One thing so often missing in matters of debate is effective, balanced moderation.
I have just written to the BBC:
I have just watched the 'debate' between the climate activist and the industry representative.
At one point both 'sides' clearly stated totally stated a report stated diametrically opposite things.
Is there any chance of the moderators/interviewers letting us know who was/is right?
I am already fed up with the classic 'twofer' technique serving ratings more, butbeing allowed to mouth off without being checked adds zero value and the media just gives any old tossed off claim credence in this manner.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I believe in freedom of speech. But I also don't like bullies on blogs, even verbal ones, as they can drive away those with something valid to say... or offer.
Subjective is fine, but well argued and substantiated is even better. Calm and polite tops. Anything that crosses my personal line will not go up. There may be reasons given, but not guaranteed.
I'm not too keen on 'Anon' as a handle (and the content usually explains why), so if that's what you opt for it may not make it. Sorry.