I've been moderated!

Well, at least I have one less excuse to make my RSI worse!

A while ago I took issue with the Biased BBC website removing all of a comment of mine bar the initial line. This was odd, as they usually either leave in and critique, just moderate out or simply delete. Leaving it hanging with some text remaining out of context seemed an odd and unfair thing to do and I took issue with it.

In the same way I take the BBC to task because I think they can and should do better, so I was disappointed that what seemed a good, if poorly named, site interested in media balance seemed to have its own agenda, too. And reading their final word on the matter, happy to admit it too.

They say not. I feel different. A passing of the ways, then. Let's see what happens when they get bigger and more mainstream (which they will if the BBC keeps on its rather defensive course), and then find their own foundations start to crumble beneath them.

Hubris. To be watched for and avoided if you can.

Just to do to them (though it's in full on the link, slap down to me inc.) what they did to me, here are a few choice comments:

'We get far more comments on global warming than we want, and we
delete a lot of them.'

Well that's one way to balance. If they are not following moderation rules, fine. If they are just not wanted, then why allow debates based on what the BBC inspires. It's simply too selective to be credible.

"We do leave some comments on GW in, but only the better, more relevant and more concise ones."

Ok, so I can often not be 'concise' (but look at some of their magnum opi - seems that while they can publish chapter and verse, to engage you need to be pithy, or risk censure. But once 'they' (it seems to swing from 'we' to 'I' a lot) get into 'better' and 'relevance', then agenda is in play.

'You gave us a good excuse to delete yours '

Well, they are honest. Nice to find they were looking for an excuse. The facts were, of course, irrelevant.

"If you want to discuss GW in-depth online, then I suggest you go to a dedicated site."

And if I want to discuss the accuracy, or not, of the media, I will do so on a site that doesn't say one thing and self-evidently practice another. Guardian CiF is more honest, if an effort due to the majority of those who haunt it.

ADDENDUM:

Not about climate, but what 'they' deem on message:

Yet another HYS debacle.

A discussion gets closed with 2% rejected, around a third published and near two thirds unpublished.

We all know that this majority unpublished have in fact been rejected 'by the back door'.

Its not one discussion, its time and time again.

If it were sale of goods the BBC would be liable to action for misrepresntation.

Is there no way to make them change the name to reflect the level of accepted contribution and make them call it "DON'T Have Your Say", at least that would be more honest.

ADDENDUM 2

Seems BBBC isn't so chilled when edits/moderation/technical issues happen to their 'right' to be heard.

I do note it is about the very issue that got me booted off their site, climate change. By way of some balance I am go-smacked by this from a BBC Enviro correspondent, David Gregory:

'There is some discussion about carbon offset for flights taken by the BBC. But as I understand it at the moment it isn't something we are going to spend lisence fees on.
David Gregory (BBC) | 17.11.07 - 7:18 pm | #'

Talk about missing the point!