Something to chew on for our readers.
Sue and Craig who used to post here have set up their own site reporting on bias in the BBC….‘Is The BBC Biased?’
They say that the reason for doing so was that they were being stereotyped and labelled because of their views…and secondly that the comments below the posts were too aggressive and cliched.
Certainly there are attempts by some subversive ‘critics’ of this site to sabotage it and create the impression that everyone who reads it is some right wing BNP member….doing so by posting comments about Muslims or mentioning the ‘Final Solution’ whilst pretending to be right wing. They are trying their best to get this site labelled a ‘hate site’ ….they don’t like criticism of the BBC and seem to be keen to use any underhand method to stop it. They usually get deleted…as do racist, homophobic or otherwise unwelcome comments.
Having said that this is a pretty free and easy site for moderating comments….the occassional abuse and aggressiveness, which comes oddly mostly from our critics, serves only to discredit themselves…I remain entirely unbothered by it…they could learn something from Scott who, whilst I disagree with much of what he says, is reasoned and restrained in his comments…and by virtue of that would be all the more effective if only he was right.
The site does not block anyone for their politics or philosophy or their opinions or beliefs…..that is why we criticise the BBC for censoring the ‘voices’ of people they don’t want to hear, those who oppose the things that the BBC has decided it likes and supports.
The site is non-political…any mention of ideologies or policies is purely to provide context to illustrate why the BBC is biased and why that is the wrong approach with potentially damaging effects on society.
This site aims to stop the BBC declaring some subjects off limits or taboo…whether that is Islam, climate change or immigration or whatever. It is not for the BBC to decide what is fit and proper for discussion.
The closing down of debate and the lack of questioning of the ‘consensus’ which guides for example government policy, can lead to dangerous consequences…..we have an unusually cold winter right now…heating fuel grows ever more expensive and people are shutting off their heating….Age Concern tells us old people are dieing because of that…a result of the green energy policy implemented without any real debate or opposition…aided by the BBC….a rigorous debate on the science and solutions would have perhaps come up with a better, safer policy.
Some comments are aggressive, or rude, or extreme…but this is not a site that thinks you should all be enlightened, middle class, progressive libertarians…..as I said there are some limits but generally we prefer a wide spread of voices and opinions.
It seems to work though…and surprisingly perhaps, most comments are of a moderate nature….reasoned, intelligent, measured and bringing both a width of experience and knowledge to the blog that couldn’t come from the few regular posters such as myself….nor could we possibly do without the constant referrals to information that the readers provide…..the ‘Biased BBC Irregulars’.
All in all I think Sue and Craig are wrong about the comments on this site….they are a necessary part of it and bring life and an invaluable extra dimension to it…even if that extra dimension is sometimes ‘out there’.
‘Here on “IS” Craig frames his critiques in a conscientious and fair manner. Rational, and some may say, even-handed. Me – probably less so, but I try not to hurtle towards irrational or extreme language.
We hope someone somewhere will be persuaded by our brilliant reasoning and charming personalities.
The drawback is that the minute we express our views, we risk stereotyping ourselves and losing the very people we wouldst seduce. By continually hammering out complaints about the same old things we’re almost bound to be ‘stereotyped’ without really trying. But while the same old things are bothering us, what can else can we do? Give in?
When we wrote articles for the Biased BBC blog we had the same problem. Even when we set a measured tone, as reasonable and restrained as could be, the below the line commenters, in their enthusiasm, would frequently lapse into cliched memes and mantras. What more foolproof way to antagonise readers who didn’t see it their way.
A few years ago one or two spokespersons from the BBC dropped in to defend their employer, or to dispute some point or other with the B-BBC community. At best, a rally of claims and counter-claims might ensue, but the banter usually involved a lone BBC representative versus a gaggle of aggressive Biased-BBCers. You had to admire the pluck of the former. More often than not the BBC’s input would be in the form of a one-off snipe. Not much use to man or beast. Any replies and responses piled up unanswered, stranded; the best that could be hoped for was that the silent sniper had lurked, read and left.
In an act of principled self-destruction we decided to forgo a widely read platform and languish here on our own-io. To be hoist by our own supporters, or stand alone, fancy-free and self-determining in obscurity, that is the question.