Current affairs: biased OP

[Casanova]

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:

[-: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.

[Casanova]

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 .

[-:Undertaker:-]

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.

[beth]

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

[Casanova]

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.

[Chippiewill]

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.

[Jin]

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.

[AgnesIO]

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.

[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.