I always find it interesting that those whose views lean to the right see the forum as left leaning, while I know some of the lefties feel a sizeable right-wing presence. Much like the BBC getting attacked by both sides, this probably means the forum is more balanced than either group feels it to be.
****ing centrists! Get off the bloody fence.
**** centrists! Get off the bloody fence.
There is no fence to get off - the centre is navigating a narrow path between crazies off to the left and the right of you. 🙂
Much like the BBC getting attacked by both sides, this probably means the forum is more balanced than either group feels it to be.
Not sure it's actually a good thing though - the BBC, after all, sees 'impartial' as meaning 'both sides'. So that for factual events such as the earth being round we have the classic "here is a representative of the scientific establishment explaining precisely what the data show; and here for balance is a maniac".
Impartial means reporting the facts. And if one group feels attacked by that, so be it - facts don't really differentiate - but perhaps one can offer some reporting (not explanation) on the fact that they feel personally offended that people know the world is round.
Apologies for getting back on topic but many thanks to the mods for the note on the recently-closed thread - much appreciated (and I entirely agree).
Not sure it’s actually a good thing though – the BBC, after all, sees ‘impartial’ as meaning ‘both sides’. So that for factual events such as the earth being round we have the classic “here is a representative of the scientific establishment explaining precisely what the data show; and here for balance is a maniac”.
Classic example being Nigel Lawson's interview on Today, where he spouted fake data.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41744344
What's disappointing is that Amol Rajan appears not to get it - and that dissenting opinions are one thing but dissenting facts are another.
The BBC's media editor Amol Rajan said the Today programme had a remit to offer dissenting opinions, aimed at challenging lazy thinking and consensus views.
Apologies for getting back on topic but many thanks to the mods for the note on the recently-closed thread – much appreciated (and I entirely agree)
I concur.
With apologies for being the last poster on that thread and continuing its zombie like progress.
I always find it interesting that those whose views lean to the right see the forum as left leaning, while I know some of the lefties feel a sizeable right-wing presence. Much like the BBC getting attacked by both sides, this probably means the forum is more balanced than either group feels it to be.
This doesnt, of course, prove it is balanced but instead unevenly weighted to the "centre". The "both sides" and "balanced" shows a fascinating blindspot in those talking about it. It also has the obvious problem that being in the centre can just mean you are halfway to crazy town. We dont get many people arguing the correct position with regards to slavery is to be somewhere in the middle, maybe indentured servitude?
If we take the BBC there is the complexity that different parts do have slightly different approaches for example the news/economics is more balanced right wing vs comedy which is more liberal. Even in the latter though its generally middle class which isnt surprising given that if you want to make a career in media then it helps having reasonably wealthy parents to support you during your internships.
The BBC’s media editor Amol Rajan said the Today programme had a remit to offer dissenting opinions, aimed at challenging lazy thinking and consensus views.
I had a lot of time for Amol Rajan right up until I heard him interview Peter Oborne in the midst of the post-B word referendum debate - Oborne was criticising journalists for being complicit in promoting unchallenged the falsehoods used in that debate, and Rajan's response was to take offense at an attack on the integrity of his fellow journos, rather than actually engage in the discussion. So not much different to Kuensberg and Mason, for me.
the BBC, after all, sees ‘impartial’ as meaning ‘both sides’.
They have become aware of that and moved away from it now, to be fair.
But they did soften things a bit under the Tories. It'll be interesting to see how they go under Labour.
Rajan’s response was to take offense at an attack on the integrity of his fellow journos
He's a pompous, self-regarding fanny IMO - as that sounds like a perfect demonstration of it.
What do you see as the problem with Chris Mason, out of interest?
You’ll have to do way better than that, how many people on the left vs the right from the last 6, months for instance? The BBC website says last week (16th Jan) it was Chris Bryant, Nadine Dorries, Calum Miller, Baroness Hazarika, and Liam Halligan. So we have a Labour minister, a Labour peer, a Lib Dem, a Tory and a Telegraph journalist: two from the right, two from the left and one from a centrist smaller party.
I think they were probably getting at the more extreme ends of the spectrum being disproportionate, particularly through the 2010s when ukip were building support; farage is 7th most frequent guest ever according to Wikipedia, whilst e.g. Caroline Lucas at the other end of the spectrum certainly was not, despite being the leader of a party that actually had an MP
For those of you who think the BBC are impartial, they do try but sadly and somewhat lazily they fail to provide real balance. They frequently balance the "left" with right-wing views from spokespeople from shady Tufton Street think-tanks who pass themselves off as credible organisations. To a viewer or listener with a passing interest in Politics or Economics, they can appear like credible people but the reality is very different.
George Monbiot has challenged them several times whilst on a BBC panel - who they represent and who pays for the think tanks etc. etc.
One answer came out recently is that some are funded by spurious charities set up by the right wing organisations they really repesent:
https://goodlawproject.org/case/tufton-street-shine-a-light-on-dark-money-in-politics/
So why do the BBC give them the oxygen of publicity? Their views are not credible yet the BBC seem to pander to them. The "Institute of Economic Affairs" often roll out someone to talk yet they are just a lobbying organisation and who do they lobby for? I'll give you a clue - it's not the working person
What do you see as the problem with Chris Mason, out of interest?
I don't seem him as being massively different to Kuensberg - very soft, very uncritical on Tories, very hard and hyper-critical on Labour. To be fair, I consume a lot less BBC News (ie, almost none) compared to three or four years ago, when it was my go-to news source. I don't consume a lot of news at all these days, for my own well-being.
We can't really discuss BBC bias without reference to Gaza, e.g.
Loving the irony of the title of this thread and how it has ended up. Perfectly demonstrates why.
So to the last few commenters above, you all think the BBC is biased/right wing. But you are all on the left, so it’s no surprise the BBC seems too right wing compared to what you want, or believe to be true.
I don’t seem him as being massively different to Kuensberg – very soft, very uncritical on Tories, very hard and hyper-critical on Labour. To be fair, I consume a lot less BBC News (ie, almost none) compared to three or four years ago, when it was my go-to news source. I don’t consume a lot of news at all these days, for my own well-being.
Very sensible, I still consume a reasonable amount of news but I've certainly limited my intake this week - as there's only so much I need to know about Trump and his cronies.
Personally I think CM has been very diligent and has made an effort to bring stories out of the bubble and relate them to peoples' lives a little more, compared to LK.
I do think the BBC has been keen to show it can be as critical of Labour as the Tories claimed it was with them. And it's arguable that some of the "crises" and "scandals" they've latched on to so far have been a bit storm-in-a-teacuppy.
So to the last few commenters above, you all think the BBC is biased/right wing
Not right wing, just handling the idea of 'impartiality' all wrong through trying to keep all the people happy all the time.
Listening to 6Music news Saturday morning while walking the dog it was really noticeable that in a 3-minute bulletin there were 2-3 stories of "the government has announced x. Here is a Tory politician/ former Tory politician/ spokesman from a centre-right thinktank to provide their explanation of why it's bunk". There was no voxpop from the relevant Labour politician or minister, in each case. It's a small example, but Farage's prominence is a much greater illustration of how badly wrong the BBC has got it over the last few years.
And Kuensberg is beyond parody - after emailing her interview questions to BoJo she should've lost her show.
So to the last few commenters above, you all think the BBC is biased/right wing. But you are all on the left, so it’s no surprise the BBC seems too right wing compared to what you want, or believe to be true.
Nice sneering attitude at the end there. Fact free but sneering.
And Kuensberg is beyond parody – after emailing her interview questions to BoJo she should’ve lost her show.
Should have lost the job when she acted as defence for Cummings during his car trip. Allowing him to be a "source" testing out counter stories was insane.
Not sure it’s actually a good thing though – the BBC, after all, sees ‘impartial’ as meaning ‘both sides’. So that for factual events such as the earth being round we have the classic “here is a representative of the scientific establishment explaining precisely what the data show; and here for balance is a maniac”.
On "balance," it's probably time for this again:
Loving the irony of the title of this thread and how it has ended up. Perfectly demonstrates why
Of course.
I think some of the more overbearing members could do well to remember this forum isn't their personal soap box, where they continually insist they have a consensus, speak for other people and attempt to put words in other peoples mouths.
When I first joined the debate was robust but healthy, with a good pinch of humour. This has changed for the worse. We have members who insist they speak for the entire forum and get annoyed with people who are indifferent to things they are, I'll be polite and say passionate about, but it's raging isn't it. Sometimes things are met with a grumble and shrug of the shoulders, not a western style shootout! This doesn't make the people involved deniers, apologists or sympathisers as is often inferred by said raging individuals.
Wind your necks in. Drop the childish attention seeking, ridiculous exaggeration, melodramatics, made up for effect scenarios and furious insistence you are the voice of the forum.
More often than not, the customer will have a rant. Wether I join depends on how much I want their business
Well exactly.
In a professional capacity IME it's pretty unwise to go off on a political rant with customers and I certainly wouldn't kick the conversation off with it or repeat it every time I spoke to them. But hey I appreciate some people do things differently.
Wind your necks in. Drop the childish attention seeking, ridiculous exaggeration, melodramatics, made up for effect scenarios and furious insistence you are the voice of the forum.
I DEMAND that this thread be closed!! And this person closed too! I demand to speak to the manager of this 'ere forum!
😉
Reported 😀
Sometimes things are met with a grumble and shrug of the shoulders, not a western style shootout! This doesn’t make the people involved deniers, apologists or sympathisers as is often inferred by said raging individuals
Not a poster I often agree with, but that is a fair comment.
Not agreeing with someone's opinion used to involve good natured if occasionally forceful debate that you could learn stuff from. Now it's full on trench warfare while the General Melchett involved chucks the same old grenades or demands dawn executions for disobedience.
Can we stay on topic please or someone will be held to trial for poor Speckled Jim.
@Drac - while we have your attention... It's my perception that there are fewer Closed Threads than there used to be. Maybe I'm just not noticing, or just not participating enough in those threads. I mean, there are the occasional duplicates and then those that simply become duplicates (the way this one was veering into Brexit again). I'm not seeing so many controversial or confrontational examples though.
Some of the abuse which was levelled at us behind the scenes from a handful of prolific Returning Banned members was literally unbelievable. Seriously, it was insane, you have no concept. I’m half tempted to post examples.
I have a reasonably good imagination, I’d be fascinated to see just how far out of order things could get. From a purely forensic perspective, of course.
Actually as a “left leaning” reader I don’t see a very big right-wing presence. The BBC on the other hand is right leaning by any objective measure.
As a centre-left leaning person, it’s much the same as me, centre-left by any objective definition.
Which basically means it’s roughly centrist.
Can we stay on topic please or someone will be held to trial for poor Speckled Jim.
Is he a baby Robin? Asking for a friend…
Back on topic, I was going to ask about this thread, which has been closed for no apparent reason that I can see:
“ Help fix my broadband as useless provider can’t!”
Just curious, really.
Err, that thread isn't closed.
Back on topic, I was going to ask about this thread, which has been closed for no apparent reason that I can see:
“ Help fix my broadband as useless provider can’t!”
Just curious, really.
It was posted twice by mistake. One of them got closed.
I doubt there were any bans handed out, but you never know 😉
Should have lost the job when she acted as defence for Cummings during his car trip. Allowing him to be a “source” testing out counter stories was insane.
Viewed from Cummings' perspective it was a masterstroke.
And Kuenssberg dumped whatever journalistic scruples she may have had a long time ago to accept a free ride from the Tories.
Her behaviour during covid in particular was disgraceful.
Anyone want to offer any wisdom as to why the Creatine thread was closed?
I'm not that bothered about it (the thread) - although have low dosed a bit of creatine before. Was reading through it - it wasn't heated, didn't seem controversial, can't see an official STW article about creatine - its just closed.
Anyone want to offer any wisdom as to why the Creatine thread was closed?
Yeah I'll have a go...
It's just a very reasonable and I'd say balanced discussion in that everyone is agreeing it's well researched, safe and cheap, with positive but not earth shattering effects if you're doing intense or muscle building exercise.
No controversy or dispute and the same points made a dozen times. Damn right time to close it.
The mistake was not getting into what flavour to get. As someone trying to avoid sugar, I got a lot of pleasure from a fruity sucralose batch....
I would have guessed some sort of astroturfing post that got deleted, and thread closed at the same time.
Yup quite simply we deleted an astroturf post and closed the thread as it’ll attract more.
There may be a good reason for this and I’m not whinging in any way but would it be possible to leave a post on a thread as a final post before locking it
I think it's because someone suggested stirring it into tea.
I don't know if it's one of those flavours that only some people can taste (like coriander, it's either like curry or like soap). But there is zero way I could ever take creatine in anything other than capsule form, it's utterly disgusting.
I meant a post to explain why something was locked.
I'm a former moderator (I mention this only because I think stood down before you joined.) With the caveat that I usually tried to explain when I was closing threads, there's a few reasons why they don't.
Primarily, it leaves the moderation team open to arguments. Your thread gets closed, you disagree with their reasoning, so either immediately start a second thread or send a poison pen email. This happened more often than you might think. There are times when providing an explanation is simply a bad idea.
Secondly, it takes time. The mods are volunteers, and with all due respect they owe you nothing. Sometimes it's plainly obvious that a thread is getting out of hand, it shouldn't be considered unreasonable for them to go "bugger this, I'm closing it and going to bed" rather than typing a paragraph. Other times it's a zombie thread which was resurrected by a spam post and so needs no explanation, it just gets silently closed because a topic which attracts spam tends to attract multiple spam posts. Sometimes posts are duplicates, either two posters creating the same thread (common when it's "RIP [someone]") or one person accidentally submitting the same new thread twice. Again, there's little reason to provide explanations in this case unless both have gained traffic before it was noticed (in which case it's typical to paste a link to the other one before closing).
Thirdly, (I've said this before I think but) this is not done in isolation; if a moderator closed a thread and another disagreed with their decision then there would be a chat about it. So whilst the reason might not be made public, you can rest assured that there was a reason. Threads don't just get shut for the LOLs.
Hope this helps.
