest. Unlike Dunk, who wanted you to think we had a new striker lined up and talking to the manager at Melwood.

Dunk does put player’s names into his headlines when it suits him – like when he’s taken a story from the Sun.

Like today. Yet again.

“Liverpool in for Real Madrid’s Woodgate”
 
Liverpool are reportedly trying to sign Real Madrid defender Jonathan Woodgate.

Newspapers reports in the UK today claim that Rafa Benitez is interested in bringing the 26-year-old to Anfield on loan.

Wrong fatso. There is only one newspaper carrying that story today. I use the term “newspaper” loosely. It’s your favourite rag, The Sun. The paper that Liverpool supporters boycott, but Duncan Oldham has delivered. The paper that Liverpool Football Club refuse to allow their players to speak to, but Koptalk quote from whenever they can. And to say “Liverpool in for Real Madrid’s Woodgate” – bit of an exaggeration?

Numerous emails alerted me to Dunk’s latest Sun-loving story, it’s one of the issues that really gets people’s back up about Koptalk. Just as annoying is the fact that despite Dunk making sure nobody sees any mentions of other LFC websites by having his mods under orders to get rid of anything from his rival sites, he’s not at all bothered about stuff from the Sun. No need to delete anything that a poster takes from that rag. This morning was the worst example I’ve seen.

First of all, in post #1620063 at 6:32am, “bdee” mentions this story having been reported on the BBC’s gossip columnn. In fact at 8:40am Dunk or Steve logged in as “KOPTALK” in the Gold Club and cut and pasted the whole BBC gossip column into a post on their site (like they do every day), with their usual lie at the bottom: “The above content is prepared by BBC Sport. We are unable to edit it.” Balls. What that means is, “We know we should edit it to remove the references to the S*n, but we don’t care about the boycott.”

A few minutes after posting the BBC’s gossip, “bdee” comes back to add some more –

bdee   Gold Member
Reged: Feb 13 2006
Posts: 213
Re: Johnathon Woodgate? [Re: bdee]
#1620067 – Fri Aug 25 2006 06:38 AM

Here is the story:

Woody ready to Kop it
By ERIC BEAUCHAMP
——FULL ARTICLE CUT AND PASTED FROM THE SUN WAS HERE——
Post Extras:

I wasn’t sure at first if that was where the article was from, I didn’t actually believe that anyone would do that. A quick search for “Eric Beauchamp” though in Google News and you get a long list of links to stories from the rag that lied about us.

There may not be any mods around at 6.38am, but you’d expect it to be gone as soon as someone comes online. No, not even two hours later, when Koptalk staff themselves logged on to cut and paste the BBC article and to use the article from the S*n as a basis for their front page.

The following people posted after “bdee” and none of them were at all concerned about the source of this story, or the fact that a fellow member of the forum had visited the rag’s website in order to cut and paste the full story.

Redsmail. Gold Member. Reged: Dec 10 2004. Posts: 73. Fri Aug 25 2006 11:01 AM
Lecter. Honorary Member. Reged: Feb 12 2003. Posts: 12417. Fri Aug 25 2006 11:07 AM
mario. Gold Member. Reged: Jun 09 2002. Fri Aug 25 2006 11:11 AM
Lecter (again) Fri Aug 25 2006 11:14 AM
tomasjj Honorary Member. Reged: Feb 17 2005. Posts: 6506. Loc: Oslo, Norway. Fri Aug 25 2006 11:15 AM

According to his profile, tomasjj is from Norway – perhaps he’s unaware of the boycott. Maybe “mario” and “Redsmail” are also from overseas. As for “Lecter” – well he’s not Chris Bascombe (despite what many KT members have been led to believe) and he should know about the boycott.  Another reason could be that the posters (and others who’ve said nothing) are afraid they’ll be banned if they point anything out.

Koptalk is the only Liverpool website where Liverpool supporters can read stories from the S*n. S*n stories are one of the few exclusive services offered by Koptalk.

UPDATE: After I’d written the above, I went to News Now one last time to make sure the story wasn’t appearing on any other LFC sites. I found that Rafa had to responded to a question about Woodgate at the routine press conference. The official site quotes Rafa as saying, “We are not talking with Woodgate. It is a rumour and the first I heard of it was in the newspapers. There is no interest in this player.”

The only other place I found the story when I looked earlier on was in the Sunday People. Last Sunday – ARSENE GAMBLE ON CROCK WOODGATE.

Advertisements

17 Responses to “Koptalk uses the Sun boycott again”

  1. RedinSweden Says:

    bdee, pronounced BD, or Big Dunk?

  2. univofchicago Says:

    Fatty never learns does he? What a shame…

  3. rezaeos Says:

    Wow, this is truly unbelievable. I posted a thread regarding Woodgate at EST1892, quoting the BBC at 01:08 this morning : http://www.est1892.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?s=2a27dadffb7a6338ac152bb11a021658&t=2999
    Did Koptalk claim this as their exclusive?

  4. The Platinum Club Says:

    I can’t believe that you’ve slated some of the posters on Koptalk for not picking up on the quotes from The S*n. You’ve got some valid points sometimes, but that’s just ridiculous.

  5. Insider Insider Says:

    TPC – my issue is with the original poster and also with the Koptalk policy regarding The S*n.

    The original poster probably doesn’t know about The S*n boycott, I hope that’s the case, but how hard would it be to gently point the boycott out to him? On any other LFC site it wouldn’t be hard at all – but on Koptalk, they stand to get some stick if they mention it. We’ve seen it before on posts we’ve covered on this blog, I’ve seen it on other occasions too.

    Thanks to Dunk’s attempts to soften the stance of LFC fans towards that publication, the members of his sites in many cases just don’t realise there’s a problem. Lecter knows about the boycott, I expect he backs and supports the boycott. Anyone who reads about LFC without relying solely on Koptalk usually does know about and support the boycott. The annoyance with me more than anything is that someone like Lecter either feels it isn’t necessary to point out the error by the original poster (because of Dunk’s attempts at softening the stance), or feels concerned that he’ll get some kind of stick for doing it. That’s not a dig at Lecter necessarily, it’s a dig at the culture inside Koptalk. I don’t know the other posters.

    Whether the boycott should continue or not isn’t for Dunk to decide on our behalf. By all means let him start a debate about it on his sites, but even if Koptalk vote the boycott should end, it’s still not their decision. This blog isn’t here for debate on whether the boycott should end, or to discuss all the other arguments used by S*n apologists like Oldham. The S*n is boycotted by LFC and its supporters.

    I get some stick for using The S*n against Duncan Oldham. I’ll go on using his love of The S*n until he does something about it. There’d have been no need at all for this post or for any stick for any posters had Dunk not got his soft spot for that paper.

  6. Lecter Says:

    I am aware of the reasons for the boycott I was at Hillsborough myself so I dont need anyone to tell me why that paper is boycotted

    Frankly I wasnt aware it was from that source and I dont have time or inclination to check EVERY article and author for links to that paper

    For me the onus is on the site to check the origin of the quoted articles posted on there and delete as appropriate.

    Most other sites and their members do a good job of policing themselves and purging articles from that paper and to be fair to KT it is something that has been done on there in the past. Unfortunately there are less and less of theold school and more and more newbies on there who are both unaware of the lies peddled in the pursuit of “sensationalism”

  7. fat_boy_fat Says:

    I cant understand even 1 genuine Liverpool fan giving you stick over the s*n thing with Oldham!!!

    You can 100% Guarantee that if ANY member of their family was involved with what happened and then had to see what the s*n printed the next day they would be totally agreeing with you.

    People need to realise how they shat on the names of the people who died, shat on the name of our club and shat on the name of the people of Liverpool! And then we have some fat ugly twat coming along of giving this shit hole of a paper exposure and ‘air time’ among us fans!!!

    Stick to your guns insider!!! the majority are behind you on this!

    FUCK OFF OLDHAM!!! I HATE YOU MORE EACH DAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  8. silentbutdeadly Says:

    Lector – if you were there, I’d expect you to be more vigilant than most. I don’t want to have a go at you becasue I don’t know you, but how hard is it to spot that BDee’s article is from that paper?

    If its a genuine oversight fair enough. I wasn’t there myself (and to be blunt, I don’t believe everyone that say “I wuz there guv” on the net – not that I suspect you of lying) but I can only imagine the hatred that people who were present feel towards that paper. If I had that hate inside me, I think I’d be incredibly sensitive toward ANY copy and paste article on ANY lfc website and want to check the source for myself.

  9. Lecter Says:

    SBD

    As I said I dont have the time or inclination to check EVERY article and author

    If you or this blog have a problem with me because of that then what can I do

  10. ROCK Says:

    dont know lecter or anyone else who replied to that thread on kt
    but i would say it is absolute bollocks to expect them to know the article was from the sun.
    did it say this is from the sun on top of the thread posted??
    did it have the writers name at the bottom of the article posted?
    should you have to check where the writers from before reading?
    should you be chastised for even looking at the thread??

    i support this blog but some of these suggestions are rubbish.

  11. silentbutdeadly Says:

    don’t have a problem with you, just think it was reasonably obvious where that article was from – especially if you spend time on other football fora/bbc site internet football sites generally.

  12. The Platinum Club Says:

    I completely understand the boycott and your reason for using it as a stick to beat Dunk with. However, I think in this instance, you have gone too far and are being stupidly militant about it. If you want to have a go at Dunk then so be it, but leave the posters on his site be. Realistically the poster of the original message is not supporting The S*n, nether are the posters who replied, so what is the relevance of this in your smear campaign?

  13. Insider Insider Says:

    The first post in the thread in question was talking about the BBC’s gossip column, it clearly referred to the gossip about Woodgate and Liverpool coming from The Sun. That was posted by “bdee”. Next thing from “bdee” was the full article from The Sun. It was pretty obvious where it came from.

    Despite that I am still happy with what Lecter says. If he’d not read the first post properly then he wouldn’t realise the later post was straight out of The S*n. I asked why nobody had pointed out the “mistake” made by the original poster. I wasn’t having a go at Lecter or the others. Anyone who thinks that needs to read the article again.

    I wanted to know why this thread was allowed to continue. Why did not one mod deal with it? The slightest whiff of a hint that something came from another LFC site and a thread is dealt with.

    But allowing for the fact that Dunk’s policy towards The S*n is that he allows it to be used on his site, I also wondered why the other posters let it go. From what I’ve seen in the past, if I’d gone on the Koptalk site and asked the question the thread would have been locked, but not until Oldham had dished out a bit of mockery first.

    Lecter is the only one who’s come on here out of all of those other posters listed and explained why he said nothing. I fully accept that, I’ve no problem whatsoever with him on this issue. On hearing what he says about pepole being pulled up in the past about quoting from The S*n I’d love to see it happen more on Koptalk. It would help if Duncan Oldham wasn’t so pro-S*n. His mods should be dealing with these things. The post is still on his site even now.

    The other posters have probably got good reasons too, but how much better would Oldham be if he a) Stopped using The S*n boycott to make money and b) Educated his users whenever the opportunity arose?

    As things stand, Oldham is doing his best to try and let The S*n boycott lose effect, and I think as the owner of a so-called LFC website he needs to stop doing that.

    Thanks for coming on here with your side of the story Lecter, I’ve absolutely no axe to grind with you, I’m sure you’d have pointed it out on Koptalk had you realised. I was concerned that perhaps you were worried Dunk might make you his next target for a banning.

  14. rubyred Says:

    I support the right of all LFC fans to boycott the Sun following their behaviour after Hillsborough, but think the Insider comments re the Sun being used as a source of information on KT to be a bit extreme.

    Unless I am missing something or have misread the posts, the argument against KT is that because of the Sun boycott it should not be used as a source of information for the site.

    If we take this to its logical conclusion all Liverpool fans should be discouraged from accessing the BBC websites for info because it uses the Sun as a source, and any other site which does the same. They should also be discouraged from discussing any information which is first aired in that rag.

    The boycott of the Sun has a clear reason. It has hit the publishers hard in the pocket, and is still supported strongly in this area. Long may that continue. However I think there is a limit to how far that boycott can realistically be extended.

    I personally do not find it offesive of KT use the Sun’s comments re something involving Liverpool in their News section as it is part of a package from the BBC, and not something solely done by the site. That is where I would draw my personal line of acceptance.

    Many people had a problem with Steven Gerrard having his book seriallised in the News of the World, as it is a sister paper of the Sun, while others argued that it was alright.

    Everyone has an idea about where the line of acceptance lies.

    I realise the blog is written by people with a serious axe to grind about KT and its owner, but personally I think this is stretching the reasons for complaint.

  15. Insider Insider Says:

    Hi “rubyred”,

    You are entitled to your views on The Sun, as are we all.

    My view – all Liverpool supporters should boycott The Sun and The Sun website – without question.

    The boycott started in 1989 and was against The Sun. As you say, everyone has a line of acceptance. Some people leave the line drawn at The Sun, others add sister publications of The Sun from the News International stable, others add anything from the Murdoch empire including Sky, others add anything to do with Kelvin McKenzie, the editor of The Sun that day.

    As I understand it the boycott is against The Sun. How far you extend it is up to you, and the subject of regular debate on LFC forums. If people want to debate how far the boycott should go, or whether it is time for it to come to and end, please do – but do it on any of the LFC forums we link to from here.

    Don’t buy The Sun. Don’t read the Sun. Don’t take advantage of a boycott of The Sun to make money for yourselves.

    Regardless of how far you want to take the boycott – The Sun is boycotted. All the other media related to The Sun are boycotted optionally, but the boycott of The Sun has never been “optional” as such.

    Dunk shouldn’t be stealing the BBC’s gossip page using cut and paste in the first place – maybe they should be told it’s going on. If he does though, why not spend a few seconds, literally, removing the lines that relate to stories in The Sun? He’d be doing Liverpool supporters a favour then wouldn’t he? He doesn’t even remove the stories about other clubs that are from The Sun when he takes that BBC page. He knows he should, he knows he can, but he says, “The above content is prepared by BBC Sport. We are unable to edit it.” If he was using an automatic feed to import the content then I’d consider it acceptable, but he isn’t.

    Regarding what you say about KT using the package from the BBC in their news section – they don’t. It’s one of the services they sell as part of their £30 Gold Club package. What Oldham and KT do on their News section is to make use of the copy of The Sun that Duncan Oldham has delivered to his home every day. It’s a source for him to create a news article of his own. I did a search on Google News the day that Oldham used the Woodgate story and the only results to come back with any link between LFC and Woodgate were from the previous Sunday’s Sunday People, that day’s Sun website, that day’s BBC Gossip column. So why, if Dunk thinks it’s OK to use the Sun as a source, didn’t he say “According to the Sun” rather than “According to newspaper reports”?

    Answer: Because he knows he shouldn’t do it.

    People who know no better aren’t going to learn a thing about The Sun boycott from Oldham’s site, if anything they’ll start to think it’s OK again. That’s wrong.

    Thanks for sharing your views with us, but the overwhelming feeling I get from people is that I am right to condemn Duncan Oldham for his support of The Sun.

    a) He shouldn’t buy it (if he’s a Liverpool fan).
    b) He shouldn’t use stories from it to generate hits on News Now for himself.
    c) He shouldn’t be so disrespectful to other LFC fans by failing to spend a minute or so removing the Sun’s quotes from his stolen BBC Gossip content.

    I urge you to write to all other LFC websites and ask them if they think Dunk is doing right to leave the Sun stuff on his site, and to use their stories to create his own. I’d be interested to see how many replies you get that say Dunk is right. Start a poll on a few LFC forums, let’s see what the feeling is from people. I’m ready to be proved wrong, but I really don’t feel I will be.

    Thanks again for taking time to comment.

  16. rupertinsider Says:

    The Hillsborough campaign has thrashed out all the issues about the limits of the boycott. They (and LFC) have decided that the boycott is on the S**. That is very definite.

    The fact is that Oldham :

    (1) buys the S** for his personal use and boasts about it on his site when he feels invincible – but then performs “comical” and insincere S**- burning stunts when he feels the blog’s criticism is hurting his business:

    (2) he argues repeatedly that the boycott should be a matter of personal choice and he will not impose it on his readers because that is “politics” and his site is about “entertainment”. He uses the same argument to explain why KT does not feature the Hillsborough campaign or support it. Since we all know that by defintiion a boycott is a voluntary action, we have to look beyond his words to understand why he states the obvious. It is clear that he uses his KT to undermine the boycott.

    (3) one of the ways he seeks to undermine the boycott is by citing stories from the S** that have been cited by the BBC. He calculates that if people can be led to reading the S** in this way, their support for the boycott will become problematic.

    Furthemore, as the only LFC site to cite the S** he steals an advantage of other sites. It does not matter that the S** stories are false – as the Woodland story was – and as the S** Hillsborough story was false – the fact is that his S** derived headline shows up on News Now and other news services, bringing him probably thousands of extra hits. Those hits produce real money which goes into his pocket, and they reinforce one of the strongest misconceptiosn about KT – that it is a one-stop source of all news and info about LFC.

    I have no sympathy for those who rely on KT for news on LFC. And I have no patience with those who start theological arguments about why it is alright for KT to sell headlines taken from the S** stories because they were not taken directly from the S** but from the BBC – citing the S**. If you want to read the BBC site it is more accessible and quicker than KT. The fact is you are reading the S** as summarised by the BBC and as sold by Oldham.

  17. barry wom Says:

    I want to start this by saying”keep up the good work insider”

    all this rubbish of people saying it’s alright to run s*n stories is just that rubbish. any liverpool fan knows what the boycott is, they know why it’s there, and most of all it’s quite simple where the line is “the sun”, anything whatever is published by them. the sun web site is still the sun and running any article from there promotes that rag – in either it’s paper or electronic form. shit is still shit, whether it’s in a toilet or on the floor. it’s the same with that rag whether it’s in the paper or on the internet.

    finally, anyone who thinks because the bbc reproduces s*n stories or use it as a source for some of their own articles, somehow justifies Oldham doing it, is off their rocker. the bbc is just another new source. they aren’t really interested in the interests or politics of LFC and it’s fans. koptalk is supposed to be a fan site. it’s supposed to be run by a fan (what a laugh eh?). it’s supposed to be there in the interests of our fans (or at least the community within that forum). quite simply reproducing articles from the s*n is nothing short of disgusting imo. for everything Oldham does, imo this is the worst. all the rest, well sometimes i think if people are stupid enough to believe his shit and pay for it, well who am i to question their stupidity? but his back door (in fact sometimes front door) support of that rag undermines everything 99.9% (see how I got that in?) of liverpool fans have been doing these last 17 years. this boycottt has been a wonderful testament to the people of liverpool and the fans of LFC. and every day that passes we have fatty doing his best to undermine that, by publicising the rag to gain a few more hits.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: