The comment censor’s bias

The Guardian worldview is on display for all to see:

… in musings of a Guardian comment censor before he moved on. Here’s an example of his unbiased moderation:

‘They are comment-thread poison – men’s rights activists who act as if articles about women’s issues are their gender’s single biggest problem, climate change deniers who will drag any conversation about energy policy into murky pseudo-science, and borderline racists for whom there is no issue that cannot be pinned on immigration (UK) or black people (US). It is often known as “whataboutery” and is a tactic designed to throw a conversation off course.’

The Hacker News view –

Trolling is a word. It means something: “make a deliberately offensive or provocative online posting with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them.”

I can’t help but wonder why the author attempts to describe anything he doesn’t like, in his moderator role, as trolling. This seems to be a general trend in newspaper people describing their comment sections.

The daughter of the editor of the Guardian, BellaM — Isabella Mackie — has been identified as the poster of a controversial comment on a website she was moderating.

According to the website, CiF Watch — set up specifically to monitor incidents of anti-Israel bias on the Guardian’s Comment is Free site — BellaM intervened in a series of posts that followed an article by the Muslim writer Ed Husain, attacking the columnist Melanie Phillips.


[H/T Chuckles]

6 comments for “The comment censor’s bias

  1. Hereward Unbowed.
    April 18, 2016 at 2:20 pm

    Oh Gawd, left wing virtue signallers, do seem to have a problem with those who like to point to the nub, actually the truth of the matter and Melanie Phillips is one of the best at that.

    Poor old Melanie, and here’s me thinking she’s such a wonderful gal and speaks powerfully to the truth, always but always is, Melanie Phillips made of far sterner stuff than is pwitteratie, twee leftie, butter wouldn’t melt, silver spoon gobshi*e harridan, dahling little IssyM.

    ‘Nocerous skinned, us “weirdos, fruit cases and closet waycists”……….all have to be.

    And if we’re that, what categorizes the Islington tosserati – those vermin who infest CiF? What is Dave? Pray what is George (Osberk) and what tag could be ascribed to; Bliar, Heath, Jenkins, Mandelscum, Jezbollah and his motley crew of stinking to high heaven…way past their sell by date misanthropes?

  2. Errol
    April 18, 2016 at 6:15 pm

    Why when the truth is pointed out to the Left do they attack the person who said it? Can they not cope with the cognitive dissonance?

  3. April 18, 2016 at 6:26 pm

    Short answer – no – they are like petulant children, not grown adults. Look at those clown faces they paint on for example.

  4. james wilson
    April 18, 2016 at 8:02 pm

    The left is liberal on the surface, fascist at it’s heart. Not only do they oppose free speech, they have been successful at severely limiting speech, both public and private. This was not easy to do–it took generations. But one end product is that they cannot make an argument that can be well defended because they have no practice in defending their opinions, or altering them. “Everybody knows”, it’s “settled science”, “settled law”, it’s racist, homophobic, misogynist, debate over! In free discussion we correct and improve not only our arguments, we improve our opinions. When we are bested in an argument we have the choice of re-examining our opinion or dismissing the character of our opponent. The left has made a choice to stay left no matter the consequence.

    • April 19, 2016 at 3:56 pm

      Yep. Not looking too bad just now both in your battle over there and ours over here.

  5. April 24, 2016 at 6:31 am

    Many local newspapers are starting to ‘uninvent’ the comment section. A pity. You find out more actual news there than you ever do in the paper itself!

Comments are closed.