Disagreeing to disagree

I'm in a small exchange over the direction of Newsnight (which I think has been dumbed down), with a fellow blogger. Though scrupulously polite, I have been poked with the one stick in this arena that really gets my goat, namely falling back on tackling the person (either in person or, as hear, their possible motivations/belief systems) rather than the argument.

Prospects for Friday, 23 May

Well, it seems well down on most counts (despite folk being out there, as the Milliband exchanges showed) to me, IMHO, and purely subjectively.

'NN did several surveys, which came up as pop-ups on the homepage; those with pop-ups disabled could have missed them. '

Could, and did. At least in my case. News to me (ironically). Makes you wonder why a survey would be carried out in a manner that might reasonably be predicted to exclude a large section of one's potential willing audience (no 'wingist' inferences intended, as it would encompass an even spread of all views. Just... fewer).

I try to shy away from accusations of bias based on rather loose and often pejoratively intended catch-alls shaped by perceived political leanings. Especially when personal views are stated as matters of fact.

If (which I doubt) Newsnight is 'dominated' by one grouping, maybe that's no more and no less a reflection of its viewership, in much the same way as, say, Guardian CiF might reflect its readership. I guess many inhabit where they feel most comfortable. From my experience, 'blasting' from certain strongly-held belief groupings is sort of an occupational hazard on a blog. You kinda have to live with it. Agreed, some often do try the 'you're an 'inger/'ist/'zi' card if the power of argument seems to be failing. Seldom works, mind. Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts.

If your considered reply elsewhere gets misconstrued it might just be down to how it is articulated, and in the spirit of debate maybe that's a good thing for those looking on at any ensuing clarifications you may take up with those who engage you. Otherwise in simply crying foul on matters of tone, one runs the danger of it sounding like no one is permitted an alternative view save agreement. Of course, extremist attacks that soon veer away from any sensible discourse are regrettable if, sadly, almost inevitable.

It is a shame if those of more delicate debating natures feel sided against, but if unfair or unacceptable that is of course what moderators are for, though this can be an unenviable task.

As to 'excessively demanding', I can't imagine what you mean.

But if it is having firm opinions, and the belief that you are allowed to articulate them in seeking truth or trying to solicit answers, then I am afraid I have no problem with this.

Hence I would quite support the notion of being 'excessively demanding', especially of my fee-funded national broadcaster, from whom I have and still learn much.

Which is why, in dealing with others who would seek to use its public forums, I do appreciate those who do not take no, hype, spin fudge or clumsy redirection as adequate in matters of public interest and debate, and will bang on until they get accuracy and/or answers.

Speaking of which, fantastic Jeremy tonight, by the way.