A new 'bon mot' & Acronym.
Voltaire rather famously coined (or, depending on your source, is mostly attributed as having done so - no time to dig deeper for now; frankly it seems odd such a famous quote is not better documented) the phrase that best describes the core root of a civilised democratic society: "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
I therefore find it interesting, if a little sad, when some, and often the noisily libertarian-claiming entities, kind of miss the irony of a stance that really would generate a lot of power if M. Voltaire was connected up in his grave to a generator:
England's pork barrel politics is paying for airlines to burn the planet
Any readers new to this process will note that this thread has some interesting characteristics:
a. very few of the responses deal with the substance of the article.
b. a large number of them concern the class or other characteristics of the author, rather than anything he has to say.
c. many of them concentrate on seeking to dismiss an issue which was not the central theme of the article but nevertheless informs it: climate change.
You might wonder what on earth is going on. You are not the only one.
Is it really too much to ask that we might have an informed debate about the issues raised here, none of which are trivial: namely the absence of democracy in England, the role of the RDAs and the revelation that taxpayers' money has been used to subsidise damaging activities that the government claims to have left to the free market?
Or are we going to allow these threads to be dominated by astroturfers?
OK, he's miffed. And has some right to be. There are clearly trolls simply there to wind him, and those who agree with him, up. But I fear in reacting as he has, and writing in this way, he has also undermined much of the authority he would seek to claim.
07 Jul 09, 8:36am
I am always intrigued by the use of the words 'we' and 'you' in an open blog, especially when the former is combined with 'allow'.
I'd suggest letting folks' arguments succeed or fail on their merits, or lack of.
Some are still able to make up their own minds without being 'assisted'.
That said, I tend to agree with the rest of the sentiments.
Readers of this blog will know that I have a real issue with 'them' and us' at the best of times, and especially when I find myself rolled up into someone's claim to speak or act for me when they clearly might not.
And, logically, other than venting, on an open blog I would love to hear how Mr. Monbiot proposes that 'he/they' do not 'allow' comment 'they' do not happen to like from some vagauely ill-defined 'others' in future.
'First came the trolls, and I moderated.
Then came for the astroturfers, and I moderated.
Then came those who simply disagreed with me, and I moderated.
Finally, when I had moderated all bar myself, there was no one left to read my blog.'
Paraphrased in honour of another key quote - unarguably attributed - regarding freedoms of speech.
At best pointless. At worst, a slippery path.
Showing posts with label MODERATION. Show all posts
Showing posts with label MODERATION. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
Friday, April 03, 2009
A matter of degree
I love blogging... evidently.
It can be, and mostly is, a great experience, and usually a learning one.
However, just as Peter Parker found, with great power comes great responsibility.
And, often, sadly, challenges.
One is moderation, which is a very difficult line to walk. One which, if you are not careful, can lead to censorship, which is the gateway to objectivity going out the window, and bias and control coming in.
G20, Bonn and the climate of opinion
Not from the author, but I do find such suggestions creeping in these days, and feel the need to at the very least challenge the thinking. I worry about those who think they 'know' 'right' more than others can hold more sway than they deserve, simply by being vocal:
(I don't know if the technology allows it, but it would be good to impose a limit on the length and number of posts)
It exists, and has since time immemorial. The problem tends to come with the humans behind it who set and police the 'rules', and where their skill sets, influences and/or sympathies lie. So I am unsure how 'good' that would be.
While I agree that the blogosphere can get prone to 'distractions', trying to explain or debate science via Twitter-feeds is indeed a worthy discipline to encourage, and may be great for those seeking sound-bites, but may lead to incomplete and hence inaccurate posts. I think most blogs do have a limit anyway, and seem to work as a consequence.
As to number of posts, what if I agree? And suggest this should be the last on this issue? Shame you might not get to have any further opinion on that, at least in the same thread:) I also find that when the mods call a halt often leads to suspicions that an over-arching agenda is at play, and when things are not going in a favoured direction impositions can get applied. Not great for free and open debate.
I agree it can be frustrating, but on balance simply skipping over those that seem to be going in a poor direction still works best for me.
It can be, and mostly is, a great experience, and usually a learning one.
However, just as Peter Parker found, with great power comes great responsibility.
And, often, sadly, challenges.
One is moderation, which is a very difficult line to walk. One which, if you are not careful, can lead to censorship, which is the gateway to objectivity going out the window, and bias and control coming in.
G20, Bonn and the climate of opinion
Not from the author, but I do find such suggestions creeping in these days, and feel the need to at the very least challenge the thinking. I worry about those who think they 'know' 'right' more than others can hold more sway than they deserve, simply by being vocal:
(I don't know if the technology allows it, but it would be good to impose a limit on the length and number of posts)
It exists, and has since time immemorial. The problem tends to come with the humans behind it who set and police the 'rules', and where their skill sets, influences and/or sympathies lie. So I am unsure how 'good' that would be.
While I agree that the blogosphere can get prone to 'distractions', trying to explain or debate science via Twitter-feeds is indeed a worthy discipline to encourage, and may be great for those seeking sound-bites, but may lead to incomplete and hence inaccurate posts. I think most blogs do have a limit anyway, and seem to work as a consequence.
As to number of posts, what if I agree? And suggest this should be the last on this issue? Shame you might not get to have any further opinion on that, at least in the same thread:) I also find that when the mods call a halt often leads to suspicions that an over-arching agenda is at play, and when things are not going in a favoured direction impositions can get applied. Not great for free and open debate.
I agree it can be frustrating, but on balance simply skipping over those that seem to be going in a poor direction still works best for me.
Thursday, December 04, 2008
Corked
A small piece on BBC Breakfast which typifies why I feel the whole sorry news, and especially science & tech.. er... environment* aspects are now less than worthless.
It was on.. corks.
In the (lightly nutty with a hint of spice) red corner we have a luvvie oenophile, for whom no bottle should cost less than £100 and be 'tainted'.
In the green corner, we have some bloke on about some bit of fauna being eradicated if the cork tree orchards are converted to other uses.
Now, I will leave out the majority of the 'debate', and my feelings on the matter, because my concern was with the conduct of the moderators.
Even when the two 'experts' were accusing each other of being plain wrong and/or being strangers to the truth, the response was 'oh, well, we're running out of time, you two sort it out later'.
No.... I was trying to arrive at a view and was left with an unresolved petty spat. This is supposed to be a news programme; not Jerry Springer.
* (there's been a name change, apparently. Why? While there are cross-overs they are distinct topics)
It was on.. corks.
In the (lightly nutty with a hint of spice) red corner we have a luvvie oenophile, for whom no bottle should cost less than £100 and be 'tainted'.
In the green corner, we have some bloke on about some bit of fauna being eradicated if the cork tree orchards are converted to other uses.
Now, I will leave out the majority of the 'debate', and my feelings on the matter, because my concern was with the conduct of the moderators.
Even when the two 'experts' were accusing each other of being plain wrong and/or being strangers to the truth, the response was 'oh, well, we're running out of time, you two sort it out later'.
No.... I was trying to arrive at a view and was left with an unresolved petty spat. This is supposed to be a news programme; not Jerry Springer.
* (there's been a name change, apparently. Why? While there are cross-overs they are distinct topics)
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Something has got up the nose of the Newsnight editor
Some may say I might not be the only one. At least, so far, no one can excuse them of overt censorship, yet...
Further to an earlier post... Blogging - a new era
6. At 09:01 am on 19 Apr 2008, PeterBarron wrote: Oh come on Junkkmale (4), give it a chance. It's only been going for a day.
Oh... I am sorry that you appear frustrated at my lack of enthusiasm and support... well, for the additional 'improvements' to the blogging experience made in addition/complement to the infamous error codes. Now sorted, if I may repeat my congrats on that at least.
How much of a chance do you need? The same the BBC gave BA and the T5 planners for things that had a fair old while and a healthy wadge of wonga to get right, and yet...
It's just that when asked/invited to give an opinion I naturally assumed that one is going to be expected... even if aspects might be unfavourable. Maybe specifying a minimum time window to allow for settling in would have been helpful? Oh, but then there's that 'comments closed' situation. Hence an upper limit too. So a window of posting opportunity maybe? Dilemmas abound.
Might I be allowed to ask what IS the rationale for closing a comment thread? Looking back a few it seems not to be based on a simple time period.
I also like to know if I can about who I am chatting with, so I clicked the link to check and find out more on your name. Sadly, just this, as far as I could locate: Blog Network Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers. User Profile Listed below are comments made by between and across all BBC Blogs. « NewerOlder »
My pointing out that live links was an unfortunate deletion was a feedback suggestion by the way, though if it was causing problems maybe there was good reason for deleting this option. I am sure that might have been noticed and discussed when this was planned...right? It just all seems to have been coming as a bit of a surprise to you.
And there do now seem a lot fewer folk than there used to be, along with the off-page redirections to further sources I appreciated.
Anyway, I am glad to see this thread is still allowed to remain active. But I'll have to remember the latest bit of nuSpeek to add to all the others of our age: '...as I understand it the new features are there in order to manage the huge workload robustly, not to stifle debate.'
Rather Clintonian. 'As you understand it'? Don't you KNOW? It is your programme's site blog is it not?
I concede that I may be in a minority, though I take some comfort in the experiences and opinions shared by some others.... in a total of 16 comments (so far - 1 from me and 4 from you guys, so at least we're now in double digits) on fundamental changes to the blog thread page of one of the last serious news programmes of the broadcaster to a nation of 60 million.
In my line, advertising, a critique from a customer who cares enough to write is the most valuable thing you can get, and should be cherished. And embraced. But I'm afraid by deed and tone you and and your organisation often make me feel that is not high on the agenda where you work, managing huge workloads, um, 'robustly'.
That's for whom... again?
ADDENDUM 1
Talk about Newsnight: Comment guidelines
Talk about Newsnight is a blog which aims to bring the programme team closer to its audience by providing an insight into our production process and offering a platform for review, analysis and debate of the subjects we are covering.
When joining in debates and responding to blog entries we are happy for you to criticise the programme and to ask serious questions about our coverage. Where we can we will respond.
...etc...
ADDENDUM 2
Can't fault him for not replying, and in fact quite graciously (though perhaps with tongue in cheek:):
I wasn't intending to be rude or defensive - of course I embrace and cherish your comments, and I'm pleased at the very least that 2-way communication is working better than before.
The "give it a chance" referred to your comment that user numbers were smaller than before - it will take a while to get the numbers up, but I hope that the ease of commenting will help.
I agree entirely on the live links, which I hope will be available soon.
The reason for my Clintonian defence is that the blog fix has been done across the BBC by a team not under Newsnight's direct control.
So we are finding our way with it too.
I remain concerned that so many aspects of this revamp involved deletions of things that, to me, encouraged open debate. I still have no answer as the the rationale behind having a 'comments closed' shutter. And also that the editorial aspects of the blog fix seem to have been carried out with little or no input from the Newsnight editor.
Peter (19) - thank you for your considered reply.
And with the welcome addition of Cloe-F at least we're up to a 22-way conversation now:)
I am sure this may well steadily rise as existing posters get to grips with the new system (I ended up with a 'name' I'd forgotten about thanks to some registration/cookie combo when I signed on to the BBC site ages ago), and possibly new friends now the infamous 502 is consigned to history.
However, Cloe_F's tech feedback might prove enough to dissuade many in this 'data-available' concerned age. Another aspect one might have hoped had been raised at pre-planning stage?
But I am sure that now it is shared it will be addressed. You do indeed have access to some very well informed folk, with valuable experiences to share, especially in some pertinent areas of expertise. Which is what I would be sorry to lose.
It is a shame that your team had no, or little input on the mechanisms for feedback on the work you do. As journalists and editors I am sure you are usually more than interested in every aspect of how news and opinion is gleaned and disseminated. And blanket impositions, even with good intentions, can often end up pleasing none of the people, none of the time.
Moderation is a tricky path. It's not just what gets said, but whether something is allowed in ... or out... and why. Or for how long. As those involved elsewhere with such as 'Have Your Say' for instance might have found. I don't bother with these efforts because, beyond anonymous venting in the wind, there is little incentive or reward for investing the thought and time. And the result is all too often a highlighted 'soundbite' chosen to suit.
Clearly, this thread is looking quite healthy for open debate in this regard so far and, with luck, will improve even more.
But what did prompt my original concerns back last week (16/17 April) was the 'comment closed' time out, the rationale for which (if it is to stay as an option) still remains unclear. I've noticed it elsewhere, in such as Guardian CiF, and can't see a good reason for it, considering the internet/web's ability to allow information to expand with the interest and demand it stimulates.
With this 'new', robust system, and the clearly re-energised moderating team it has empowered, I am sure leaving things open to accommodate the odd subsequent follow-up commentary is technically and administratively possible if the will is there.
24/04
It's the little things.
Some days have passed. I already have a sense that a few things might be addressed. But others might be quietly ignored. Like links to poster's URLs.
Giving them the benefit of the doubt, I noticed that the advisory on the nature of moderation (pre/post - oddly not a field that one change applies throughout) was a tad erratic and informed them.
It has now been changed.
You're welcome, BBC. Oddly no acknowledgement, so to subsequent posters I might appear to be to be incorrect in my advice. Just rude, or spiteful taboot? Thank heavens for the cache. Like I say, it's the little things, and they do mount up.
Further to an earlier post... Blogging - a new era
6. At 09:01 am on 19 Apr 2008, PeterBarron wrote: Oh come on Junkkmale (4), give it a chance. It's only been going for a day.
Oh... I am sorry that you appear frustrated at my lack of enthusiasm and support... well, for the additional 'improvements' to the blogging experience made in addition/complement to the infamous error codes. Now sorted, if I may repeat my congrats on that at least.
How much of a chance do you need? The same the BBC gave BA and the T5 planners for things that had a fair old while and a healthy wadge of wonga to get right, and yet...
It's just that when asked/invited to give an opinion I naturally assumed that one is going to be expected... even if aspects might be unfavourable. Maybe specifying a minimum time window to allow for settling in would have been helpful? Oh, but then there's that 'comments closed' situation. Hence an upper limit too. So a window of posting opportunity maybe? Dilemmas abound.
Might I be allowed to ask what IS the rationale for closing a comment thread? Looking back a few it seems not to be based on a simple time period.
I also like to know if I can about who I am chatting with, so I clicked the link to check and find out more on your name. Sadly, just this, as far as I could locate: Blog Network Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers. User Profile Listed below are comments made by between and across all BBC Blogs. « NewerOlder »
My pointing out that live links was an unfortunate deletion was a feedback suggestion by the way, though if it was causing problems maybe there was good reason for deleting this option. I am sure that might have been noticed and discussed when this was planned...right? It just all seems to have been coming as a bit of a surprise to you.
And there do now seem a lot fewer folk than there used to be, along with the off-page redirections to further sources I appreciated.
Anyway, I am glad to see this thread is still allowed to remain active. But I'll have to remember the latest bit of nuSpeek to add to all the others of our age: '...as I understand it the new features are there in order to manage the huge workload robustly, not to stifle debate.'
Rather Clintonian. 'As you understand it'? Don't you KNOW? It is your programme's site blog is it not?
I concede that I may be in a minority, though I take some comfort in the experiences and opinions shared by some others.... in a total of 16 comments (so far - 1 from me and 4 from you guys, so at least we're now in double digits) on fundamental changes to the blog thread page of one of the last serious news programmes of the broadcaster to a nation of 60 million.
In my line, advertising, a critique from a customer who cares enough to write is the most valuable thing you can get, and should be cherished. And embraced. But I'm afraid by deed and tone you and and your organisation often make me feel that is not high on the agenda where you work, managing huge workloads, um, 'robustly'.
That's for whom... again?
ADDENDUM 1
Talk about Newsnight: Comment guidelines
Talk about Newsnight is a blog which aims to bring the programme team closer to its audience by providing an insight into our production process and offering a platform for review, analysis and debate of the subjects we are covering.
When joining in debates and responding to blog entries we are happy for you to criticise the programme and to ask serious questions about our coverage. Where we can we will respond.
...etc...
ADDENDUM 2
Can't fault him for not replying, and in fact quite graciously (though perhaps with tongue in cheek:):
I wasn't intending to be rude or defensive - of course I embrace and cherish your comments, and I'm pleased at the very least that 2-way communication is working better than before.
The "give it a chance" referred to your comment that user numbers were smaller than before - it will take a while to get the numbers up, but I hope that the ease of commenting will help.
I agree entirely on the live links, which I hope will be available soon.
The reason for my Clintonian defence is that the blog fix has been done across the BBC by a team not under Newsnight's direct control.
So we are finding our way with it too.
I remain concerned that so many aspects of this revamp involved deletions of things that, to me, encouraged open debate. I still have no answer as the the rationale behind having a 'comments closed' shutter. And also that the editorial aspects of the blog fix seem to have been carried out with little or no input from the Newsnight editor.
Peter (19) - thank you for your considered reply.
And with the welcome addition of Cloe-F at least we're up to a 22-way conversation now:)
I am sure this may well steadily rise as existing posters get to grips with the new system (I ended up with a 'name' I'd forgotten about thanks to some registration/cookie combo when I signed on to the BBC site ages ago), and possibly new friends now the infamous 502 is consigned to history.
However, Cloe_F's tech feedback might prove enough to dissuade many in this 'data-available' concerned age. Another aspect one might have hoped had been raised at pre-planning stage?
But I am sure that now it is shared it will be addressed. You do indeed have access to some very well informed folk, with valuable experiences to share, especially in some pertinent areas of expertise. Which is what I would be sorry to lose.
It is a shame that your team had no, or little input on the mechanisms for feedback on the work you do. As journalists and editors I am sure you are usually more than interested in every aspect of how news and opinion is gleaned and disseminated. And blanket impositions, even with good intentions, can often end up pleasing none of the people, none of the time.
Moderation is a tricky path. It's not just what gets said, but whether something is allowed in ... or out... and why. Or for how long. As those involved elsewhere with such as 'Have Your Say' for instance might have found. I don't bother with these efforts because, beyond anonymous venting in the wind, there is little incentive or reward for investing the thought and time. And the result is all too often a highlighted 'soundbite' chosen to suit.
Clearly, this thread is looking quite healthy for open debate in this regard so far and, with luck, will improve even more.
But what did prompt my original concerns back last week (16/17 April) was the 'comment closed' time out, the rationale for which (if it is to stay as an option) still remains unclear. I've noticed it elsewhere, in such as Guardian CiF, and can't see a good reason for it, considering the internet/web's ability to allow information to expand with the interest and demand it stimulates.
With this 'new', robust system, and the clearly re-energised moderating team it has empowered, I am sure leaving things open to accommodate the odd subsequent follow-up commentary is technically and administratively possible if the will is there.
24/04
It's the little things.
Some days have passed. I already have a sense that a few things might be addressed. But others might be quietly ignored. Like links to poster's URLs.
Giving them the benefit of the doubt, I noticed that the advisory on the nature of moderation (pre/post - oddly not a field that one change applies throughout) was a tad erratic and informed them.
It has now been changed.
You're welcome, BBC. Oddly no acknowledgement, so to subsequent posters I might appear to be to be incorrect in my advice. Just rude, or spiteful taboot? Thank heavens for the cache. Like I say, it's the little things, and they do mount up.
Monday, October 15, 2007
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!
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!
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
I defend the BBC...ish
I had to weigh in on a discussion prompted by the reporting of the opening up of the Northwest Passage for [insert time period here according to relative MMGW persuasion]
'.. if we're likely to see Dr. David G. on the news explaining the lack of evidence for man-made global warming'
Not quite fair. If the combined might of everyone from the IPCC to RealClimate can't 'prove' anything one way or another to the satisfaction of all then I doubt he could... or should be asked to. Though the BBC’s role in sharing pertinent, objective information is of course both topical and of interest.
As previously head-above-parapetted, personally I think there is climate change; it is negative; it is getting worse and it is worth looking at ways to mitigate man's possible influences. And pronto. But I do have some strong views on how, and how the current cabal of government, media, interest groups and activists are clouding an already murky issue to the extent that the general public are kicking back.
So I do think flying a reporter up to an iceberg to do a noddy in front of a snowman sends out a mixed message at best. And every time I see a twee reporter skipping around a G-Wiz saying it doesn't pollute it makes me wince.
The message is too important to be compromised by sloppy reporting or pandering to targets or box ticking agendas. And I especially feel every overkill story sets the cause of rational argument back by giving those who are more vocal in their ‘optimism’ (I find denier to be a pejorative) a chance to attack detail at the expense of the bigger picture.
Speaking of which...
I was wondering if any from the BBC, and perhaps the Department of Denial that is JR (though I'd prefer a more qualified and less selective responder) has any thoughts on the BBC erring on the side of the 'green trap' policy wisdom by the government in terms of political discussion (the Conservatives and Lib Dems and Greens all being a tad more considered, if often confused, in at least discussing options, and often unpopular ones) whilst bombarding us with ‘we're all doomed scenarios on ice’ that may just be coincidental in the great climatic scheme of things. Or getting a set of Islington knickers in a twist on issues which, while certainly part of the overall scheme of things, are less of a priority or concern right now than, say, home insulation or deforestation.
I was amongst a covey of 'mentalists (I am one!) last night who had ventured out from the big city in their Priuses (nothing like lugging a battery down the M4 to make you feel good about the planet) . But perhaps Tewksbury was the wrong place to suggest that 4x4s and bottled water were not necessary, especially when we find out just how well our political masters have, are and might be thinking of handling the consequences of avoiding the green trap with their flood plans.
ADDENDUM - I GOT MODERATED!!!!
For this:
I do not want or intend to get into a 'tis/t'isn't MMGW argument (they go nowhere and simply consume precious energy pointlessly), but simply share this 'for the pot':
Sustainability: A Nobel Cause
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=481
Ignoring all the warmly-debated science, I merely note who is chatting, and the key fact that they do not seem to be obsessing too much on matters of idealism, rather cold hard cash.
I have great respect for RealClimate (though the posters are getting a little more feisty of late - I like my science objective), and hence the comments in reply to the original post make for equally interesting reading by way of balance.
And noting the mere hint that a pol is doing stuff not for the mid/far future but to prop up economics now really does damage.
[Peter, I'm afraid you can't say "I don't want to get into an argument about this", and then present a provocative article! The Moderator.]
Peter | Homepage | 10.10.07 - 10:59 am | #
I'm afraid I felt to delete my post (and leave in what they did) like this was unwarranted:
OK, stick the RealClimate article I featured back up without that opener (I guess you'll have to delete that - but will it remain in Googlecache?), along with the rest of my thoughts on how it and the post in reply highlighted some interesting politico/media MMGW issues and how people can respond to them.
I'll then let the various extremes fight over whether 'it' exists at all whilst missing the actual point.
I will then engage or not if I so wish. Happy?
As it stands, and perhaps despite my poor wording, I'd say the chop you have instigated serves the cause of moderation poorly. I'd have thought leaving the totality up and saying what you think about it to be more appropriate. I don't think anything I wrote contravened any of the site rules. I just shared some info pertinent to the thread and in advance advised I was not terribly keen on arguing about something no one knows about for sure one way or another yet.
Currently no one has a clue what you/we are on about.
That serves who well, exactly?
Their site. Their ball. Their loss.
ADDENDUM:
It went up. And then it got deleted. An interesting insight into the actions of those who talk of bias.
ADDENDUM 2:
Another day, and the possibility of another moderator. So I popped this in.
Removing the option of the public to comment! Now who'd do a thing like that?
bob | 11.10.07 - 8:04 am | #
Can't imagine. But, as oft noted, it is free and the owner's ball to play with. See how long this stays up.
ps: I put in a link to RealClimate to make a point on the MMGW 'debate' being about 'tis/t'isn't happening (at all) vs. looking ahead at reasonable solutions. Shame no one got a chance to see, much less comment on it and my sloppy first line was used as an excuse to whip out the entire (pretty innocuous) rest of the post.
Peter | Homepage | 11.10.07 - 9:55 am | #
I might be heading for my first ban, which will be a milestone! Shame, as I do value some of what gets discovered, shared and discussed, but not when the discussions get steered in the same way as the entity they purport to accuse of dodgy practices.
ADDENDUM 3:
A challenge:
Peter:
[The Moderator: Peter, if you want to discuss our moderation policy, e-mail us on biasedbbc@googlemail.com (but in short, off-topic comments are likely to be deleted).]
Peter | Homepage | 11.10.07 - 9:55 am | #
Thank you for the opportunity for discussion.
I think BBBC has some fine minds at work, and I value the information I glean. As well as the debate.
Sadly, I rather felt the moderation in the case that prompted my subsequent comment to have been an example more of what the BBC is often accused of, with reason, and seriously affected my view of the site as a consequence.
The piece in question was on a thread concerning climate change, which has been very much in the news and indeed on the BBBC site on numerous occasions, but really quite frequently of late, as associated with Mr. Gore's movie and Nobel.
My point in the 'moderated' piece has been quite eloquently made by subsequent events, namely that anything regarding sensible debate on anything climatic gets immediately co-opted into two extreme camps: the so-called 'deniers' and the 'green at all costers', with suitable descriptive ing/ist/zi perjoratives added to taste, and a lot of playing the man and not the ball.
I'd guess that most on BBBC fall into the former. OK, it's a private blog. Most in the BBC fall into the latter. No so fair enough, as they are my public broadcaster. I get very unhappy when I read about such as Roger Harrabin's qualifications and editorial memos or Mr. Gore's various less than noble activities. Not because I don't think there is a climate issue, or indeed that man might well be rather unhelpful, but because I don't think the negative exposure these inaccuracies and exaggeration and secret agendas in the cause of 'doing what's best' for 'the people' are working or help. Especially when they boomerang.
So I am dedicated to information, and as well shaped opinion as I can get it. Which is why I watch BBC and read BBBC. The truth is often in the middle.
And hence I like to share as well, to see what might come back.
All I said is that I didn't want to get into a pointless MMGW argument. For a start, to my best assessment, even though that acronym is used by rather extreme 'denier' posters, the fact of man's causing it is nowhere to be found. I allow for possibly 'man worsened' at best.
And my post discussed that, cited highly valid sources such as Real Climate, but also quoting Chancellor Merkel to show how where you start from in this issue always pretty much predicts where the argument will end up.
Yet all this was deleted. What was left was the first line, alluding to 'a provocative article'. On the basis of my saying I didn't want the argument hijacked in the usual direction it always does.
How that is off topic fails me. But if as I presume you refer to my dropping a point about editing to support a view in a thread about the BBC doing just that, I'd say a little self-analysis may be in order.
Here's the sequence as you may have deleted it all and Google cache may not be available: (see above).
Keep up the good work. Try and stop the less so.
Didn't take long. I got a reply.
We delete a *lot* of comments every day. I don't know why you have
presumed it's just yours that has been deleted (or why you have
presumed that we only delete comments that we don't agree with).
Perhaps it's because we usually just delete a post without comment,
which we didn't do in your case (because of your newbie status). Or
perhaps it's because you're very much a "me" blogger.
We get far more comments on global warming than we want, and we
delete a lot of them. They are by far the most numerous category of
comments that we delete. About 90% of those that we delete are
arguing *against* the existence and/or severity of GW. (Similarly,
about 90% of the comments we delete are taking an anti-BBC line). It
is simply not justified for you to assume that you were deleted
because you didn't "toe a party line".
We do leave some comments on GW in, but only the better, more
relevant and more concise ones. You gave us a good excuse to delete
yours because you said you were "adding one for the pot", which
created the impression that you were leaving us something that would
create a blizzard of comments which you could step away from. In
addition, we had noticed that you had a tendency for long, rambling
off-topic comments, and we're not very interested in that.
If you want to discuss GW in-depth online, then I suggest you go to a
dedicated site.
I'll leave it all in, critique and all. You know what? They're right. Sometimes I do post over-long screeds. I may even ramble, though I'd like to think that without the benefit of time it is just exploring all the options. We live in a sound bite culture that suffers from the whole issue not being considered properly.
As to the rest, I'd say quite breathtaking, defevensive, illogical arrogance. Not a little less than pleasant, too, as I was invited to get in touch. And as they have admitted to an approach of censoring what they feel like, I can't see they are any different to the BBC TV/online efforts they critique for being 'selective', or what they call biased.
I'll still use 'em to find stuff. But as for their status as an online place of even debate, for me at least, their reputation is shot. I have learned a lot about moderation from this, and I hope it will make my blog the better for it.
Plus my RSI might improve.
'.. if we're likely to see Dr. David G. on the news explaining the lack of evidence for man-made global warming'
Not quite fair. If the combined might of everyone from the IPCC to RealClimate can't 'prove' anything one way or another to the satisfaction of all then I doubt he could... or should be asked to. Though the BBC’s role in sharing pertinent, objective information is of course both topical and of interest.
As previously head-above-parapetted, personally I think there is climate change; it is negative; it is getting worse and it is worth looking at ways to mitigate man's possible influences. And pronto. But I do have some strong views on how, and how the current cabal of government, media, interest groups and activists are clouding an already murky issue to the extent that the general public are kicking back.
So I do think flying a reporter up to an iceberg to do a noddy in front of a snowman sends out a mixed message at best. And every time I see a twee reporter skipping around a G-Wiz saying it doesn't pollute it makes me wince.
The message is too important to be compromised by sloppy reporting or pandering to targets or box ticking agendas. And I especially feel every overkill story sets the cause of rational argument back by giving those who are more vocal in their ‘optimism’ (I find denier to be a pejorative) a chance to attack detail at the expense of the bigger picture.
Speaking of which...
I was wondering if any from the BBC, and perhaps the Department of Denial that is JR (though I'd prefer a more qualified and less selective responder) has any thoughts on the BBC erring on the side of the 'green trap' policy wisdom by the government in terms of political discussion (the Conservatives and Lib Dems and Greens all being a tad more considered, if often confused, in at least discussing options, and often unpopular ones) whilst bombarding us with ‘we're all doomed scenarios on ice’ that may just be coincidental in the great climatic scheme of things. Or getting a set of Islington knickers in a twist on issues which, while certainly part of the overall scheme of things, are less of a priority or concern right now than, say, home insulation or deforestation.
I was amongst a covey of 'mentalists (I am one!) last night who had ventured out from the big city in their Priuses (nothing like lugging a battery down the M4 to make you feel good about the planet) . But perhaps Tewksbury was the wrong place to suggest that 4x4s and bottled water were not necessary, especially when we find out just how well our political masters have, are and might be thinking of handling the consequences of avoiding the green trap with their flood plans.
ADDENDUM - I GOT MODERATED!!!!
For this:
I do not want or intend to get into a 'tis/t'isn't MMGW argument (they go nowhere and simply consume precious energy pointlessly), but simply share this 'for the pot':
Sustainability: A Nobel Cause
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=481
Ignoring all the warmly-debated science, I merely note who is chatting, and the key fact that they do not seem to be obsessing too much on matters of idealism, rather cold hard cash.
I have great respect for RealClimate (though the posters are getting a little more feisty of late - I like my science objective), and hence the comments in reply to the original post make for equally interesting reading by way of balance.
And noting the mere hint that a pol is doing stuff not for the mid/far future but to prop up economics now really does damage.
[Peter, I'm afraid you can't say "I don't want to get into an argument about this", and then present a provocative article! The Moderator.]
Peter | Homepage | 10.10.07 - 10:59 am | #
I'm afraid I felt to delete my post (and leave in what they did) like this was unwarranted:
OK, stick the RealClimate article I featured back up without that opener (I guess you'll have to delete that - but will it remain in Googlecache?), along with the rest of my thoughts on how it and the post in reply highlighted some interesting politico/media MMGW issues and how people can respond to them.
I'll then let the various extremes fight over whether 'it' exists at all whilst missing the actual point.
I will then engage or not if I so wish. Happy?
As it stands, and perhaps despite my poor wording, I'd say the chop you have instigated serves the cause of moderation poorly. I'd have thought leaving the totality up and saying what you think about it to be more appropriate. I don't think anything I wrote contravened any of the site rules. I just shared some info pertinent to the thread and in advance advised I was not terribly keen on arguing about something no one knows about for sure one way or another yet.
Currently no one has a clue what you/we are on about.
That serves who well, exactly?
Their site. Their ball. Their loss.
ADDENDUM:
It went up. And then it got deleted. An interesting insight into the actions of those who talk of bias.
ADDENDUM 2:
Another day, and the possibility of another moderator. So I popped this in.
Removing the option of the public to comment! Now who'd do a thing like that?
bob | 11.10.07 - 8:04 am | #
Can't imagine. But, as oft noted, it is free and the owner's ball to play with. See how long this stays up.
ps: I put in a link to RealClimate to make a point on the MMGW 'debate' being about 'tis/t'isn't happening (at all) vs. looking ahead at reasonable solutions. Shame no one got a chance to see, much less comment on it and my sloppy first line was used as an excuse to whip out the entire (pretty innocuous) rest of the post.
Peter | Homepage | 11.10.07 - 9:55 am | #
I might be heading for my first ban, which will be a milestone! Shame, as I do value some of what gets discovered, shared and discussed, but not when the discussions get steered in the same way as the entity they purport to accuse of dodgy practices.
ADDENDUM 3:
A challenge:
Peter:
[The Moderator: Peter, if you want to discuss our moderation policy, e-mail us on biasedbbc@googlemail.com (but in short, off-topic comments are likely to be deleted).]
Peter | Homepage | 11.10.07 - 9:55 am | #
Thank you for the opportunity for discussion.
I think BBBC has some fine minds at work, and I value the information I glean. As well as the debate.
Sadly, I rather felt the moderation in the case that prompted my subsequent comment to have been an example more of what the BBC is often accused of, with reason, and seriously affected my view of the site as a consequence.
The piece in question was on a thread concerning climate change, which has been very much in the news and indeed on the BBBC site on numerous occasions, but really quite frequently of late, as associated with Mr. Gore's movie and Nobel.
My point in the 'moderated' piece has been quite eloquently made by subsequent events, namely that anything regarding sensible debate on anything climatic gets immediately co-opted into two extreme camps: the so-called 'deniers' and the 'green at all costers', with suitable descriptive ing/ist/zi perjoratives added to taste, and a lot of playing the man and not the ball.
I'd guess that most on BBBC fall into the former. OK, it's a private blog. Most in the BBC fall into the latter. No so fair enough, as they are my public broadcaster. I get very unhappy when I read about such as Roger Harrabin's qualifications and editorial memos or Mr. Gore's various less than noble activities. Not because I don't think there is a climate issue, or indeed that man might well be rather unhelpful, but because I don't think the negative exposure these inaccuracies and exaggeration and secret agendas in the cause of 'doing what's best' for 'the people' are working or help. Especially when they boomerang.
So I am dedicated to information, and as well shaped opinion as I can get it. Which is why I watch BBC and read BBBC. The truth is often in the middle.
And hence I like to share as well, to see what might come back.
All I said is that I didn't want to get into a pointless MMGW argument. For a start, to my best assessment, even though that acronym is used by rather extreme 'denier' posters, the fact of man's causing it is nowhere to be found. I allow for possibly 'man worsened' at best.
And my post discussed that, cited highly valid sources such as Real Climate, but also quoting Chancellor Merkel to show how where you start from in this issue always pretty much predicts where the argument will end up.
Yet all this was deleted. What was left was the first line, alluding to 'a provocative article'. On the basis of my saying I didn't want the argument hijacked in the usual direction it always does.
How that is off topic fails me. But if as I presume you refer to my dropping a point about editing to support a view in a thread about the BBC doing just that, I'd say a little self-analysis may be in order.
Here's the sequence as you may have deleted it all and Google cache may not be available: (see above).
Keep up the good work. Try and stop the less so.
Didn't take long. I got a reply.
We delete a *lot* of comments every day. I don't know why you have
presumed it's just yours that has been deleted (or why you have
presumed that we only delete comments that we don't agree with).
Perhaps it's because we usually just delete a post without comment,
which we didn't do in your case (because of your newbie status). Or
perhaps it's because you're very much a "me" blogger.
We get far more comments on global warming than we want, and we
delete a lot of them. They are by far the most numerous category of
comments that we delete. About 90% of those that we delete are
arguing *against* the existence and/or severity of GW. (Similarly,
about 90% of the comments we delete are taking an anti-BBC line). It
is simply not justified for you to assume that you were deleted
because you didn't "toe a party line".
We do leave some comments on GW in, but only the better, more
relevant and more concise ones. You gave us a good excuse to delete
yours because you said you were "adding one for the pot", which
created the impression that you were leaving us something that would
create a blizzard of comments which you could step away from. In
addition, we had noticed that you had a tendency for long, rambling
off-topic comments, and we're not very interested in that.
If you want to discuss GW in-depth online, then I suggest you go to a
dedicated site.
I'll leave it all in, critique and all. You know what? They're right. Sometimes I do post over-long screeds. I may even ramble, though I'd like to think that without the benefit of time it is just exploring all the options. We live in a sound bite culture that suffers from the whole issue not being considered properly.
As to the rest, I'd say quite breathtaking, defevensive, illogical arrogance. Not a little less than pleasant, too, as I was invited to get in touch. And as they have admitted to an approach of censoring what they feel like, I can't see they are any different to the BBC TV/online efforts they critique for being 'selective', or what they call biased.
I'll still use 'em to find stuff. But as for their status as an online place of even debate, for me at least, their reputation is shot. I have learned a lot about moderation from this, and I hope it will make my blog the better for it.
Plus my RSI might improve.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Ask, and you will... er... um...
A bit more water-borne fun & games with Newsnight
I prefer to 'watch' the PC feed the next day, but as seems to happen every so often it is pointing elsewhere. So it is hard to comment in detail.
And as I am also getting a pop-up when I do (on my PC, requiring me to log on from another) which says rather baldly, and unhelpfully, 'you are not allowed to comment' (er, why?) it gets even trickier.
So may I express a frustration with such posting efforts that when very pertinent questions do get asked, they almost inevitably do not get answered.
How about an on-air follow-up when it is obviously warranted and you have some nifty one-liners to pose?
I am still trying to understand how these floods are described by all levels of government from Dear Leader down as 'without precedent' and 'unable to predict', when I keep hearing that they have happened before (on Newsnight) and were predicted (Guardian Front Page).
Who doesn't know their facts, or is simply enhancing the truth?
I prefer to 'watch' the PC feed the next day, but as seems to happen every so often it is pointing elsewhere. So it is hard to comment in detail.
And as I am also getting a pop-up when I do (on my PC, requiring me to log on from another) which says rather baldly, and unhelpfully, 'you are not allowed to comment' (er, why?) it gets even trickier.
So may I express a frustration with such posting efforts that when very pertinent questions do get asked, they almost inevitably do not get answered.
How about an on-air follow-up when it is obviously warranted and you have some nifty one-liners to pose?
I am still trying to understand how these floods are described by all levels of government from Dear Leader down as 'without precedent' and 'unable to predict', when I keep hearing that they have happened before (on Newsnight) and were predicted (Guardian Front Page).
Who doesn't know their facts, or is simply enhancing the truth?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)