|
Canada11587 Posts
On July 29 2014 01:36 2primenumbers wrote:
IT is absurd that you believe that any news source is neutral and have pushed a large part of the discussion underground with this policy.
Best Regards,
RG
People seem to be really hung up on the existential issue of 'neutrality', cynically wondering if such a thing can exist. Whereas the ban is purely practical. Can we be assured prefect neutrality, of course not. Can we clean up a lot of propaganda garbage by allowing other news sources filter it out? Yes. Furthermore, by moving it away from Ukranian and Russian sources, it is far easier to judge the quality of the media given that most of the moderators are not well-versed in Russian and Ukranian media and their relative reliability (I know I am not.) But I can call B.S. when someone through conspiracy theories, tries to undercut the credibilty of reasonably credible Western journalists. It's on familiar stomping grounds that are much easier to research credentials and past history of reporting.
|
On July 29 2014 10:19 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2014 01:36 2primenumbers wrote:
IT is absurd that you believe that any news source is neutral and have pushed a large part of the discussion underground with this policy.
Best Regards,
RG People seem to be really hung up on the existential issue of 'neutrality', cynically wondering if such a thing can exist. Whereas the ban is purely practical. Can we be assured prefect neutrality, of course not. Can we clean up a lot of propaganda garbage by allowing other news sources filter it out? Yes. Furthermore, by moving it away from Ukranian and Russian sources, it is far easier to judge the quality of the media given that most of the moderators are not well-versed in Russian and Ukranian media and their relative reliability (I know I am not.) But I can call B.S. when someone through conspiracy theories, tries to undercut the credibilty of reasonably credible Western journalists. It's on familiar stomping grounds that are much easier to research credentials and past history of reporting.
And yet, what's left seems to be more along the line of Twitter feeds and Western anti-Russia opinion pieces. Apparently having a "personal opinion" is also forbidden.
The result is that a large number of people straight up refuse to participate. If the goal is to keep the discussion from really happening (an understandable goal in light of the original thread), then it does just that. If not, it's quite a misguided policy. Real opposing sources are important for a real discussion.
|
On July 29 2014 10:19 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2014 01:36 2primenumbers wrote:
IT is absurd that you believe that any news source is neutral and have pushed a large part of the discussion underground with this policy.
Best Regards,
RG People seem to be really hung up on the existential issue of 'neutrality', cynically wondering if such a thing can exist. Whereas the ban is purely practical. Can we be assured prefect neutrality, of course not. Can we clean up a lot of propaganda garbage by allowing other news sources filter it out? Yes. Furthermore, by moving it away from Ukranian and Russian sources, it is far easier to judge the quality of the media given that most of the moderators are not well-versed in Russian and Ukranian media and their relative reliability (I know I am not.) But I can call B.S. when someone through conspiracy theories, tries to undercut the credibilty of reasonably credible Western journalists. It's on familiar stomping grounds that are much easier to research credentials and past history of reporting.
I cannot take a forum moderator seriously, when he forbids posters from positing an opinion or evidence not endorsed by the media. Such a moderator is not fit to make any policy.
|
Zurich15366 Posts
On July 29 2014 18:15 5unrise wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2014 10:19 Falling wrote:On July 29 2014 01:36 2primenumbers wrote:
IT is absurd that you believe that any news source is neutral and have pushed a large part of the discussion underground with this policy.
Best Regards,
RG People seem to be really hung up on the existential issue of 'neutrality', cynically wondering if such a thing can exist. Whereas the ban is purely practical. Can we be assured prefect neutrality, of course not. Can we clean up a lot of propaganda garbage by allowing other news sources filter it out? Yes. Furthermore, by moving it away from Ukranian and Russian sources, it is far easier to judge the quality of the media given that most of the moderators are not well-versed in Russian and Ukranian media and their relative reliability (I know I am not.) But I can call B.S. when someone through conspiracy theories, tries to undercut the credibilty of reasonably credible Western journalists. It's on familiar stomping grounds that are much easier to research credentials and past history of reporting. I cannot take a forum moderator seriously, when he forbids posters from positing an opinion or evidence not endorsed by the media. Such a moderator is not fit to make any policy.
What is "the media"? After the terrible experience with the past Ukraine thread we banned propaganda from Ukrainian and Russian sources.
You don't have to take any of us seriously. However TL decides themselves who is fit to make policy, thanks.
|
On July 29 2014 18:21 zatic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2014 18:15 5unrise wrote:On July 29 2014 10:19 Falling wrote:On July 29 2014 01:36 2primenumbers wrote:
IT is absurd that you believe that any news source is neutral and have pushed a large part of the discussion underground with this policy.
Best Regards,
RG People seem to be really hung up on the existential issue of 'neutrality', cynically wondering if such a thing can exist. Whereas the ban is purely practical. Can we be assured prefect neutrality, of course not. Can we clean up a lot of propaganda garbage by allowing other news sources filter it out? Yes. Furthermore, by moving it away from Ukranian and Russian sources, it is far easier to judge the quality of the media given that most of the moderators are not well-versed in Russian and Ukranian media and their relative reliability (I know I am not.) But I can call B.S. when someone through conspiracy theories, tries to undercut the credibilty of reasonably credible Western journalists. It's on familiar stomping grounds that are much easier to research credentials and past history of reporting. I cannot take a forum moderator seriously, when he forbids posters from positing an opinion or evidence not endorsed by the media. Such a moderator is not fit to make any policy. What is "the media"? After the terrible experience with the past Ukraine thread we banned propaganda from Ukrainian and Russian sources. You don't have to take any of us seriously. However TL decides themselves who is fit to make policy, thanks.
If TL is made of up logical, reasonable people, they would see how illogical and illiberal their actions are. But you made your decision, now I make mine: I'm outta here.
|
East Gorteau22261 Posts
On July 29 2014 18:28 5unrise wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2014 18:21 zatic wrote:On July 29 2014 18:15 5unrise wrote:On July 29 2014 10:19 Falling wrote:On July 29 2014 01:36 2primenumbers wrote:
IT is absurd that you believe that any news source is neutral and have pushed a large part of the discussion underground with this policy.
Best Regards,
RG People seem to be really hung up on the existential issue of 'neutrality', cynically wondering if such a thing can exist. Whereas the ban is purely practical. Can we be assured prefect neutrality, of course not. Can we clean up a lot of propaganda garbage by allowing other news sources filter it out? Yes. Furthermore, by moving it away from Ukranian and Russian sources, it is far easier to judge the quality of the media given that most of the moderators are not well-versed in Russian and Ukranian media and their relative reliability (I know I am not.) But I can call B.S. when someone through conspiracy theories, tries to undercut the credibilty of reasonably credible Western journalists. It's on familiar stomping grounds that are much easier to research credentials and past history of reporting. I cannot take a forum moderator seriously, when he forbids posters from positing an opinion or evidence not endorsed by the media. Such a moderator is not fit to make any policy. What is "the media"? After the terrible experience with the past Ukraine thread we banned propaganda from Ukrainian and Russian sources. You don't have to take any of us seriously. However TL decides themselves who is fit to make policy, thanks. If TL is made of up logical, reasonable people, they would see how illogical and illiberal their actions are. But you made your decision, now I make mine: I'm outta here.
Did you participate in the Ukraine Crisis thread?
|
On July 29 2014 10:19 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2014 01:36 2primenumbers wrote:
IT is absurd that you believe that any news source is neutral and have pushed a large part of the discussion underground with this policy.
Best Regards,
RG People seem to be really hung up on the existential issue of 'neutrality', cynically wondering if such a thing can exist. Whereas the ban is purely practical. Can we be assured prefect neutrality, of course not. Can we clean up a lot of propaganda garbage by allowing other news sources filter it out? Yes. Furthermore, by moving it away from Ukranian and Russian sources, it is far easier to judge the quality of the media given that most of the moderators are not well-versed in Russian and Ukranian media and their relative reliability (I know I am not.) But I can call B.S. when someone through conspiracy theories, tries to undercut the credibilty of reasonably credible Western journalists. It's on familiar stomping grounds that are much easier to research credentials and past history of reporting.
If you truly didn't care about "neutrality" then you shouldn't had expressedly written "neutral media sources (i.e. media whose country of origin is not Ukraine, Russia or one of its puppet states)". If you had denied those as sources of information no one would care. But since you have written that any media source is neutral as long as they are not from those sources, then you are making a politcal statement that most members of TL probably do not beleive in. If you had simply forbidden the use of russia/ukraine as sources, people wouldn't had come here to complain enforcing a such a view.
|
Zurich15366 Posts
On July 29 2014 21:44 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2014 10:19 Falling wrote:On July 29 2014 01:36 2primenumbers wrote:
IT is absurd that you believe that any news source is neutral and have pushed a large part of the discussion underground with this policy.
Best Regards,
RG People seem to be really hung up on the existential issue of 'neutrality', cynically wondering if such a thing can exist. Whereas the ban is purely practical. Can we be assured prefect neutrality, of course not. Can we clean up a lot of propaganda garbage by allowing other news sources filter it out? Yes. Furthermore, by moving it away from Ukranian and Russian sources, it is far easier to judge the quality of the media given that most of the moderators are not well-versed in Russian and Ukranian media and their relative reliability (I know I am not.) But I can call B.S. when someone through conspiracy theories, tries to undercut the credibilty of reasonably credible Western journalists. It's on familiar stomping grounds that are much easier to research credentials and past history of reporting. [...] If you had simply forbidden the use of russia/ukraine as sources, people wouldn't had come here to complain enforcing a such a view.
If only. Truth is it really doesn't matter what we do moderation-wise, people will ALWAYS complain.
|
On July 29 2014 21:59 zatic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2014 21:44 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On July 29 2014 10:19 Falling wrote:On July 29 2014 01:36 2primenumbers wrote:
IT is absurd that you believe that any news source is neutral and have pushed a large part of the discussion underground with this policy.
Best Regards,
RG People seem to be really hung up on the existential issue of 'neutrality', cynically wondering if such a thing can exist. Whereas the ban is purely practical. Can we be assured prefect neutrality, of course not. Can we clean up a lot of propaganda garbage by allowing other news sources filter it out? Yes. Furthermore, by moving it away from Ukranian and Russian sources, it is far easier to judge the quality of the media given that most of the moderators are not well-versed in Russian and Ukranian media and their relative reliability (I know I am not.) But I can call B.S. when someone through conspiracy theories, tries to undercut the credibilty of reasonably credible Western journalists. It's on familiar stomping grounds that are much easier to research credentials and past history of reporting. [...] If you had simply forbidden the use of russia/ukraine as sources, people wouldn't had come here to complain enforcing a such a view. If only. Truth is it really doesn't matter what we do moderation-wise, people will ALWAYS complain.
That sounds like an excuse not to try to make things right - "people will complain even if we do, so why even bother?" Sure, people will still complain, but what is the purpose of moderating the thread in the first place if you take that stance?
The idea of neutrality enforced by the thread is honestly quite laughable. Hell, even the notice itself is rather biased, implicitly referring to any country that supports Russia and lies within its sphere of influence as "one of its puppet states." You could easily say the same about any country that has an interest in maintaining good relations with the United States, a country which is clearly far from neutral in this conflict. And yes, Ukr/Rus have a fair bit of propaganda, but they also have far more actual first-hand involvement in the conflict, with more physical presence at the locations where events occur. Most of the reports from Western sources come either from an embassy in Kiev or back from their home country. Ukr/Rus actually have people in East Ukraine.
It seems that what you call neutrality is more along the lines of solidarity in opinion - everything should be along the same line of thought. The result is essentially what we see: a consensus among like-minded people interested in only one side of the story. Is that really what you're going for?
|
Every respectable news agency has boots on the ground in Ukraine. Even second-fiddles like the Telegraph have reporters in the conflict zone...
|
Canada11587 Posts
On July 29 2014 21:44 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2014 10:19 Falling wrote:On July 29 2014 01:36 2primenumbers wrote:
IT is absurd that you believe that any news source is neutral and have pushed a large part of the discussion underground with this policy.
Best Regards,
RG People seem to be really hung up on the existential issue of 'neutrality', cynically wondering if such a thing can exist. Whereas the ban is purely practical. Can we be assured prefect neutrality, of course not. Can we clean up a lot of propaganda garbage by allowing other news sources filter it out? Yes. Furthermore, by moving it away from Ukranian and Russian sources, it is far easier to judge the quality of the media given that most of the moderators are not well-versed in Russian and Ukranian media and their relative reliability (I know I am not.) But I can call B.S. when someone through conspiracy theories, tries to undercut the credibilty of reasonably credible Western journalists. It's on familiar stomping grounds that are much easier to research credentials and past history of reporting. If you truly didn't care about "neutrality" then you shouldn't had expressedly written "neutral media sources (i.e. media whose country of origin is not Ukraine, Russia or one of its puppet states)". If you had denied those as sources of information no one would care. But since you have written that any media source is neutral as long as they are not from those sources, then you are making a politcal statement that most members of TL probably do not beleive in. If you had simply forbidden the use of russia/ukraine as sources, people wouldn't had come here to complain enforcing a such a view.
I didn't say we didn't care about neutrality, we do care. I said people are mistaking our use of the word 'neutrality' as though it were some sort of existential quandry: 'what is truth?' That is far beyond the scope of our mod note, which was entirely practical, not philosophical. We found that the preponderance of decidedly un-neutral information came from Ukrainian and Russian sources in the Euromaidan thread. All we are doing is allowing other media sources, one-step removed from being emotionally and politically invested in the crisis, to report the facts and filter out the propaganda/ B.S.. That's as neutral as we can ask for in a situation like this.
|
On July 30 2014 02:00 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2014 21:44 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On July 29 2014 10:19 Falling wrote:On July 29 2014 01:36 2primenumbers wrote:
IT is absurd that you believe that any news source is neutral and have pushed a large part of the discussion underground with this policy.
Best Regards,
RG People seem to be really hung up on the existential issue of 'neutrality', cynically wondering if such a thing can exist. Whereas the ban is purely practical. Can we be assured prefect neutrality, of course not. Can we clean up a lot of propaganda garbage by allowing other news sources filter it out? Yes. Furthermore, by moving it away from Ukranian and Russian sources, it is far easier to judge the quality of the media given that most of the moderators are not well-versed in Russian and Ukranian media and their relative reliability (I know I am not.) But I can call B.S. when someone through conspiracy theories, tries to undercut the credibilty of reasonably credible Western journalists. It's on familiar stomping grounds that are much easier to research credentials and past history of reporting. If you truly didn't care about "neutrality" then you shouldn't had expressedly written "neutral media sources (i.e. media whose country of origin is not Ukraine, Russia or one of its puppet states)". If you had denied those as sources of information no one would care. But since you have written that any media source is neutral as long as they are not from those sources, then you are making a politcal statement that most members of TL probably do not beleive in. If you had simply forbidden the use of russia/ukraine as sources, people wouldn't had come here to complain enforcing a such a view. I didn't say we didn't care about neutrality, we do care. I said people are mistaking our use of the word 'neutrality' as though it were some sort of existential quandry: 'what is truth?' That is far beyond the scope of our mod note, which was entirely practical, not philosophical. We found that the preponderance of decidedly un-neutral information came from Ukrainian and Russian sources in the Euromaidan thread. All we are doing is allowing other media sources, one-step removed from being emotionally and politically invested in the crisis, to report the facts and filter out the propaganda/ B.S.. That's as neutral as we can ask for in a situation like this.
That makes sense in principle, but I don't think that's what actually happens. "One step removed" sources have their own bias because they also come from non-neutral nations. The discussion is tamer, but for the wrong reasons.
On another note: looking over the last few pages, it seems that the thread has shifted to the topic of the Ukraine Crisis in general, what with the talk of sanctions, alleged artillery fire, Ukr vs separatist military offensives, etc. If the purpose of the thread was to pay respects to the innocent that died as collateral in a military conflict, as most of the mods here seem to suggest, I think the thread has run its course. Everything that doesn't have to do with assigning blame (speeches from leaders, removing the bodies, extracting the black boxes) has already happened.
|
On July 30 2014 02:00 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2014 21:44 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On July 29 2014 10:19 Falling wrote:On July 29 2014 01:36 2primenumbers wrote:
IT is absurd that you believe that any news source is neutral and have pushed a large part of the discussion underground with this policy.
Best Regards,
RG People seem to be really hung up on the existential issue of 'neutrality', cynically wondering if such a thing can exist. Whereas the ban is purely practical. Can we be assured prefect neutrality, of course not. Can we clean up a lot of propaganda garbage by allowing other news sources filter it out? Yes. Furthermore, by moving it away from Ukranian and Russian sources, it is far easier to judge the quality of the media given that most of the moderators are not well-versed in Russian and Ukranian media and their relative reliability (I know I am not.) But I can call B.S. when someone through conspiracy theories, tries to undercut the credibilty of reasonably credible Western journalists. It's on familiar stomping grounds that are much easier to research credentials and past history of reporting. If you truly didn't care about "neutrality" then you shouldn't had expressedly written "neutral media sources (i.e. media whose country of origin is not Ukraine, Russia or one of its puppet states)". If you had denied those as sources of information no one would care. But since you have written that any media source is neutral as long as they are not from those sources, then you are making a politcal statement that most members of TL probably do not beleive in. If you had simply forbidden the use of russia/ukraine as sources, people wouldn't had come here to complain enforcing a such a view. I didn't say we didn't care about neutrality, we do care. I said people are mistaking our use of the word 'neutrality' as though it were some sort of existential quandry: 'what is truth?' That is far beyond the scope of our mod note, which was entirely practical, not philosophical. We found that the preponderance of decidedly un-neutral information came from Ukrainian and Russian sources in the Euromaidan thread. All we are doing is allowing other media sources, one-step removed from being emotionally and politically invested in the crisis, to report the facts and filter out the propaganda/ B.S.. That's as neutral as we can ask for in a situation like this. No, peoplea ren't mistaking your use of "neutrality" as a philosophical question. They simply don't like the direct insinuation that other sources that aren't Russian or Ukraine are neutral. If you simply said that Russian or Ukrainian sources aren't allowed, it would be understoof. Because you added a personal world view on neutraility and what constitutes neutral media, that is the source of why people are so disturbed by it.
|
Canada11587 Posts
On July 30 2014 05:51 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2014 02:00 Falling wrote:On July 29 2014 21:44 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On July 29 2014 10:19 Falling wrote:On July 29 2014 01:36 2primenumbers wrote:
IT is absurd that you believe that any news source is neutral and have pushed a large part of the discussion underground with this policy.
Best Regards,
RG People seem to be really hung up on the existential issue of 'neutrality', cynically wondering if such a thing can exist. Whereas the ban is purely practical. Can we be assured prefect neutrality, of course not. Can we clean up a lot of propaganda garbage by allowing other news sources filter it out? Yes. Furthermore, by moving it away from Ukranian and Russian sources, it is far easier to judge the quality of the media given that most of the moderators are not well-versed in Russian and Ukranian media and their relative reliability (I know I am not.) But I can call B.S. when someone through conspiracy theories, tries to undercut the credibilty of reasonably credible Western journalists. It's on familiar stomping grounds that are much easier to research credentials and past history of reporting. If you truly didn't care about "neutrality" then you shouldn't had expressedly written "neutral media sources (i.e. media whose country of origin is not Ukraine, Russia or one of its puppet states)". If you had denied those as sources of information no one would care. But since you have written that any media source is neutral as long as they are not from those sources, then you are making a politcal statement that most members of TL probably do not beleive in. If you had simply forbidden the use of russia/ukraine as sources, people wouldn't had come here to complain enforcing a such a view. I didn't say we didn't care about neutrality, we do care. I said people are mistaking our use of the word 'neutrality' as though it were some sort of existential quandry: 'what is truth?' That is far beyond the scope of our mod note, which was entirely practical, not philosophical. We found that the preponderance of decidedly un-neutral information came from Ukrainian and Russian sources in the Euromaidan thread. All we are doing is allowing other media sources, one-step removed from being emotionally and politically invested in the crisis, to report the facts and filter out the propaganda/ B.S.. That's as neutral as we can ask for in a situation like this. No, peoplea ren't mistaking your use of "neutrality" as a philosophical question. They simply don't like the direct insinuation that other sources that aren't Russian or Ukraine are neutral. If you simply said that Russian or Ukrainian sources aren't allowed, it would be understoof. Because you added a personal world view on neutraility and what constitutes neutral media, that is the source of why people are so disturbed by it.
That might be their initial, gut reaction. But there's no reason for them to hold to being distubed by it as I believe we have made clear in this feedback thread that we don't have a starry-eyed view of non-Ukranian/Russian sources. If people are somehow still legitimately concerned that TL moderation is somehow naive towards media biases... I don't really know what to say.
|
You seem to misunderstand. They simply don't like the way you've gone out to say that any sources which aren't ukrainian or russian are neutral. If you hadn't, this thread wouldn't really be a thing would it now?
|
Aww, some people don't like something the TL mods did or said? Poor them. They can read the Ten Commandments and get over it. Western media is less biased than Russian media. Quibbling over pedantics isn't going to change that.
|
East Gorteau22261 Posts
On July 30 2014 21:34 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
You seem to misunderstand. They simply don't like the way you've gone out to say that any sources which aren't ukrainian or russian are neutral. If you hadn't, this thread wouldn't really be a thing would it now?
I don't think anyone has said that "Western media is by virtue of being western media completely neutral", simply that western media outlets are, as a rule of thumb, the less biased news outlets in this situation. You're reading into the semantics of the mod note far too much, I think you know what we meant.
|
On July 31 2014 00:19 farvacola wrote:
Aww, some people don't like something the TL mods did or said? Poor them. They can read the Ten Commandments and get over it. Western media is less biased than Russian media. Quibbling over pedantics isn't going to change that.
Awww yiss. And that's why they come here to explain their points of view. We are all invested in and free to express our preferences for the site we visit. So how about you stop brown nosing and being condescending and shitposting farvacola?
Anyhow from this thread and some of the earlier comments of the Malaysian airliner thread we are discussing it is clear that people dislike the implications from the mod note, Zealously, and would be circumvented by removing certain phrases. Whether you will take anything from that is up to you. That is all I am going to say.
|
The thread is becoming another Ukraine thread. I am fine with having a thread of that nature, just that it should be in another topic.
|
lol, no one has even posted in the thread for 2 days at the time of your post. And nunez isn't shitposting in it every hour. Overstatement much?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
