Current affairs: biased OP

Hey,

I thought I'd make this thread after reading yet another daily mail written OP for someone's current affairs thread.

My personal view is if you're going to post in current affairs you should ONLY post an unbiased, un-opinionated opening post in which you out-lay the information for users to view THEN comment, even if it means double posting?

I would post more in the threads if it meant not feeling so violent towards the person trashing ALL current affairs if it meant we had the right information.

Also, i think you should HAVE to provide reuters/bbc instead of independent agencies. For instance daily mail is the biggest scare-mongorer since someone created the saying "credit crunch".

it's just unfair to have to sift through trash to actually get the correct, unbiased situation/story before you have to comment.

For instance, one user had posted about scotland getting more per capita yet failed to mention NI and London were bigger p/h than scotland!?!?!!

IT REALLY PISSES ME OFF. NOTHING WORSE THAN READING THEIR ****E.

---------- Post added 24-09-2011 at 01:20 AM ----------

PS: this of course isn't aimed at anyone :rolleyes:

---------- Post added 24-09-2011 at 01:20 AM ----------

PS: this of course isn't aimed at anyone :rolleyes:

If you disagree with what either the poster or source say (as I do with the biased BBC which is opposite to my views, the same BBC which told us years ago that the Euro was a simply superb idea and that we should join immediately) then you have the freedom to post an alternative opinion as many do in current affairs which sporns healthy debates on an array of topics. The same applies for debates themselves, for example the recent monarchy thread.

If its a case of getting your opinion in first, then you'll have to make an effort and post it first.

Dan, why the **** would I want to post the same thread as you with my opinion.
that's a debate.
there's a debate forum.
current affair's is for the facts, THEN opinion. not fabrication then your evaluation!?

PS: if you knew how to debate for jack all you'd know you should evaluate, then operate using opposing arguments THEN state your beliefs and why.

PPS: I heard harper collin's were hunting for you - they wanted a fantasist serial novelist ;).

Then lets simply replace Current Affairs with a BOT forum, posting news links?

Or on the other hand, you could click on Google and get Reuters up if you care so much.

while i kind of agree that if yr reporting on something it should be unbiased, the users can surely distinguish for themselves whether the article is biased or not and then form their own opinions

I agree Publicised but what i'm saying is it's unfair for someone having to read through the OP and try to distinguish between truth, publicized fabrication (ie stat's) and then have to have a guess on what's right.

Dan's whinging on MSN that it's unfair but the way I see it, I'm likely to see news on here first before I can check various NEWS organisations (and not bull).

It's unfair for a user having to do further research to discuss on it when the OP is there for that?
it pisses me off basically.

There's no such thing as an unbiased source, the daily mail is certainly.. more controversial, however no more biased than any other news agency.

It is not our responsibility to enforce how content is presented in the current affairs forum. Some people will air their views a bit off-sided and that is their choice as it is everyone else's choice to disagree or agree with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

If you disagree with what either the poster or source say (as I do with the biased BBC which is opposite to my views, the same BBC which told us years ago that the Euro was a simply superb idea and that we should join immediately) then you have the freedom to post an alternative opinion as many do in current affairs which sporns healthy debates on an array of topics. The same applies for debates themselves, for example the recent monarchy thread.

If its a case of getting your opinion in first, then you'll have to make an effort and post it first.

---

Not being funny bu everyone wanted the euro at one stage.

While I obviously don't always agree with dan, he is generally the only person posting threads in there. If you are worried about biased OPs, perhaps you could post the same news with a less biased viewpoint. Either way, all the threads are going to end with 'LEAVE THE EU, SEXUAL LIBERTY IS ERODING OUR CULTURE' etc etc but there really isn't any way to deal with that apart from ignoring it or doing what FlyingJesus has been doing so well lately and pick out the obvious flaws in said arguments.

am I the only one that likes his threads just cause they make me laugh hysterically?

It's almost impossible to get a completly unbiased source from the media and we shouldn't become a dictatorship and not allow opinions to be posted. I don't want the forum to end up like Kim Jong-il's palace.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rozi

am I the only one that likes his threads just cause they make me laugh hysterically?

---

the ones about tony blair always get me going.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Inseriousity.

While I obviously don't always agree with dan, he is generally the only person posting threads in there. If you are worried about biased OPs, perhaps you could post the same news with a less biased viewpoint. Either way, all the threads are going to end with 'LEAVE THE EU, SEXUAL LIBERTY IS ERODING OUR CULTURE' etc etc but there really isn't any way to deal with that apart from ignoring it or doing what FlyingJesus has been doing so well lately and pick out the obvious flaws in said arguments.

---

Agree, but conversely over zealous & quite oppressive posting where perhaps the posts area often quite subjective and personal against the other posters as opposed to being objective and sticking to the subject/subjects not the person can also put members off posting there. I know of at least two who have stopped and I do quite a lot of the time. Just a personal opinion though. There is always bias in the media though whatever publication.

thank god we've got the media bit sorted :rolleyes:... I'M AWARE.
I'm simply stating that using more trashier rags like daily mail and the star won't get you anywhere.

PS: It really is off putting to post, I normally stop myself from posting because it would just end with me ripping Dan to shreds.
It's total bull.

Dreadful idea. Not being rude, but use your brain when reading threads in the forums - especially when reading media related articles. Of course a thread creator is going to have bias, it is their thread about their interests. They're not going to outline counter arguments and opposite views when the reader is big enough and smart enough to do it themselves. To create an incredibly lame rule about this hinders discussion, something HxF have been slowly moving away from and it would be a shame for them to create more pointless rules that hinder teen-related discussions.

You're ad lib to post threads yourself. Dan usually starts off the discussion, and the rest is up for you - most of the time they're enlightenin. You shouldn't expect to be spoon fed information and expect all discussions to be one-sided. Besides, half the point of open discussion is to counter-argue points. If you can't do that, then forum browsing isn't for you :/

/My two pence on the thought

But if dan wants to create a passionate discussion on his topic, he should outlay both... it's rule 101 of debate.
We have modern studies in scotland, you get taught that in first year? Don't england do such a thing?

Personally I wouldn't have minded but Dan's posts really do rile me because they're just a fancier way to be offensive. instead of dan saying "I ******* HATE HOMO'S COS I HAVE ISSUES" he would say "I feel in our day and age we could learn from our society of past. they had a better understanding of culture and boundaries and people held back more. I feel that for myself it's totally outrageous gay men "INSERT NORMAL ACTIVITY" when it wouldn't have happened in the fifties. Being a conservationalist I feel we could do better to... "INSERT STUPID THING HERE".

It's unfair to read through a post like that.

At least make the first paragraph on the basics. what the post is about.
THEN GO INTO YOUR FUNDAMENTALIST VIEWS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Casanova

But if dan wants to create a passionate discussion on his topic, he should outlay both... it's rule 101 of debate.

---

Yes, in debating the first thing you do is undermine your own argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chippiewill

Yes, in debating the first thing you do is undermine your own argument.

---

You might notice I veryyyyyyyy rarely start debates/current affairs?
I accept my behaviour is questionable so I take that on board.

now run along.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Casanova

But if dan wants to create a passionate discussion on his topic, he should outlay both... it's rule 101 of debate.
We have modern studies in scotland, you get taught that in first year? Don't england do such a thing?

Personally I wouldn't have minded but Dan's posts really do rile me because they're just a fancier way to be offensive. instead of dan saying "I ******* HATE HOMO'S COS I HAVE ISSUES" he would say "I feel in our day and age we could learn from our society of past. they had a better understanding of culture and boundaries and people held back more. I feel that for myself it's totally outrageous gay men "INSERT NORMAL ACTIVITY" when it wouldn't have happened in the fifties. Being a conservationalist I feel we could do better to... "INSERT STUPID THING HERE".

It's unfair to read through a post like that.

At least make the first paragraph on the basics. what the post is about.
THEN GO INTO YOUR FUNDAMENTALIST VIEWS.

---

Most schools I know of have open discussions about certain topics. Instead of being told the figures, facts and other information, you discover for yourself what you think is right or wrong. Using a forum is about the battle of opinions and views, rather than a school debating club :P

I wouldn't say they're offensive, as he does attempt to back up claims. In a real discussion you wouldn't be so formal as Dan is, but if he wants to play that game then you just post your views and post information to back it up, like you would at school, college and university. You do not need to post strictly informative and factual information, but make a believable case which many may and will agree on :) It's better to be like that than actually be rude to someone without making a believable argument or case :P

Besides, your idea of having everyone posting current affairs provide lots of information may hinder discussion, as I'm fairly sure people would get a bit bored of finding out all relative bits of information before posting a topic, when we're all capable of finding counter-arguments and articles on a view. If Dan or anyone else posts a radical view, post why it isn't :P I know of many times the Daily Mail has contradicted itself with one argument seeming radical, and another article posting an entirely different view. The Daily Mail is like the Bible (though not to be taken that seriously), it's riddled with contradictions, concepts, and views which can easily be disproven by either using other Daily Mail articles, or articles from other papers and even statistical websites.

Or you could do what is very simple, use your experience and state why x isn't necessarily true or worthy of much care :P It's what I do at least. If a view is so extreme, it would be noticable in real-life. If it isn't, then it can't be that important.

We aren't an international news network like CNN here. A forum is used for discussion and of course there will be bias in it. Although the Daily Mail is a piece of junk, you can't really do anything about it :P.

You are basically saying we shouldn't use the forum for opinion/ discussions. If you want to have a larger array of views, post some threads yourself, then there'll be leaning more towards your perspectives from the sources that you use or a neutral one. Schools do it all the time, so I do pity you if your school didn't, because if anything it's quite healthy :).

Read title. Google title. Read article. Click thread and contribute to discussion.

????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catzsy

Agree, but conversely over zealous & quite oppressive posting where perhaps the posts area often quite subjective and personal against the other posters as opposed to being objective and sticking to the subject/subjects not the person can also put members off posting there. I know of at least two who have stopped and I do quite a lot of the time. Just a personal opinion though. There is always bias in the media though whatever publication.

---

If you don't like me picking out your past viewpoints and using what you've said in the past to bash you over the head with, then by all means try at least to have a set of opinions which have some element of principle and then I wouldn't be able to do it, would I?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marketing

Not being funny bu everyone wanted the euro at one stage.

---

Not true, see past polling along with the 'Britain in Euro' campaign run by Blair, Heseltine and Clarke which failed, utterly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Casanova

But if dan wants to create a passionate discussion on his topic, he should outlay both... it's rule 101 of debate.
We have modern studies in scotland, you get taught that in first year? Don't england do such a thing?

Personally I wouldn't have minded but Dan's posts really do rile me because they're just a fancier way to be offensive. instead of dan saying "I ******* HATE HOMO'S COS I HAVE ISSUES" he would say "I feel in our day and age we could learn from our society of past. they had a better understanding of culture and boundaries and people held back more. I feel that for myself it's totally outrageous gay men "INSERT NORMAL ACTIVITY" when it wouldn't have happened in the fifties. Being a conservationalist I feel we could do better to... "INSERT STUPID THING HERE".

It's unfair to read through a post like that.

At least make the first paragraph on the basics. what the post is about.
THEN GO INTO YOUR FUNDAMENTALIST VIEWS.

---

Where have I expressed or shown any hatred towards homosexuals?

Even so, if this were my opinion anyway, so what? you could debate against it and prove me wrong just as you can with my argument on marriage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

If you don't like me picking out your past viewpoints and using what you've said in the past to bash you over the head with, then by all means try at least to have a set of opinions which have some element of principle and then I wouldn't be able to do it, would I?







Where have I expressed or shown any hatred towards homosexuals?

Even so, if this were my opinion anyway, so what? you could debate against it and prove me wrong just as you can with my argument on marriage.

---

The part in bold is exactly what I mean. Why the need to be so personal? Also I completely disagree with you as I have a strong set of beliefs and as far as I can recall you have never quoted any passages where I have contradicted myself. What I say and what you think I say is a gulf apart so I don't think there is any 'bashing
over the head'. I do not have the generic beliefs of any political party but obviously lean towards Labour so you should not feel the need to 'stereotype' people into certain political persuasions. One cap does not fit all. I doubt whether you will take this into consideration though and carry on placing people into labelled compartments.

I'm going to fully go over my point again because people are misunderstanding me - my fault.

I feel that posts in current affairs should be unbiased, that is the first post.

example:

Quote:

---

School bans conkers.

Today the our holy mary mother of god, jesus and your neighbour's primary school in south london has supposedly banned conkers.
the assistant head whom made the decision stated on the decision
"We feel we should ban conker playing in school because we feel it's unhygienic and not at all safe for our pupils. We feel our students would benefit from staying away from the boundries of the school where they have been known to collect the conkers because it's a vast hilled area which is quite unsafe for footing and of course dirty. Conker's have already lead to little matthew getting a black eye and sarah twisting her ankle."

---

instead of...

Quote:

---

Today it has been announced that our hail mary mother of all goodies and not sinner's primary school in fife has banned conkers.
I feel that it's ludicreous that a school has banned conkers, it's a traditional game which has been passed down the generations. This is yet another boob made by the tory government to cover our children in bubble wrap, not let them develop and allow the health and safety culture of the UK to grow ever more.

The tories have already banned cheese chasing, air catching and dust hording - what else will they ban!?

It's totally unfair on our society to once again be told what to do with our time, george orwell, various quote and more babble

---

You will of course notice my sarcasm, that's a for instance and not a real story!
I feel it's better to out-lay the information, give the link you're discussing if there is one and THEN develop on how you feel? I don't think it's fair to pre-emptively dive into your foray of personal opinion without giving our other members the chance to understand WHAT you're working on.

I will go back to the post (BY ANOTHER MEMBER AND NOT DAN IF I REMEMBER?) in which it was stated scotland got more per head £££ than anyone else, how our grannies were little wealthy, well heated money-hording state rifflers. This was an article in the daily mail which had given chosen information that didn't outlay the actual information on the fact that NI and London got more per head than scotland (being the third). now that was posted on the forum, that did indeed lead to a more passionate argument than an actual debate.

To express your opinion before you give information can be mis-leading. Myself, I'm no innocent BUT if I were to use/post threads in current affairs more then I'd at least research it instead of just reading one article.

It's quite frustrating for myself having to sit back and watch the trifle involved.

As for gomme making ****** remarks about debating clubs, I wasn't in a debating club. modern studies is curriculum for all scottish students up until third year, which you can carry on until sixth year if you choose to do so. From memory our modern studies department had one of the best modern studies (since ignorance is prevalent - politics, current affairs and cultures effectively) in scotland. We were taught if you were debating on a subject say... the NATO stance on Libya then you should outlay the info, debate for and against THEN develop the point your thoughts and WHY you chose to do so.

I think as a culture of fast growing modern legends (with our naughties media services, internet socialising, twitterrrrr) that we should try to stick to the point instead of fabrication.

MIGHT I ADD - I personally LIKE and ENJOY chatting with Dan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catzsy

The part in bold is exactly what I mean. Why the need to be so personal? Also I completely disagree with you as I have a strong set of beliefs and as far as I can recall you have never quoted any passages where I have contradicted myself. What I say and what you think I say is a gulf apart so I don't think there is any 'bashing
over the head'. I do not have the generic beliefs of any political party but obviously lean towards Labour so you should not feel the need to 'stereotype' people into certain political persuasions. One cap does not fit all. I doubt whether you will take this into consideration though and carry on placing people into labelled compartments.

---

Then you misunderstand me - what goes in a heated debate stays in a heated debate with me, always always always. Saurav, like yourself now, you are getting the wrong end of the stick. I don't hold any grudges or think any less of anyone who debates me or even makes me look a fool in a debate - by all means I welcome it. The same when I worked in staff and had a disagreement, i'll argue to hell and back over it but does that mean I dislike or hate the person i'm arguing with? no, if anything I respect them more for taking time out to debate me.

As with yourself.

I don't really post here any more but this was something I couldn't resist replying too. Threads like this have always, always confused me. People moan, and moan, and moan, and moan about forum rules being too strict etc - yet then post threads like this suggesting Habbox pretty much censors posts in current affairs.

I can only assume that the stuff Undertaker is posting in current affairs is the same as it always was (I haven't checked that section of the forum for a while) and I disagree with 99.99999% of what he posts, I don't like how he comes across when posting it some times either however if this is the case I'd simply use my -rep button - it's what it's there for. This forums post count has dramatically gone down over the past 2 years and rules like this certainly wouldn't help it.

As Grig said, Habbox isn't a news agency and the people making threads in current affairs aren't news reporters - they are sharing a topic they find interesting therefore generally it could contain bias? That's how current affairs work. It's not as though Dan just posts articles from the Daily Mail to back up his opinions or whatever, I've seen him create threads with articles from other (more credible if you'd like it that way) news sources citing things that aren't in line with his opinion at all and then giving his opinion as to why they are wrong. I don't particularly like Dan, but I think if he was to stop posting in Current Affairs the section of the forum would be removed in a matter of months.

This is a forum, it's meant for discussion - it's got quite a few members who are all going to vary in opinion. If you don't like it, don't read it ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hecktix

I don't really post here any more but this was something I couldn't resist replying too. Threads like this have always, always confused me. People moan, and moan, and moan, and moan about forum rules being too strict etc - yet then post threads like this suggesting Habbox pretty much censors posts in current affairs.

I can only assume that the stuff Undertaker is posting in current affairs is the same as it always was (I haven't checked that section of the forum for a while) and I disagree with 99.99999% of what he posts, I don't like how he comes across when posting it some times either however if this is the case I'd simply use my -rep button - it's what it's there for. This forums post count has dramatically gone down over the past 2 years and rules like this certainly wouldn't help it.

As Grig said, Habbox isn't a news agency and the people making threads in current affairs aren't news reporters - they are sharing a topic they find interesting therefore generally it could contain bias? That's how current affairs work. It's not as though Dan just posts articles from the Daily Mail to back up his opinions or whatever, I've seen him create threads with articles from other (more credible if you'd like it that way) news sources citing things that aren't in line with his opinion at all and then giving his opinion as to why they are wrong. I don't particularly like Dan, but I think if he was to stop posting in Current Affairs the section of the forum would be removed in a matter of months.

This is a forum, it's meant for discussion - it's got quite a few members who are all going to vary in opinion. If you don't like it, don't read it ;)

---

This forum is as rigid as it is because of yourself and garion, now you could call me biased because we have never 'gotten on' but keep in mind if there's anyone I've ever been 'close' to on this forum Garion has to be at least the close second!

You, your girlfriend and Garion throughout all your reign ensured this forum went from being open minded and fair to being something similar to what you would expect from 'a company'. you said that somewhere how this isn't about fun anymore for the staff members and runs like a business... well you are one to talk aren't you ;)? I have quote after quote of you being biased, petty and unfair to other users, continuously calling people spending their time caretaking on this forum being called 'staff'.

I have no issue with people being open, honest and giving their opinion instead of toeing a line.
The issue I have is that some people can create confusion with the wrong quotes and giving opinions as facts.

finally, for the "posts decreasing over two years" bit... how long were you AM forum/GM forum/AGM/GM for in total... oh yeah most of the two years you speak of you were directly linked to the forum.

edit:
Also, you want people to be open minded and create discussion... weird how many a person has informed me you moaned at them or activley discouraged them from speaking to me? now wouldn't that be the total opposite of being open and free? isn't that you actively trying to change their intentions/actions?

Pull out a mirror and recognise yourself and the **** YOU done to this wreck before you start passing blame!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Casanova

This forum is as rigid as it is because of yourself and garion, now you could call me biased because we have never 'gotten on' but keep in mind if there's anyone I've ever been 'close' to on this forum Garion has to be at least the close second!

You, your girlfriend and Garion throughout all your reign ensured this forum went from being open minded and fair to being something similar to what you would expect from 'a company'. you said that somewhere how this isn't about fun anymore for the staff members and runs like a business... well you are one to talk aren't you ;)? I have quote after quote of you being biased, petty and unfair to other users, continuously calling people spending their time caretaking on this forum being called 'staff'.

I have no issue with people being open, honest and giving their opinion instead of toeing a line.
The issue I have is that some people can create confusion with the wrong quotes and giving opinions as facts.

finally, for the "posts decreasing over two years" bit... how long were you AM forum/GM forum/AGM/GM for in total... oh yeah most of the two years you speak of you were directly linked to the forum.

edit:
Also, you want people to be open minded and create discussion... weird how many a person has informed me you moaned at them or activley discouraged them from speaking to me? now wouldn't that be the total opposite of being open and free? isn't that you actively trying to change their intentions/actions?

Pull out a mirror and recognise yourself and the **** YOU done to this wreck before you start passing blame!

---

I swear garion was one of the better agm's

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Don

I swear garion was one of the better agm's

---

Garion was good with guidance.
When he has free reign he goes too far. Look at the staff agm, it never was that before he made it like so. He had too many rules and input by the end. Oli went on a powertrip once he got in there (and retrieved his head).

I love garion though!