Poll positioned ... Bloc Party
find themselves at the top spot
6.30pm update: We've spoken to the parties involved and things have developed since we first posted. NME have continued to deny the allegations and Londonist have taken the story down from their website. Read the full, updated report here.
Has NME doctored its 2005 Album of the Year poll? That's the accusation being made by blog londonist.com, which claims to have received inside information that one of the most well-respected and widely circulated musical polls of the year, published in tomorrow's edition, has been "edited" for what are, the blog claims, "commercial and political" reasons.
Specific accusations are made: that Babyshambles, whose frontman Pete Doherty has rarely been off this year's front pages (not for his music, needless to say - see today's news story), have had their standing artificially enhanced, as have other big names such as Oasis, Madonna and Kate Bush. So too, allegedly, with Bloc Party, whose album Silent Alarm occupies the number one spot in the published poll.
Other acts, including British Sea Power (much hyped by our very own Alexis Petridis) have apparently slipped down the rankings; while others - New Order, Beck, Cut Copy - have disappeared entirely from view. "They might as well have plucked the results out of a hat, for God's sake," growls the blog.
Londonist has not, to the chagrin of many who've left comments, published the "undoctored" list so the allegations can be checked out in more detail. Nor have they revealed a source - even a hint of who the source might be - which doesn't exactly inspire confidence that this isn't standard-issue bellyaching.
NME's editor, Conor McNicholas, laughs off suggestions of a conspiracy theory. "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."
So where did all this come from, then? McNicholas suggests that someone may have got hold of an early working version of the top 50, which is based on a poll taken of all NME staff and freelancers. "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."
Whatever the foundations of the story, maybe it's worth stepping back and asking whether any of this really matters. What do top 50s, best-ofs, roundups and all the rest (and, hey, we publish plenty ourselves) really add up to? Everyone likes lists, sure, but does anyone actually pay any attention to them?
