I mean, just the other day, I posted regarding a Sydney Morning Herald article in the Fairfax thread, and you buzzed in to link to a News Corp article to argue how News Corp is worse than Fairfax. That’s turning a thread political - AND being off-topic.
The one thing I think you’re missing, is that MediaSpy isn’t inherently political. It has a political slant (anti-Murdoch, centre-left), but the majority of the content is mainly relating to presentation. The bias is nothing more than reflective of the views of people who take an interest in television presentation, presenter rosters and reality television. Therefore, politics and critiquing editorial decisions have never been the focus.
That clashes with a lot of what you post I think, and I can’t speak for others, but politically charged posts about editorial decisions at the ABC, for instance, are a bit out of step with the norm and thus come up against opposition.
Presentation is a solid niche not really catered for. However, political discussion and ABC/Fairfax bashing/defending can be found on many other forums. Further, we all know that no one is going to change their minds, and we’ve all heard the arguments pro and anti before.
The more political these forums become (from both angles), the worse this’ll become for everyone.
Just my 2c
8 Likes
That’s why I’ve asked for clarification on what is permitted to be posted in specific threads - are we a media analysis website only looking at form, and not substance?
To be honest, I’ve been a member since 2005 and have really only posted about the ABC regularly in the last 2 years. Mainly because:
- the media itself has become much more overtly political since that time, and I strongly feel instances where public broadcasters, for example, are not being politically neutral should be pointed out;
- the introduction of hyper-political programming, such as Q&A, and the conversation in the national political sphere regarding their bias;
- you dispute every issue I raise, and apologies if I don’t remember your username, but I don’t recall you being an active participant on the old forum. That’s fine, and I’m happy to argue my case back, but don’t complain then that the forums are political or that you get bored of it.
Perhaps it’s ABC and Fairfax defending for you. I’m an ABC viewer, and a previous Fairfax subscriber. I’m raising instances where I think standards have clearly not been met. I’m not here to change any mind about anything. I have zero interest in that. But, I feel strongly that instances where standards have not been met should be made public on the record here - as is often the case, many Fairfax articles are then edited, previous versions never to be seen again.
OK. Well stop attacking me whenever I raise a content issue with ABC or Fairfax then? Problem solvered, lol. You seem to treat each of my posts in those threads as a personal slight on you.
Everyone needs to live and let live. If you want to peruse News Corp articles and highlight instances where standards have not been met - knock yourself out matlock. I wouldn’t care if you did that 24 hours a day. In the same way, I’d like to post about what I want to post about - without others constantly complaining about it.
You obviously don’t remember the whopper arguments between Mr Q and the Sunrise obsessive, modecko, in that instance. 
1 Like
There’s a difference between something being ‘forbidden’ and something being out of step with the rest of the community. The former the moderators handle and the latter is taken care of the community at large.
What I am arguing is that Mediaspy caters to a specific niche, and the type of content which has been becoming more prominent on this forum doesn’t really fit that niche. That carries the risk of these forums becoming just another political forum, which is a) boring b) not what I signed up for, and c) already catered for elsewhere.
[quote=“Firetorch, post:839, topic:22”]
you dispute every issue I raise, and apologies if I don’t remember your username, but I don’t recall you being an active participant on the old forum.
[/quote]Because if something is posted which is inherently political, staying quiet isn’t really an option.
And I’ve been a member since 2011. I was also a contributor to the News section at one point, so I was by no means invisible.
[quote=“Firetorch, post:839, topic:22”]
OK. Well stop attacking me whenever I raise a content issue with ABC or Fairfax then? Problem solvered, lol. You seem to treat each of my posts in those threads as a personal slight on you.
[/quote]I don’t attack you mate. I refute what you have to say. Nothing is a slight unless I feel that I’ve been dragged through the mud first.
The recent instance in which you brought up a six month old post of mine and accused me of intentionally misleading others, using a story not available to me at the time of me posting, is an example. I was mentioned explicitly by name. There are better ways of framing a constructive discussion, and thus keeping the forums free from combative rhetoric, than that.
[quote=“Firetorch, post:841, topic:22”]
You obviously don’t remember the whopper arguments between Mr Q and the Sunrise obsessive, modecko, in that instance.
[/quote]I don’t but that is most likely from a time when things were much less partisan than today. With such a politically charged climate, either the community becomes reflective of that and thus much more divided, or the site becomes focused on its niche with less political discussion.
I’d hazard a guess that the admins and mods have already discussed - or are now discussing - this.
But you never do that. You attack people for expressing any opinion different to yours. And in many cases, you post links to articles in order to bait people into an argument and sometimes even name them specifically. That’s flaming and trolling.
I think it’s worth mentioning that there are right-wingers on this forum who I generally respect and think add to the conversation. TFTV and Zacgb, for example.
Political beliefs aren’t the issue here. It’s the way in which members conduct themselves.
2 Likes
That’s why we need clarification from the mods as to whether discussing substance, as well as form, is encouraged on these forums.
I really don’t think MediaSpy is becoming a political forum. Simply hyperbole.
And as for you personally, check out the politics threads - you post in them more than anyone else.
What on earth does this even mean. One second you say politics on this site is boring. Then you say staying quiet isn’t an option. If you’re bored, then yes, stay quiet.
Oh no no no - you had dragged my name through the mud when you first posted about Angela Merkel several months ago - basically accusing me of being an ignorant bigot, in comparison to Merkel. I said little to you at the time regarding that point. When Germany voted for same-sex marriage last week, I searched the thread to refer back to that discussion, to underline how grostesquely unfair your smear on me had been, in light of events just this week regarding Merkel.
This is the crux of the issue - if I am raising an issue with Fairfax, for example, using the term “labour camps” to discuss Abbott’s employment plans - why on earth does this mean I need a response from a partisan who feels COMPELLED to defend that indefensible language?
Really? Tell me regarding which topics, or which threads, I’ve told you to stop posting about, or in.
If you’re getting “baited into argument” by me posting a link to an article, that’s an issue you have, not me. In all honesty, you snark and argue with a million other people in the ratings forums and have for years. I don’t think I’m the issue there…
Oh you do not, lol.
The simple truth of the matter is this:
- I very much like to keep the flame of scrutiny on the media organisations I use - namely ABC News, and Fairfax media. This necessitates me posting articles which I find fall below standards.
- You and matlock, and a number of others, feel slighted, annoyed, aggrieved that I highlight instances of hypocrisy and nonsense in those products.
I have mocked them in the past but I trust that they have thick skin and can get over it. I am willing to get mocked if I say something deadshit and have been plenty of times in the past.
[quote=“Firetorch, post:849, topic:22”]
2) You and matlock, and a number of others, feel slighted, annoyed, aggrieved that I highlight instances of hypocrisy and nonsense in those products.
[/quote]If that view is expressed by a number of members, then perhaps some introspection mightn’t go amiss?
That’s all from me today.
Apologies for the interruption - just letting you know the staff are discussing this matter and will advise in due course.
Resume bickering.
1 Like
Right. So hypocrisy and nonsense published by Fairfax is totally fine, just as long as matlock, JBar and TVHead aren’t irritated on MediaSpy. 
I will certainly not be conducting myself on that basis.
Everyone has their right to their own opinion, and their opinion can be heard in appropriate threads. Remember, one’s opinion doesn’t outwit another.
Both sides, even though you might not agree with them bring valuable and insightful Information to the discussion. But we all have a role in preventing the discussion from becoming argumentive.
12 Likes
As @Bort said we (staff) are currently discussing this - the intention is to give a response to @firetorch questions later today
In the interim I ask that everyone takes a step back at this point before the thread descends into further needless argument.
5 Likes
Ok…
Let’s start with @Firetorch original post:
As far as I’m concerned, as long as you’re not talking about something that either is off-topic (ie about an unrelated outlet), breaks a law or is considered a ‘verboten’ topic by staff, there is no restriction on what you can discuss in a thread.
What this might mean (and something that we may need to consider) is splitting some threads into multiple discussions, similar to what we’ve done in the Television News section - how this would work is not something I have any concrete ideas on (and may not be necessary in some cases).
This is a difficult one and is not something that can be summed up in some kind of catch-all ruling - it may need to depend on the circumstance. My initial reaction is as long as it contributes something meaningful to the discussion and is not an attempt to derail the thread then it shouldnt matter how many times it is raised
Again this can be difficult to establish some kind of hard-and-fast rule and requires those participating in the conversation (regardless of what side of the debate they take) to take some responsibility for ensuring this won’t happen. I favour self-moderation over staff intervention, but there will be times where staff will issue what is in effect a ‘move on’ order.
Posting for the sole purpose of baiting others is not acceptable - I would have thought that this goes without saying.
I’d like to think we shouldn’t need to clarify a position on this issue, but clearly, we need to (and hopefully above does this)
There can be a fine line between debate (and banter) and trolling and flaming and drawing the line between the two can be very subjective - someone who has a different opinion to you isn’t instantly a troll.
In the main this is true, however we allow all-encompassing discussion about matters related to the media and current affairs, which by their nature are often political - where we can, these have been separated out into “The Spectrum” to move them away from the core theme (for want of a better term) of the site.
Participating in these threads (and the forum in general) is by choice - I would suggest that anybody wanting to participate in some of the more political aspects of discussion need to consider whether they are willing to discuss matters with others who may share diametrically opposed views to you and are willing to debate them in a potentially vociferous manner. I’d like to think that if you’re willing to wade your way into the political discussion, you’d be willing to accept this.
Time for some honesty - the way some have carried on about this issue is disappointing, particularly given that in the main you are intelligent people. There is no need for discussions to get derailed to such a point that it becomes something you’d see in the schoolyard.
People have different opinions and they may look at the same as you slightly differently. This doesn’t automatically make them a worse person than you.
I strongly believe that debating is a healthy and important skill that you can have - even if you only ever use it bashing the keys on your keyboard, but you also need to know where debating starts and stops (and escalates to something else)
I’d prefer not to have to take drastic action - penalty boxing, removing posting privileges to certain areas, restricting discussion of certain issues etc, however, this is guided by the conduct of the member-base.
Now in closing, I will envisage some of you will believe that I’m taking one side over the another - this simply isn’t true. I have responded to the direct questions that @Firetorch has posted as a clarification - if this doesn’t offer sufficient clarification or you have subsequent questions, please ask them here - from here out for this discussion, any attempt to snipe another member or to continue the bickering will be simply deleted.
If you have an issue with anything else I’ve raised here (other than what I’ve said directly above), please let me know (preferably by PM, there is no need for this thread to be further clogged up with the continuance of this discussion)
17 Likes
No further issue; thanks for addressing my three specific points.
2 Likes