First, The Guardian picked up ny news item about a second set of BBC recordings, quoting me, and then Rolling Stone repeated the story, quoting The Guardian.
What bugs me about new, quick journalism is that what is hinted at, and presented as speculation in one story, is presented as set in stone and a fact in the next. Here's an example: "As WogBlog points out, the forthcoming Live compilation may be the result of the 2012 Listeners' Archive campaign, in which BBC officials asked the public to donate home-recorded radio and television shows" in the Guardian becomes
"The new anthology comes as a result of the 2012 Listener's Archive campaign" in Rolling Stone.
Now that we know Paul McCartney has released a new single, it's understandable that Apple/Universal Music didn't want to disturb his PR campaign by announcing or confirming the rumors of a new Beatles album. McCartney's "New" album is due out October 14th, hence the delay from October to November for the Beatles releases.
Anyway, if you came here from The Guardian, NME or somewhere else who linked to my blog, welcome! And do feel free to explore my other blog posts, there are a thousand to choose from...