So trainee Aslam has been shown the door. You may remember Aslam from my post here. It’s probably not worth dwelling on for long since it has already been picked up, rolled over, and munched here, here, and here. But I would still like to emphasize the Guardian’s stupidity in its reporting of its own story.

Announcing the departure of Aslam under the headline Aslam Targeted by Bloggers an anonymous staff writer writes:

Rightwing bloggers from the US, where the Guardian has a large online following, were behind the targeting last week of a trainee Guardian journalist who wrote a comment piece which they did not care for about the London bombings.

The story is a demonstration of the way the ‘blogosphere’ can be used to mount obsessively personalised attacks at high speed.

Number 1. That article was offensive to bloggers from the left, the right, the center, and the moon.
Number 2. What’s all this about a large online following in the US? Is that a plug for the paper in the intro? I fail to see the relevance.
Number 3. “A comment piece which they did not care for about the London bombings.”—That’s a great way to describe an insensitive article written a few days after a terrorist attack by a supporter of a radical Islamic group.
4. The blogosphere is not “used to mount obsessively personalised attacks at high speed”. That implies some kind of guiding force and is about as absurd as saying the media is used to mount obsessively personal attacks. The blogosphere is a collection of individuals writing about whatever they see fit. If they honed in on Aslam it was for a reason. And if it was not a good reason then why has the Guardian let him go?
5. What would have happened if this article had been published before the blogosphere had found its feet? Would it be better if we all wrote letters to the editor?

The article was hopelessly wide of the mark on its assessment of the blogosphere with its foolish reference to bloggers who spend time indoors posting repeated attacks on the Guardian—as though their location has anything to do with it. My god, these guys work from home!

But it was also surprisingly poorly written with weak or clumsy turns of phrase like “trainee Guardian journalist who wrote a comment piece which they did not care for about the London bombings”, or “The episode was a striking illustration of the way that blogs and bloggers can heat up the temperature and seek to settle scores”, which made me wonder which other trainee journalist they had assigned to write this piece? And why didn’t they get a proper reporter to write a more intelligent account of the whole affair? It looks to me like they are fighting fire with lighter fluid.

PS Also interesting to note how the Independent on Sunday is claiming it was first to reveal a story that was broken in the blogosphere. Excellent. Well done chaps. Exclusive to a newspaper near you…