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.
I’m with you 120% on this Mr Vance.
It’s interesting to note the absence on this thread of those most guilty of abuse and “bad language” – I hope they take note.
I’ve always had a soft spot for ‘Al-Beeb’, as it sums up nicely the dhimmitude of the BBC.
Over on another blog that is EUrosceptic, there is an eighteen year old girl that believes the EU is a Good Thing.
Do we;
1;Insult her only, no debating her points ?
2; Insult her as we do debate her points ?
3;Debate her points and try to make her look stupid ?
4;Debate with her,politely, trying to show her why we came to our point of view about the issue ?
I’m glad you said that, Mr Vance. I habitually use ZaNuLabour and quite deliberately so. I will never miss an opportunity to register my disgust at this authoritarian junta and remind others how absurd it and its supporters are.
Moreover, as time goes by and the UK’s economy sinks ever closer to a Zimbawean style mess, and as each new ‘initiative’ proves more useless than the last, it gets more appropriate with every week.
I note, in passing, that the objections do not seem to be coming from regular contributors.
I note, in passing, that the objections do not seem to be coming from regular contributors.
GCooper | 12.01.09 – 6:06 pm |
Spotted that too. Give them an inch…!
I don’t use ZaNuLabour or nu liebor or beeboid.
But I will from now on, especially with Chuffer’s remark to the beeboid producer.
Original Robin: I think there is a distinction to be made between a genuine opponent and some of the trolls we have suffered. It was hard not to occasionally give Hillhunt both barrels.
Personally, I do think the language does us no favours at times, however.
GCooper,
I`m disapointed Hillhunt has gone. He was clever, quite amusing and gave people a run for their money.
We NEED the opposition to come here.
Original Robin: to an extent. I found Hillhunt a creepy, smartarse wanker who ALWAYS failed to respond to any genuine points, instead picking away at egregious and off-topic minor points. On the other hand, there was BBC bloke from local Midlands TV who used to comment who was a good opponent… Can’t remember his name
“I note, in passing, that the objections do not seem to be coming from regular contributors.”
A but we would be if this were a friendlier place.
Are there any Oids on board today?
Just wondering if any of the Jameses or Tims or Richards might be from the BBC. I like when there is someone to argue and put the B’Oid point of view, as there used to be. Sometimes that was illuminating, sometimes not.
Hillhunt just wasn’t intelligent enough to engage in proper discussion.
Ok, fair enough on the beeboids.
True, Gcooper, I’m not a regular contributor but I look at lots of blogs regularly (guido, iain dale, even comment is free) and I always turn to biased bbc to read something insightful about the bias that I feel is inherent in the way current affairs are presented by our state broadcaster. I’m sympathetic to most of the issues raised here, especially those relating to the Labour party and political correctness.
BUT (and this may sound naff) I really care about these issues and would like the BBC – at some point, and in some small way – to take them seriously. I know a blog on the internet is not going to change a behemoth like the BBC, but you can bet your last dollar that people from the BBC trust look at this site. By constantly referring to nu-liebour, zanu-whatever and beeboids, is it not conceivable that you’re undermining the very arguments you wish to express? Is there a risk that bbc-objectors might be labelled as extremists themselves?
Just a thought.
About time.
Personally, I like beeboid. Work at the place too long, it’s what you become. The kind of beeboid that it irritates is the kind that most need annoying.
What is really galling is when commenters from broadly the same church direct ad hominens at each other. Goodbye credibility.
Many posters here manage to be passionate without being too rude, and some are rude but funny, but recently some have made me long for warmth and wit of the People’s Front of Judea 🙂 .
I kind of agree on the nuliebour guidoid stuff, although zanulabour hasnt got boring yet.
Anyway, hopefully this will see an end to the wingnut amnesty and the grown-ups back in charge.
Cheers
PS what happened to Hugh – nothing unpleasant one hopes?
Original Robin: I could hardly disagree with you more about Hillhunt. He was here simply to cause trouble – and he succeeded. That’s trolling and it’s never anything but destructive, in my experience.
James: BBC objectors will be labelled ‘extremists’ by BBC apologists simply for not being in sympathy with the prevailing Left-liberal groupthink.
Look how easily they dismiss anything published in the Daily Mail.
Posts on this blog are never going to change minds at the BBC, They might, however, ‘raise the consciousness’ (to borrow one of their phrases) of people who take a less Guardian-centred view.
Incidentally, if you are a regular at Guido’s establishment, I’m surprised you find the tone here too robust for your taste!
You might, incidentally, want to think how influential Guido has become – enough to arouse the ire of abominable Hazel Blears, herself. It seems the level of invective there has been no bar to its influence.
Sarah Jane writes: “What is really galling is when commenters from broadly the same church direct ad hominens at each other. Goodbye credibility.”
Well said!
“Incidentally, if you are a regular at Guido’s establishment, I’m surprised you find the tone here too robust for your taste! “
I gave up reading the comments ;o)
Disagreement – even “robust” disagreement – between the general broad choir that find the BBC bias repulsive is by no means a bad thing – shows we havn’t stitched it all up in advance. The fact that we’re clearly NOT singing from the same hymnsheet is a GOOD thing (notwithstanding a few egregious nutters – but no one here’s stupid enough not to know who they are!)
Sara Jane,
“On Friday, I was discussing issues of bias and the media in general with Qaz M” – Sara Jane
No doubt Qassam is a respectable Muslim name but its a bit odd to have a ‘moderate’ posting under such a soubriquet at a time when there is a war being fought over the continual firing of qassam rockets.
Why, a few weeks ago, did you come up with a line which went something like ‘the BBC is one of the least PC organisations I have come across – especially in departments where they are all gheyers’?
oops – “its” should have been “it’s” – it seems you can get into trouble over slips like that.
James @9:43 Yes, I read Guido every day for the articles but it is less and less frequent for me to check the comments nowadays. I have certainly given up contributing as there doesn’t seem to be any point.
I’m sure that it will never get that way over here – the comments above show that clearly. Well said David.
“Incidentally, if you are a regular at Guido’s establishment, I’m surprised you find the tone here too robust for your taste! ”
I gave up reading the comments ;o)
James | 12.01.09 – 9:43 pm | #
Thir… er.. fourthed!
I still check the site as the introductory topics are still often well worth noting and can indeed be worthy ‘scoops’.
The comments are however not worth a second’s attention (I think the owner is recognising this as I recall a year end post about policing more effectively. Wise, as he is in danger of losing more moderate readers, and certainly potentially valuable contributors by the % of silly dross).
It’s the curse of the moderator to walk the line between freedom of speech and policing time-wasters, wafflers, trolls and professional saboteurs ‘fairly’.
What I value about this site to date is the majority of comments are often well considered (if a bit ripe and hence for me detracting from their potency, IMHO) and, crucially, based around well-support fact, with some great onward links. If I had a critique, it would be to lump those who do have decent views in ‘groups’ too easily just for having other views. ‘Is see the beeboids are out’, ‘are you an antisemite?’, etc. Ad hominens that weaken any other aspect, no matter how valuable, severely, at least when I read them. And, possibly why genuine debaters from other viewpoints may no linger as long as one might hope to see if the power of argument of opposing sides can be resolved. It takes guts to go into a Lion’s Den of contrary views (CiF is a daily chore). I found David Gregory a bit faithful to the party line in the face of potent counters on occasion, but what on earth would one expect if he’s prepared to own up to his allegiance… and paymasters? Plus he was usually arguing about science with at least a fair bit of justification as to background. I for one was sorry to lose him.
As I’m no IT expert I know this is a suggestion based in impractical fantasy land, but after suffering as a user and vicarously as a blog owner the travails of many sites, I was wondering if it were possible to run a two track side-by-side or perhaps colour coded traffic light style system.
It’s still a compromise, but uses the power and expandability of the internet in ways Voltaire might see merit in.
All posts go up, and hence are not ‘censored’, but those that really seem to be contributing little (or detracting) could be either sidelined or at least flagged for folk to check, and indeed still engage with (I really don’t like some sites that have all sorts of threads spinning off, but can see this working on the basis that if the first is not really doing much, anything subsequent, even reasoned rebuttals, are unlikely to go anywhere of much value, which is how trolls thrive), at their leisure.
The flagging could be down to the site owner/moderator, and/or tipped off or supported by site users in much the same way as any ‘Report this comment/recommend’ links are used on such as CiF. Only without the oblivion aspect to the former that such champions of press freedom (when it suits) as the BBC can impose.
I for one would value an amber or red hue when the owner and/or many others think things are not faithful to the site rules or mission, and then would have the option of skipping over easily… or checking the culprit out if still so disposed. I do it now anyway when certain names appear.
It’s just a very top of mind thought. One designed to help amy site that deals in heated issues, to try and keep temperatures down (or at least properly vented) and debate values maintained with site reputation free(er) from those who would seek to compromise it though pushing to discrediting extremes.
There are some fine minds as well as some savvy IT bods here, so I am simply interested in whether it’s doable or indeed desirable.
Head ducks down behind parapet.
Sarah | 12.01.09 – 1:01 pm |
Hi Sarah, I am now a Tory to my fingertips, but 30 years ago I was a lefty liberal like you and was against BBC bias as it was bad for democracy. Its got a whole lot worse since then. Its always a relief to see that there are left-liberals out there who are sincere about their values. One of the things that used to discomfort me (to say the very least!) was the intense hatred left-‘liberals’ felt for Conservatives (or anyone who disagreed with them). I put ‘liberal’ in inverted commas because anyone who hates like ‘left-liberals’ isn’t truly liberal. All democrats, in my view, whether left, right or centre are ‘liberal’ with a small ‘l’.
Peter The new UK left wing blog labourlist is trying to use a simple system like this to deal with the issue. ‘censored’ comments get consigned to the Trash Can, but the Trash Can is also available to be read by those who wish to.
I’m not sure how this is going to work but it is an interesting concept
wally – you have me and Sarah confused.
Must admit I was immediately skeptical about ‘Qaz M’, and found it a very strange choice of name, but didnt make any posts in those threads.
I did type the other bit though, cant remember what prompted it, but it is a fair reflection of my experience, you can be far more outspoken in bits of the BBC than you can in eg big US corporates I have worked for.
But not in others, which can be tiresomely PC.
hippiepooter – I was also going to moan about interchanging left and liberal. Margaret Thatcher was a liberal FFS!
Peter,
Thank you for that very interesting thought. I’m open to all ideas. However my primary interest is writing so maybe we can see a way where moderation could be delegated to a few trustworthy souls, though I like the spontaneity of free thoughts!
Sarah Jane,
It was the term ‘gheyer’ or it might have been spelled ‘ghayer’ which interested me. Are you a Muslim of Turkish background?
David,
Ta for being open to top of mind (and at least I keep my head:) thoughts.
I actually find much of Haloscan very effective (that it ‘remembers’, I guess via cookies, where I last checked to in each thread is very clever, and a real boon) and suspect there is no way that it could be adpated as I pondered.
However, the issue of moderation, censorship & the damage of trolling taking advantage of site rules is pretty topical and will remain so, and hence it’s worth staying abreast of techniques to navigate the issue.
Thanks to Arthur’s tip I did check out Labourlist and opted for ‘view trash’. Interesting. Certainly the flagging system seemed to work. Couldn’t quite see how the decision was made, but if it was by the moderator it didn’t reflect well on them. Some just seem to have been sidelined for not being supportive. But at least they were still there and hence allowed the viewer to assess the protagonists’ words… and actions as a consequence, accordingly.
subject ‘Qaz M’
I know for a fact that ‘Qaz M’ is not real. It was a test. Of whether or not people who post here are prejudiced/racist. ‘Qaz’ offered some decent points, yet he was shot down just because he identified himself as a muslim. Not everyone behaved that way of course, but many did, and many refused to even acknowledge the points he made – they simply replied with insults directed at Islam, or treated him as if he had to explain his faith.
The test worked. It proved how many people here are bigots, and how many people here use the ‘biased BBC’ angle as a pretence to vent off anti-Islamic and racist sentiments. It proved that these bigots aren’t even prepared to listen to moderate muslims – they hate them because of their faith, and yet they are not willing to learn more about it, or even discuss these controversial issues. Thats the value of the BBC – it does listen to things from the point of view of muslims, both moderate and extreme, as this can only help the rest of us begin to learn something about the problems that our world faces. Shame on those of you who responded in such a cruel and prejudiced way.
anon | 14.01.09 – 4:52 pm
and you are…?
This is a test of the emergency monarchy system. If this was a real monarchy, you would already be wretched.
Anon: speaking as one of the mugs who welcomed “QazM” and was prepared to debate any points he raised (they were all shite), all I can say is that if you saw the anti-comments as being “cruel and prejudiced” you need to either grow up, or experience some REAL “cruel and prejudiced” behaviour – try living as a woman, Christian, Jew or gay in any islamic country for a start…
anon | 14.01.09 – 4:52 pm |
So, if one “understood” Islam, one wouldn’t have totally agreed with all of “Qaz M’s” points?
Illogical. Try again. And if you’re going to slander everyone here on the basis of a few comments you don’t like, at least be a man and post under your own name. Come on, then, “anon”, let’s have some real debate, not troll games. Otherwise, you will have not no one the lessons you think you have.
“Cruel and prejudiced”! It brings a tear to my eye.
A ‘moderate’ muslim adopting a name that instantly reminds people of qassam missiles (sometimes, though admittedly not frequently, mis-spelled as qazzam) is not a test – it’s a wind-up.
wally – I am no such thing, just a Brit born in the US – although I am curious why you might think so?
I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume there is a more interesting reason than the usual kneejerk B-BBC, beeboid = lefty dhimmi.
By ‘gheyer’ I meant gayboy.
anon | 14.01.09 – 4:52 pm |
“I know for a fact that ‘Qaz M’ is not real. It was a test.”
Intriguing. It seemed to good to be true that a Muslim would express opinions on Islamic terrorism that no sincere democrat could disagree with. Unfortunately such Muslims are extremely few and far between. The fact you needed to hoax this ‘Muslim voice’ shows you are extremely aware of this yourself. It says an awful lot about your hypocrisy.
That said:-
“Shame on those of you who responded in such a cruel and prejudiced way.”
All to true. I’d estimate about half the respondees did so. It was utterly disgusting.
Anonymous | 15.01.09 – 1:04 pm |
‘Twas I
I assumed you were using a rendition of the Turkish ‘gaiour’ which is their equivalent of ‘kaffir/kuffar’. Since it is not a term English has ever got around to borrowing, and since it seemed a quite possible meaning in the context I concluded it was a situation where a Turk was using the word, unaware of its lack of currency in the general population.
Intriguing. It seemed to good to be true that a Muslim would express opinions on Islamic terrorism that no sincere democrat could disagree with.
Exactly. May I suggest that anon the tester post the same comments on somewhere like the MABUK (or wtf they call themselves) or some Muslim message board and then compare the reactions from his “fellow Muslims”.