Friday, December 02, 2005


The Guardian's Culture Vulture blog has picked up the story (or near-story) of the supposed Great Chart Mung of 2005. They suggest Londonist's inability to stack up its story beyond a "you'll just have to trust us on this" " doesn’t exactly inspire confidence that this isn’t standard-issue bellyaching."

Which seems to be a little unfair to Londonist - they clearly seem convinced what they've run is both true and important (and it's certainly done them no harm so far, as it's given their blog a profile beyond the "oh, Gothamist have done another spin-off, have they?", which is no bad thing in itself if it brings attention to what's a pretty nice piece of blogging.)

Meanwhile, Conor McNicholas explains to the Guardina what he reckons must have happened:

“Most of us aren’t organised enough to set up a conspiracy,” he says. “I can guarantee that the final list as published is the editorial one, signed off by me. Any insinuation that there is any pressure brought to bear is a libellous one.”

“Early versions of the list do exist, but they’re working documents. They have about as much value as emails about a feature.”

“I would challenge people to make up their own minds about this.”

Although we're not quite sure there's been any doubt that Conor signed off the final chart anyway, has there?

1 comment:

JustHipper said...

It's funny that. What does the esteemed editor of the NME have to say about Stylus Magazine's accusations that he practically had to bribe somebody to give The Others album a decent review because all his staff and his usual freelancers thought it was shit? Or the remarks by one of his freelancers that his 10/10 review of the Tears debut was downgraded to an 8/10 because The Tears aren't trendy enough? Come see for yourself:

Post a Comment

As a general rule, posts will only be deleted if they reek of spam.