The purpose of this blog is to discuss, to expose and to excoriate BBC bias. That’s where the energy should go and that’s why I write here. What I don’t enjoy, at all, is the ad hominem abuse that disfigures some of the threads. I’ve noticed it creeping in more in recent times and I am worried that it weakens the blog and gives the BBC and those who apologise for it reason to dismiss us as a bunch of in-fighting keyboard warriors. We’re all better than that and so I would urge you all, PLEASE, to desist from having a go at individuals with whom you may not agree or get on. Tackling their arguments, of course, is fine but we could do with less personally directed obscenities and a bit more consideration for others. I am not seeking to patronise or single out anyone but I am trying to start 2009 here on a sound basis and that means YOU all making your usual brilliant points on bias at the BBC but without attacks on each other. Thanks for your help on this, let’s all pull together.
NOT A WAR ZONE
Bookmark the permalink.
Hear Hear!
Well said David!
I’ve always thought that using obscenities adds nothing to an argument and weakens it in the eyes of others; there are some threads on this site that I give up reading because of that and I may well be missing some excellent points.
David, You have the power!
Suspend repeated offenders for two or three weeks. The best of them will learn their lessons while the worst will either not come back or be banned.
Ahhh, the sweet breath of fresh air!
There is/was one contributor fond of using gratuitous expletives that irked me no end and then he revealed the other day he’s an ex-soldier, so I felt more indulgent towards him. Nonetheless, best save the language for the barracks or the pub, eh?
Also highly commend your measured approach to the issue David.
Absolutely right David.
Nor should we allow this blog to be hijacked by extreme rightists with another agenda altogether.
As David points out, the purpose of this blog is actually to try and rescue the BBC from the squalid, stupid, nepotistic, grasping, dishonest, undergraduate lefty hatefest that it has become.
Personally I feel there is little chance of such a rescue (such is the arrogance of the organisation) and it should be relegated to a subscription channel… but we should respect the ethical purpose of this blog.
Also, threatening and abusing people personally because you do not share their political views is not very effective, and certaionly not very elegant. Let’s leave that to Trots, racists and islamists.
I feel obliged to reply.
Jim T is right. The obscenitites aren’t big or clever, and mean that I can’t let my children scan this site – which I long to do. There are two levels, though. Martin, who has a sort of comedy-sweary syndrome in a post-ironic sense(?) wouldn’t be the same if sanitised.
Then there are others, ahem, who fly off into a rage of effs and bees if their opinions are challenged, seemingly utterly unable to grasp, thanks to an unhealthily unshakeable conviction of their own rightness, the concept of debate and argument. I can’t see why these types bother entering a forum.
I’m all in favour of DV having a ‘yellow card/red card’ system. He could then cull the six-page conspiracy types as well as the “I’m right, you’re wrong, you’re effing stupid, I’m clever!” visitors.
Really pleased you said this, David.
I avoid the comments as previously when I have looked I have been really disgusted by the foul language. It does the cause no favours as you rightly have said.
I will now be looking at the comments more frequently and hopefully will only find intelligent and articulate debate of a kind that is worthy of this blog and it’s noble cause of exposing the apalling BBC for the sham that it is.
I agree with many above. Swearing does little to advance arguments and allows visiting Beeboids to simply write us off as loons (NB I restrict swearing to the privacy of my own room when listening to the Today Programme). Also we need to be careful of not allowing criticism e.g. of Islam to descend into thoughtless commentary bordering on racism.
I do agree. Had noticed the high level of abuse recently. Well said David and once again, deep gratitude to you for all your sterling efforts against the monster in our midst.
I for one am really pleased this has been said.
We are all fighting bias and that means welcoming other views. Otherwise we are talking among ourselves and become as oppressive as the PC bullies. I was particularly annoyed with the venom direct to the Muslim guy, who was clearly a moderate.
Voltaire famously wrote:
” I disagree totally with what you have said, but I will die defending your right to say it.”
Ricky,
That’s what makes us civilised and it’s really important that this site maintains a civil approach whilst not shying away from any issue.
well said i know some times tempers even on a computer can get stressed i’ve had some very four letter sentences with people on the net !not here though honest!
but to have the blog damaged and weakened by swearing serves only the bbcs protection junkies!!!
I’m glad you said that, Mr Vance – it has been pretty rough here, lately and I imagine the BBC’s apologists have been thoroughly enjoying it.
GCooper
The passion is fine – but not the baggage. I think that some great points are being buried amongst ad hominem debris and I want to stop the rot now and am pleased re the responses so far.
Well I agree that the insults should be toned down, and I assume that people can have rational discussions on here without resorting to abuse.
Look at the discussion about Obama. He’s a politician – some like him, some don’t. But why do a lot of people on this website who dislike him have to use ‘subtle’ or not so subtle racism about him? Thats whats frustrating. Debate his views, don’t try to sneak in racist snide remarks.
Well played, Mr Vance.
On Friday, I was discussing issues of bias and the media in general with Qaz M, and I would have thought that a board such as this would be interested to hear how a moderate Muslim and a lefty liberal such as myself view the BBC. We both came in for a fair amount of abuse, which wasn’t really very nice :).
Is this a board about BBC bias, or is it a board for right wingers and Islamophobes? I despise the BBC’s bias, but I am not right-wing, and I am not interested in slagging off Muslims (or anyone else except the BBC, really).
Well I wonder that too sarah, some people are here for a discussion, but there seem to be a fair amount of people here who just want to spread right-wing/conservative/call it what you will nonsense.
I feel we ought to give politeness and consideration to those who hold opposing views, even about -especially about- the bias on the BBC.
Put another way. I am anti EU, but thought I ought to go to a pro EU site to test my views . I put the host blogger in a difficult case to answer, and so he told me to b____ o__. You can only assume he was in the wrong.
I read the Daily Mail, but there are lots who sneer at it. Are they right ?I went to an anti Daily Mail website,put somepoints acroos which were hard to argue against. Result; got told to f___ o___ and comments deleted. So you can only presume the Daily Mail is right and they are wrong.
I can ignore the insults, Anon, but I have to agree with those who say that it does the cause no good whatsoever. Opponents of the BBC are generally viewed, I find, by its supporters as loony rightwingers. This makes it very easy to discredit valid criticism of the BBC.
I’m not saying that everyone here is a loony rightwinger, but that it would be very possible for someone wandering in to this site to think that if borderline, and sometimes not-so-borderline, bigotry is the best that people who don’t like the BBC can do, it’s not a cause they want to join, regardless of how they might feel about it.
“I am worried that it weakens the blog and gives the BBC and those who apologise for it reason to dismiss us as a bunch of in-fighting keyboard warriors.”
Uhm…sorry David, the in-fighting may be stoppable, but we ARE just a bunch of keyboard warriors.
In all the time I’ve been here I have never ONCE seen a united physical stand against the BBC. Plenty of people have suggested it but they are swiftly ignored.
I doubt the BBC would ever view this site as anything other than a barking dog with no bite.
Couldn’t agree more – we demean ourselves and weaken our case if we are seen to indulge in abusive comments against those we disagree with. One’s politics are immaterial except that those on the left will perceive the BBC’s biased coverage as `balanced’, as they, themselves, do.
A day without Martin swearing is like a day without sunshine.
It would be great if people could also give up on the ridiculous new-lie-bore, zanu-labour, al-bbc witticisms. The illiterate parroting of other idiots does nothing to help you make your point.
“One’s politics are immaterial except that those on the left will perceive the BBC’s biased coverage as `balanced’, as they, themselves, do.”
I don’t.
My own political views notwithstanding, I can see bias. Just because it may sometimes favour my own perspective does not mean that I don’t see it, or that I don’t think it unfitting behaviour for the national broadcaster.
james writes: ”
It would be great if people could also give up on the ridiculous new-lie-bore, zanu-labour, al-bbc witticisms.”
Strike a raw nerve, does it?
James | 12.01.09 – 1:37 pm | #
Were you aware of the irony in your post when you hit ‘publish’?
“Is this a board about BBC bias, or is it a board for right wingers and Islamophobes? I despise the BBC’s bias, but I am not right-wing, and I am not interested in slagging off Muslims (or anyone else except the BBC, really).”
I agree with that totally. Where is Pallywood anyway?
The BBC is biased and any person with objectivity can see that. The sheer *hatred* that is on display here on a daily basis makes me fear for their sanity.
D.
Doesn’t it seem likely that as the BBC is very seriously prejudiced against views from the Right and very seriously biased in favour of Islam, those most affected by those two aspects of partiality will feature prominently here?
One wouldn’t imagine the Stop The War Coalition or Respect having much to carp about, after all.
The BBC may be biased towards certian groups, but that does not mean that those groups support the BBC or like its patronising attitude of them.
remember the BBC may WANT us to be divided from each other.
“One wouldn’t imagine the Stop The War Coalition or Respect having much to carp about, after all.”
not true – the nutcase left is just as convinced of the beeb’s pro-establishment, pro-capitalist, pro-israel bias as you chaps are the opposite. see every bonkers blog affiliated to respect etc etc
Original Robin,
I agree. Politeness costs us nothing and will encourage more to visit us and engage with us. I see no reason why we cannot hold the BBC accountable but keep our decency. I know people – some who are in their teens – with a great interest in these matters – and I would love them to come here and see our side to the debate. But at times the ad hominems stop this. So it’s just about making it all better here for reasonable people.
Robert McNamara,
Martin is a great contributor here who rarely misses the bias. I think he is probably in a league of one but I would like him just to tone it back a bit. (Martin, I really do value your many comments, witty and acerbic, but just a wee bit less choiceness in verbs please!)
In general this is not a board for right-wingers or left-wingers, it’s for everyone who thinks the BBC has to held to a higher standard and who seeks to eliminate the bias that pervades. I am 100% open with my views. I AM right-wingish, in general terms, (Though not necessarily in UK terms) and am profoundly biased against terrorists, but so what? The BBC must not be pushing ANY political agenda, though since it is staffed by leftists there is no change of that!! So we all can find space here, and that will make us “keyboard warriors” more effective.
There’s nothing wrong with admitting that the majority of complaints against the BBC come from, let’s put it this way, a non-left wing direction, since it’s a well established fact (admitted even by the likes of Andrew Marr on your side bar) which direction the BBC leans.
As far as I’m concerned, this site without a bit of the vim and vigour supplied it by Martin, Ratass and many others would be dour, drab, dull (and, dare I say it, the kind of “grown-up debating arena” that the likes of Sarah long for…?)
Well I wonder that too sarah, some people are here for a discussion, but there seem to be a fair amount of people here who just want to spread right-wing/conservative/call it what you will nonsense.
Anonymous | 12.01.09 – 1:09 pm |
And are you here to spread left-wing/socialist labour/call it what you will nonsense?
Chuffer | 12.01.09 – 9:39 am |
At least Martin manages to make valid comments about BBC bias, unlike a couple of others who are here only to have personal arguments.
@ GCooper
I totally agree with the sentiment, but trotting out the nu-liebore puns is just tedious, however accurate they may be.
We need a new general thread. Sorry if this is off topic.
I just wanted to post this video of a pro-Hamas rally in Oslo which demonstrates perfectly how these animals treat their human shields, sorry, children.
The pro-Hamas supporters splattered their children with fake blood and lined them up in front between them and the police. Then they attacked the police with fireworks and flying objects:
lets hear it for james at 1.37 finally, someone else is tired of this ‘hilarious’ ‘nu labour’ or whatever crap it is people type.
Whilst all the navel gazing is going on here, over at Guido’s posters are pointing out the BBC’s over the top coverage of Brown’s latest ‘initiative’ of socialist/left wing, call it what you will nonsense.
Chuffer | 12.01.09 – 9:39 am |
At least Martin manages to make valid comments about BBC bias, unlike a couple of others who are here only to have personal arguments.
David Preiser (USA) | 12.01.09 – 3:14 pm | #
If that’s a dig at me, David, then it’s probaly justified, and I apologise, although I like to think I’ve contributed quite well/sensibly over the years. I’ve had my hackles severely raised by one or two others here, however, and I find myself red-misting at the keyboard, especially when my bullshot alarm goes off! I will do my utmost to refrain.
I always enjoy it when Chuffer’s bullshit alarm goes off! Long may it continue to do so!
There is a great range of contributors here and together they are fantastic at exposing the bias in the BBC. My job, for what is it worth, is simply to try and ensure your aim is true. š
Chuffer | 12.01.09 – 4:07 pm |
If that’s a dig at me, David….
No, certainly not! I’m sorry if it came out that way. Your credibility here is strong in my opinion.
There are others, though, who don’t bring up examples of BBC bias or defend the BBC, but rather engage in personal stuff.
Phew. That’s a relief!
@ Tom ROLLinson
Thanks.
May I add “beeboid” to a list of stupid neologisms?
“Beeboids” they well may be, but using “beeboids” (oh what wit, what originality!) does rather undermine the credibility of your argument.
Sorry, Beeboid stays.
Especially after I had the chance to use it face to face with a BBC producer who wanted to film on my farm. Her reaction to the term ‘Beeboid’ was worth the license fee in its own…hold on, that’s not right.
I vote to keep “Beeboid”, please.
Beeboid stays! In fact, these little names are all fine by me. We all have our foibles! It’s just the personal stuff I want cut out.
I see that the Beeboid pin up boy Milliband is demanding an inquiry into War Crimes, no doubt this pathetic demand will be dropped when it becomes clear that HAMAS are the instigators of War Crimes in this conflict.