Sad, but not unexpected

Another day, another nail...

34. At 08:52am on 06 Aug 2009, you wrote:
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

3. At 8:52 am on 6 Aug 2009, JunkkMale wrote:
24. At 8:48pm on 05 Aug 2009, Rustigjongens wrote:

It is to be hoped if, on current evidence not expected, that the major media, and our 'government', might investigate and comment on the accuracy, and implications of the brief letter from Carol Rigby in today's Telegraph:

SIR – If the troops in Afghanistan have all the kit they need, why have I just received a letter from my son stating that he is looking at someone with the soles of his boots falling off and has been told they will not be replaced? Furthermore, their body armour is being held together with tape and the malaria tablets have run out.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/5978848/Assisted-suicide-denies-the-value-of-life-and-is-an-affront-to-Western-humanism.html

When they all return from school hols, after the 'silly season' passes and things get back to super 'normal' for those more privileged (Copyright: Alan 'the gift that keeps on giving' Yentob: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/5979697/Alan-Yentob-defends-BBC-over-Arlene-Phillips-ageism-claims.html ), that is.

ps: Having posted on another site, a 'defender' leapt in, missing the first line and pointed out he actually said 'ordinary folk' in the penultimate para. Indeed he did. Like that helped their case. LOL.

Biter Bit

Journalists don't seem as able to take it as they like to dish it out.

I actually value this lady's missives usually, but then there is this:

Will blog commenters eventually leave journalists fragile husks of insecurity, sobbing in the corner?

What on earth did she expect, on a blog, by way of reply?

If commenters are complaining about lazy journalism, journalists have an equal bone to pick with lazy commenting.

Thing is, who owes who what?

I’m all for open commenting on blogs, but I every now and then I imagine a halcyon world where a bit of judicial editing leaves us with only the comments that are worth reading - negative or not.

Well, there is always that magical moderator’s delete facility, used every now and then for perhaps less than professional reasons, in the spirit of some speech being freer than others.

It would certainly save us all a lot of time currently spent scrolling through endless “First!” comments.

Forewarned, I will hence refrain from attempting to note the relative location of this comment in the current thread.*

Annoyingly, as I was penning my witty tailpiece, some other sod got in first and rather stole the thunder.

IRONY ALERT - People in uniquely funded houses...

Check out this thread:

Stop the blocking now

It's about a regime preventing stuff they don't like.

Now check out the number of posts moderated out.

Yours, a snip at just £142.50pa

Objective is as objective does...er...?

Just got an email telling me that a comment I made on BBC's Andrew Neil's Political blog was 'off topic' and had been deleted.

Odd, as I didn't recall making one for a fair while, and these little moderations tend to be fairly bud-nipping in alacrity.

Anyway, on having a quick gander it seems there has been a bit of a retroactive purge, and almost all have been removed. I am guessing as a consequence, belatedly, of this...

During the MEP and council polls, in line with political parties and other UK broadcasters, the BBC will not be reporting the election campaign or offering discussion about the campaign.

I suppose 'off topic' was the best template they could throw as an excuse, if not reason as of June 4. Check 48 thur 79.

However, as with all of Aunty's 'unique' ways, there do seem some, well one, allowed to remain...

75. At 10:18am on 04 Jun

I do not believe that is why Robinsons blog got shut down early, otherwise so would this one. Robinsons blog is starting to be hi-jacked by extreme people using all kind of insults and it is putting the sensible contributor off. It certainly is me, they are changing names to attack you under another name. However they slip up by using faces or phrases they have used under other names. I notice things like that. I honestly believe people should only be allowed one user name.

If the BBC are making an effort to clean this up to make it more civilized like this one has been I am all for it.

We can have disagreements without resorting to some of the insulting remarks I have had and seen lately.

Which, I presume, is the only one deemed, uniquely, 'on'.. topic.

Heck of a way to ensure that you are the last post standing. Not sure it makes the BBC look too objective, mind.

Newsnight - Not happy here, either

I say, I say, I say

BBC's HYS is one of the more discredited 'we're listening' outposts of the government/MSM establishment.

And that is saying something

It goes up, and down, with monotonous regularity, but always rather suspiciously when the narrative seems to be erring on curiously inconvenient emerging truths...

Fixing the Have Your Say fault

'...for the BBC it is a highly valued way to listen to what matters to our audience and to find out what they are thinking about key stories, which we then feed into our journalism.

...we will still offer an opportunity for you to Have Your Say on one or two of the big stories of the day. You'll be able to email in your views and experiences on those subjects and the HYS moderators will publish a selection of them.... But we hope that it will provide you with a least a flavour of what everyone is thinking...

Bless. I'll have to add 'a flavour of what everyone is thinking' to 'enhancing the narrative', 'interpreting events' and other gems.

dotconnect wrote: Have your engineers considered the possibility that an overdose of bile had clogged up the system?

That'll be it.

Also worth checking the one way/non return valves.

Feel the love. Only.

How to get banned by the BBC - mention porn

Though... I didn't... directly.

More... on our establishment leaders' involvement with same... and how it gets reported (or not)

Sunday Express - JACQUI SMITH PUT ADULT FILMS ON EXPENSES - no, she didn't. Her husband did! What's his job? Her expenses. Who oversees him... she does!

BBC - Smith 'sorry' for expenses claim - yes, an 'expenses claim'.

Guardian - Home secretary Jacqui Smith embarrassed by new expenses row - yes, an 'expenses row'. A new one.

Indy - Jacqui Smith embarrassed by expenses row - yes, a row.

Times - Jacqui Smith's husband stops short of apology to public over porn expenses claim - but the key is that it is not porn. Which is, really, irrelevant, but fun in a salacious way.

Mail - Blue movies on expenses: Jacqui Smith's husband apologises for watching porn... paid for by the taxpayer - should they be red movies?

Sun - Hubby sorry for porno expenses

Order Order - Sunday Sleaze Porno Special

.........

Then, I decided to ask the BBC's political editor about this political story...

Preparing to herd cats

Telegraph - Must we really subsidise pornography for Jacqui Smith's husband? - The title changed midway:)

To this comment...

How long before they report this on the BBC?March 29, 2009

...I felt moved to reply:

Days 1-2: Don't know about it. Too trivial to register.
Days 3-4: OK, it did. But not newsworthy. Meanwhile, Kate Silverton has bought a new frock. We go to Milan with her to see her try it on. Next up, climate change is caused by plebs using Ryan Air.
Day 5. Small mention on the CBBC website page. See... we did mention it!
Day 6. Mark Mardell & Nick Robinson and Newsnight do get round to a mention, but mainly supporting the notion that a government Minister's hubby using taxpayer's money to donwload porn is in fact a right wing plot and all on the blogosphere are paid members of Tory machine. Interview Derek Draper, Jasmin AB and Polly T to get some balanced opinion on the matter.
Day 7 - Gordon Brown says it is 'not acceptable', 'will be looked at', he 'understands how we feel', but she 'has his full support'.
Day 8 - BBC runs feature on political disengagement by the public.
Day 9 - Entire MSM gets diverted as Prince Harry and Madonna rescue child from orphanage in Malawi and elope.
Day 200 - Turns out the couple were blackmailed by MI5 and assisted by the SAS on the orders of 'someone in No 10' during the last hours of the bunker.
Day 500 - Political editors of Guardian, BBC and Independent ask what all the fuss is about as this internet thing is just a flash in the pan... from Hawaii, where President for Life Obama has established a Useful Idiot compound to write and mail to Islington, Westminster and certain West London addresses all the news that's still fit to print on dead trees.
Day 499 - BBC run the story, forgetting the time change, and dismiss claims they are just a PR machine for certain agendas masquerading as fact and objectivity. Explain that their ratings and executive bonuses depend on 'enhancing the narrative' and 'interpreting events' as the UK audience need to be helped to thinking about things in 'the right... er... correct... way'.
Day 501 - PM Cameron does sod all as, um, it's kind of useful having a PR machine that is funded by the Govt. and EU and will dance to any tune required, when required
Day 502 - I, and a few others eventually get the nerve to cancel our DDs. The full force of the law is duly applied.
Day 600 - Rapists and murderers are released early from jails to make way.... the BBC is unique. Unique I tell you!!!!!!

Sorry, it's early (despite the time change) and the world really has gone mad!!!!

ps: Mods. I know it is 'off topic', but the point kind of is what does get chosen to 'be topic' these days. And as a bit of Catch 22 from a free press it's hard to fathom... or justify.

Oddly, it was deemed... No. 37... broke the rules.

And, now, is 'closed for comments'. Well, I never.

Newsnight -
Newsnight - Seeme they are cool nect door. 5. At 10:02am on 29 Mar 2009, JunkkMale wrote: Mods. I salute you! I know it is 'off topic', but the point kind of is what does get chosen to 'be topic' these days. And as a bit of Catch 22 from a free press it?s often hard to fathom? or justify.

Let the flames begin!

BBC - Smith thought she'd be cleared - Bless. Like the conspiracy notion that hubs fell on his sword (so to speak) as a get out.

522. I really hope this gets past the mods (who I doubt are reading this far, either), as it is newsworthy, 'cos Aunty has played it up big time all day, so it must be.

I am not up to speed on the facts, but it seems taken as read there is someone leaking, though I have yet to find out where this originated. Oddly, no news reporters seem too concerned about that.

The only thing I have heard is a succession of useful idiots wheeled on as proxies to whisper it 'may' be a Tory mole. Rhymes at least with Tory trolls, the default response to any pro-Labour defender (and some who give 'em airspace) to, well anything about this government of all the talents that isn't rote praise or defensive excuse.

And not, I suspect, playing to well with those who are not Tories, but do have some cause for concerns. [Comments closed soon thereafter]


________

Guardian - Who would you rather trust - the BBC or a blogger? -

Oh, a nerve being touched. I can tell when I get to pp 3 and find there are, in fact, even more. Sorry if I repeat anything as I tend not to wade through after this point, and skip to the end.

Lazy, but lucky in this case as I by coincidence got to...

NickReynolds
30 Mar 09, 11:51am

People may be interested in the reaction of the BBC's Richard Sambrook on his personal blog:

Disclaimer - I work for the BBC.

Nick, I have seen you post, and engage, elsewhere, before,. Better than most... any from the Beeb bubble. And that is to be respected.

But having taken Mr. Sambrook's link, and read on despite the deja vu of seeing 'I can't be bothered' in the intro (do some seriously think that gets other online readers/bloggers onside?) I then opted against engaging there.

Partly because such a smug effort deserves to lie in the wasteland for all the arrogance it represents (a bit of an Aunty trait), but also because I'm getting a tad ticked off replying, politely, and then getting moderated or complained out by legions of green inkers on staff or funded by quangos (and hence funded) for pretty darn spurious reasons.

I am in a bizarre Catch 22 exchange with Nick Robinsons's blog minders, having escalated to a complaint, where they are saying I was 'off topic' and I'm pointing out that if they use 'not newsworthy' as a reason for not even entertaining the notion of a story, than that is bias by omission at best.

To Nick C's question 'Who would you rather trust - the BBC or a blogger?'..

... the answer now, sadly, has to be neither, with all the reasons already well articulated by many (which the BBC will doubtless airily dismiss as it does not apply to 'them'). But, at least, I will concur with the point about bloggers' reputations for accuracy and honesty making or breaking them, where Aunty, is, well, 'unique' however she blunders on. In waaaaay too many ways, for now.

Also I can arrive at some view just be surfing across the spread and coming to my own.

I'll simply say that 'enhancing narratives', 'interpreting events' and other fun ways of playing with facts and even opinions 'to suit in the suite', is not winning many fans , guys.

But keep on deleting, banning, omitting, editing, sneering and insulting if you think that's the way to keep the funding rolling in.

I'm not a Tory blogger. But I am getting a tad fed up being treated by some who think that's the way to defend rubbish reporting, being caught with knickers down, or in a twist, poor science and a very odd way with freedom of speech, as if it some old boys' broadcasting club.

Telegraph - Jacqui Smith is clinging on by her fingernails - I do believe, even in 'retirement', the means will exist for us to cover the manicure.

Telegraph - Making you pay for their porn won't stimulate the economy

Telegraph - Public opinion demands that Jacqui Smith must go - Now, now. For this poor woman, and mother, who would support the notion of justice via public op... oh.

Gaurdian - Jacqui Smith is a victim of the new wave of puritanism - For, er, 'balance'. And here was me thinking it was the taxpayers were the victims of her greed and ineptitude. 700+ comments!

Comment is free, until...

I was going to headline this 'Keep on digging', but actually it's all about stopping.

The Prime Minister yesterday decided to use the comfort zone of a low circulation broadsheet to share his latest 'vision'. We are about to take the war against terror to a new level

Sadly, it did not go quite as expected. Almost no one from what might be assumed to be a more receptive audience has responded very well.

I only share this by a rather odd response by the Guardian, with a cheery message from the 'CommunityMod': 'Please note, this thread will shortly be closing for the night. Thank you for your interest.'... Comments are now closed for this entry.

Not sure that worked out as well as it might, either: Amazing the number of threads in which the government and New Labour stooges get a right royal pasting which are then closed early. Wonder why that is?

is it usual for threads to be closed for the night? or only when the pm is getting his ass kicked black and blue? just asking...

I also liked this:

T.he
W.ar
A.gainst
T.error

Says it all Gordie.

Comment may be free, but it seems only as long as those who control the medium are happy to allow the chips to fall where they may. Funny how 'liberal' media such as the Grauniad and the BBC seem prone to pulling things when the public don't cooperate.

Speaking of capturing moods... Gordon Brown strikes a false note on Jade Goody

Or...

BBC - PM leads tributes to Jade Goody - I thought he might have called her Jane Tweed based on his deep interest and awareness of the whole tragic tale.

The lad vanishes

Moderation is a tricky one. I think some fail miserably.

Top 10 who Gordon Brown should blame for his US visit flop

A poster has now be 'moderated' twice. I saw one. It contravened nothing, save to criticise the moderating policy that removed the first, calling the paper the 'Labourgraph'. It has now gone too.

I wonder how long mine will last. A sad day for freedom of speech.

Comes to something when I rate the Guardian more more open on the moderating stakes.

And even the BBC, whilst worse, at least allows you to see when their hobnail boots have stamped all over free speech in the name of some sensibilities... or agendas.

Ok, it's your paying field. If you want to send people off that's fine, but the rest of the spectators might benefit from seeing at least an acknowledgement, if not explanation.

Otherwise the game makes no sense. Or maybe to some that doesn't matter in this process over product lunatic asylum we call a culture.

Spring Cleaning

Time to rethink the blogging.

Junkk is still well worth it, as relationships can get established that drive the site, and its missions, well.

This one... not so much. Though actually I think I will retain it as a 'release valve'.

But I have found I spend a wee bit too much time on other sites, and their value, and certainly the value to me or my causes, is hardly worth the effort of engaging.

It is a pity, as many, if not most can offer a wealth of valuable opinion and onward information, but the ratio of trolls and other negative influences make even the time invested in reading hardly worth it. As to go so far as engaging, the replies can now be less than pleasant, and almost designed to threaten or inhibit dialogue.

It was, and is, interfering with my work, and indeed mood. So time to haul back.

I doubt my absence will be noted, and hence missed. Too many too invested in pushing their prejudices I fear.

But maybe a chance for me to get back to what's a bit more urgent , and important in these crunchier times. I just wonder if that doesn't rather play into the hands of those who would prefer the more moderate aspects of the Internet didn't prove quiet so effective at finding things out, being told stuff and interacting. Making a venue an unpleasant place to be is a very good way of driving away custom, no matter how good it is intended to be.

Ah well.

Moderation views

This comment on a thread about blogs, and moderation caught my eye...

"Incidentally, if you are a regular at Guido's establishment, I'm surprised you find the tone here too robust for your taste! "

I gave up reading the comments ;o)


Thir... er.. fourthed!

I still check the site as the introductory topics are still often well worth noting and can indeed be worthy 'scoops'.

The comments are however not worth a second's attention (I think the owner is recognising this as I recall a year end post about policing more effectively. Wise, as he is in danger of losing more moderate readers, and certainly potentially valuable contributors by the % of silly dross).

It's the curse of the moderator to walk the line between freedom of speech and policing time-wasters, wafflers, trolls and professional saboteurs 'fairly'.

What I value about this site to date is the majority of comments are often well considered (if a bit ripe and hence for me detracting from their potency, IMHO) and, crucially, based around well-support fact, with some great onward links. If I had a critique, it would be to lump those who do have decent views in 'groups' too easily just for having other views. 'Is see the beeboids are out', 'are you an antisemite?', etc. Ad hominems that weaken any other aspect, no matter how valuable, severely, at least when I read them. And, possibly why genuine debaters from other viewpoints may no linger as long as one might hope to see if the power of argument of opposing sides can be resolved. It takes guts to go into a Lion's Den of contrary views (CiF is a daily chore). I found David Gregory a bit faithful to the party line in the face of potent counters on occasion, but what on earth would one expect if he's prepared to own up to his allegiance... and paymasters? Plus he was usually arguing about science with at least a fair bit of justification as to background. I for one was sorry to lose him.

As I'm no IT expert I know this is a suggestion based in impractical fantasy land, but after suffering as a user and vicariously as a blog owner the travails of many sites, I was wondering if it were possible to run a two track side-by-side or perhaps colour coded traffic light style system.

It's still a compromise, but uses the power and expandability of the internet in ways Voltaire might see merit in.

All posts go up, and hence are not 'censored', but those that really seem to be contributing little (or detracting) could be either sidelined or at least flagged for folk to check, and indeed still engage with (I really don't like some sites that have all sorts of threads spinning off, but can see this working on the basis that if the first is not really doing much, anything subsequent, even reasoned rebuttals, are unlikely to go anywhere of much value, which is how trolls thrive), at their leisure.

The flagging could be down to the site owner/moderator, and/or tipped off or supported by site users in much the same way as any 'Report this comment/recommend' links are used on such as CiF. Only without the oblivion aspect to the former that such champions of press freedom (when it suits) as the BBC can impose.

I for one would value an amber or red hue when the owner and/or many others think things are not faithful to the site rules or mission, and then would have the option of skipping over easily... or checking the culprit out if still so disposed. I do it now anyway when certain names appear.

It's just a very top of mind thought. One designed to help any site that deals in heated issues, to try and keep temperatures down (or at least properly vented) and debate values maintained with site reputation free(er) from those who would seek to compromise it though pushing to discrediting extremes.

There are some fine minds as well as some savvy IT bods here, so I am simply interested in whether it's doable or indeed desirable.

Head ducks down behind parapet.

Newsnight

Aunty adds a final straw

The BBC is stout in its defence of 'edgy' humour.

Which is what I use to encourage them to ponder their often selective reporting and editorial.

You'd think Newsnight might have mentioned the Glenrothes election in advance, to help them form a view, a bit like the saturation coverage of the US version they seemed to prefer, and still do, over anything closer to home.

So when the first post that wasn't totally US-centric appeared, I pounced:

1.5% worth of humble pie?

Might Glenrothes get a mention, too?

I know it's just an election pertinent to the UK, but as it's also an indicator on a section of the public's views on the competencies of those best placed to help us manage the downturn (I thought 'recession' was non grata - sorry, Bournemouth Council - off limits?), it might rate some coverage.

Even if it is 'once the dust has settled'.

Don't want any voters get silly ideas in advance, do we?

Oh look, a puppy!

Unfortunately, 'This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.'

There are several vague 'catch-alls', but I suspect this is the one they will use:

Are considered to be off-topic for the particular message board

Very Hitchhikers Guide. Especially for a post that is trying to point out that the message board has had no topics about the UK for long enough.

Sickening.

They have been warned:

Dear Mods,

Refer away. But you better have a pretty darn good reason not to approve that post eventually.

Otherwise I will have to presume Hazel Blears has found the prefect test bed from within her party's media comfort zone.

Addendum: I now have a reason, if not a very good excuse:

Thank you for contributing to a BBC Blog. Unfortunately we've had to remove your content below

This post has been removed because special House Rules are in effect during Polling Day. In common with other media organisation the BBC does not discuss elections while the polls are open and users of the BBC website must also abide by these rules.

Telegraph - Hazel Blears, bloggers and professional politics -

From the 'Paranoia is knowing they are out to get you' files, a Macbethian (aka 'The Scottish Play' to those of superstitious thespian bent) tale of caution, with a bonus for any who appreciate the Hitch-hikers Guide to the Galaxy.

After wall to wall US 'news' up to and including today, to the exclusion of all else, I had cause to ponder on the Newsnight blog what else might get a mention, such as Glenrothes.

Seems special 'House Rules are in effect during Polling Days'.

So... nothing discussed that isn't fancied before, can't during, and only the possibility of passing reference afterwards, unless it works out better than expected, in which case it will doubtless be top of the news for days.

Where's a Vogon Constructor Fleet when you need one?

I'd say what is being discussed is already here, with the enthusiastic support of some media who seem to have decided where their loyalties lie.

Irony Alert - My footy wooty blog

Rather delecious to note that one of Russel Brand's major media defenders (well, mostly) with its defenders of free speech readership, has this blog..

What a barmy, hysterical, cosmic week

But rather liberally littered with this:

This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.

Oh, the irony.

What's worse (or more interesting) than being 'moderated'

Nothing to be proud of (mind you, for the 'reasons', mostly not given, I am not so sure), but I get 'moderated' every so often.

Usually I take it with poor grace and move on.

However, I seem to have hit on a new phenomenon: 'Comment Erased'. As in didn't, doesn't and won't, at least as far as the publication goes, exist at all... ever.

It's bit like those photos of the Politburo on May Day, with some dude Tippexed out.

Look at the time and date above: Oct 24 08, 11.39am.

Now have a gander at the thread I posted on: Tories talking Britain down

Scroll down to: ABasu - Oct 24 08, 11:35am, and then to the next, EuropeanOnion
Oct 24 08, 11:47am

What seems to be missing? Now I know I was 'edge of topic', but the point was/is valid, and applied to this author.

Not exactly Comment Is Free, eh?

A harbinger of things to come, I wonder?

Repeat a lie enough...

Ta, Josef. You knew your stuff.

Newsnight - Monday, 20 October, 2008

Didn't watch so can't comment on the context, but might one enquire if the person to whom the comment was directed was indeed lying? And did the moderator assist the viewer to a conclusion?

If Mr. Robinson was not economical with the truth then Mr. Redwood's response would indeed reflect poorly upon him.

However, if the show is merely to allow voice to any old Pol's Porkies without being held to account, then I'd say it is both Mr. Robinson AND the host who need a bit of... um... help.

Frankly I am wondering what value most on-air interviews have these days when rampant untruths and/or errors of omission and/or selective claims are allowed to be made that demand immediate and total refutation by those who are paid, and should know enough of the actual facts, to put such things squarely in their places.

And if not at the time for whatever reason, then if demanded there should be follow up. Which is why I like the Ch4 Fact Checker, though 6 and 3/4 folk probably see it vs. the millions who get served a whopper and swallow it thanks to the 'integrity' of the medium it emanates from.

When it comes to holding those in power to account, I could therefore live with fewer displays of 'charm' if being sold a pup is the alternative consequence.

Allow a lie to be repeated enough...

Addendum - I have asked the man himself. We'll see.

I think I may be a PCist

Newsnight - Big picture: crisis, crash, depression? - (posted here as there was no other thread for the day at that time)

At least, if that defines a mortal loathing of anything that uses an ill-defined, unproven spanner to seize up the system, especially with a monetary motive often in tow..

I was just watching this morning's report of the accusations of racism in the Met.

I will be interested in how this plays out.

All this has come to a head mostly during the recent multi-year tenure of which ex-mayor and which, now ex-, head of the Met?

As far as I can gather Mayor Johnson has responded, quite quickly (if only with another 'inquiry', like they ever do anything). I wonder how some media will address this so soon after the critiques of his role in the resignation of a bloke he said (during his campaign) he couldn't work with. And, it seems, was at the head of this latest PC- (in all senses of the word) 'spat'.

Which is cropping up a lot these days. It seems we are now in a society where senior managers have to work with/keep employed/promote folk that they cannot work with (tricky one, I agree), but who also may not be up to the job.

Nothing like a target, quota or positive advocacy (with inevitably unpopular views - which possibly get deemed racist? - amongst those within not being blessed) to keep things feisty in the state of Denmark.

Odd way to run an efficient business.

And I must keep an ear out for the way words fly about. I am never too sure these days what 'racist' or 'racism' means, but there is surely a difference between proven examples of it and any Tom, Dick or [insert name of balance here] using it to set up a compo claim with the support of the media?

Addendum: My first blog post rejection. Not sure whether to be appalled, or proud.

The story so far...

On 6 Oct 2008, at 11:32, blogpaulmason wrote:

Dear BBC Blog contributor,

Thank you for contributing to a BBC Blog. Unfortunately we've had to remove your content below

Postings to BBC blogs will be removed if they appear to be potentially defamatory.

You can find out more about Defamation at http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/hub/HouseRules-Defamation

You can read the BBC Blog and messageboard House Rules in full here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/messageboards/newguide/popup_house_rules.html

If you can rewrite your contribution to remove the problem, we'd be happy for you to post it again.

Please note that anyone who seriously or repeatedly breaks the House Rules may have action taken against their account.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/messageboards/newguide/popup_breaking_rules.html

Regards,

The BBC Blog Team

A reply has been in order:

Dear Sirs,

As I cannot see a problem , and you have not seen fit to specify what it might be out of a myriad possible options and catch-alls, I am currently unable to rewrite it.

Care to explain which part is defamatory, and to whom, as that seems to be where you are headed.

Having read the definition:

Exposing the individual or organisation to hatred, ridicule or contempt;

Causing the individual or organisation to be shunned or avoided;

Lowering the individual or organisation in the estimation of right-thinking members of society; or

Disparaging the individual in their office, profession or trade or the organisation's office, profession or trade.

You are having a laugh, right?

I'd say that by this definition almost no content should even get on your broadcast (especially some satirical shows) output, let alone a blog.

Rgds,

Don't cross Aunty

This provoked this response from a poster on a site I frequent. I thought it was a well-writtem, if personal critique.

Shame it didn't go down well.

I would be interested to find out how this comment was even deemed necessary for such moderation attention in the first place and, if it 'fails', why.

Truth is the first victim in more than war

Over on Junkk Male RE:view I have had cause to comment already today that the ratings of 'debate' seem more important than actually getting to the truth... or facts.

But then I look at my morning blogs and newsletters and see that is is pretty much across the entire mainstream media estate.

Guardian - Time to stop criticising China - we've already come so far - An interesting position, with perhaps a few flaws worth exploiting. A poster asks what the writers' background is. Fair question. Not saying there is any merit but, how, exactly, does one acquire the status of main, or even 'guest' blogger, and evidently without the possibility of any editorial concern.

Telegraph - Inquiry into television shows funded by ministers - 'Nuff said, shot, edited and served up as...?

You expect government, and indeed any body with an interest to promote, to try all they can, including porkies, to swing their message past us.

But when there is almost no attempt by those media being so used and abused to cut through to the objective cores, and act as informed modertators, they really deserve no more trust than those whose propaganda they carry so willingly and for such dubious ends.

Telegraph - Why is the Home Office funding TV programmes with your money?

Indy - Guy Adams' US Media Diary: The 'scoop' the US papers ignored

Indy - How the Taxpayers' Alliance is making headlines

When two tripes go to war

It's hard not to enjoy, to an extent, spats between media about themselves.

That Comment Is Free argument again

Hard not to err on the side of the Telegraph author here.

And that is some moderation systems are more equal than others. At least when it comes to getting to 'correct' views going/staying in, and those that are not being rejected.

Apparently.

ps: Re: 'I too am surprised that the Telegraph is happy to see so many pro-BNP comments on its site, but that's your decision. I wouldn't want my brand to be so closely associated with them,'

Forgive me, but are the BNP not also a legal political party, for whom I can opt not to vote? I would worry a bit if a major medium denied their existence and I was required to find out what they believe by other, less mainstream ways by an odd notion of what I am capable of deciding, using my own mind and free choices.

Seems an odd, and for me poor example to use in this argument.

Trikki Wiki

Or... Wikimedia Foundation muzzles Wikinews

Rupert does it. Richard does it. Even the Guardian does it. The BBC certainly does. Heck, if cornered I do.

But why do they all claim they don't?

Thing is, as always, there are lines. The trick is walking them.

Erosion by stealth

I now have a new word for the lexicon: 'shutters'.

Comments on ‘BBC's Today Programme shutters message board’

I do concern myself when those who believe they know better 'protect' me from the thoughts and opinions of others so I may be better guided to the 'correct' viewpoint that they seem to believe they are in a better position to judge... and moderate.

Whilst trolls and the like can be very wearing, one can always skip and/or delete grotesque viewpoints. But in seeking information it is often interesting what diamonds may be found in the slurry. Which makes wallowing solely in one's own comfort-zone mud hole a rather restricted exercise in navel-gazing.

Hence I lurk (and occasionally pitch-in, which can be... 'testing') across all sorts, from Biased BBC to Guardian CiF.

As to the BBC... well, I think they opened a Pandora's Box with 'free' (subject to moderation) comment, regretted it, and are trying to either kill it off or reduce it to a more manageable entity.

Under the guise of 'resolving' what was a totally inexplicable, but certainly woeful system (Error messages all the time), they have instituted a whole new effort that has reduced both numbers and quality of comment to a dribble... of mostly dribbling numpties. So where once I enjoyed participating on the BBC2 Newsnight blog, on top of the 'regulars with a bit too much time in the day' it's hardly worth it any more (lack of preview, no more hyperlinks, no user ID links, concerns of data security, etc). Certainly I have better ways to spend my day.

Just, one might imagine, what the were trying to achieve. 'First they ditched HYS because of all the nasty righties, and so I could not post....'