Politics

ISAW

Given
Politics: Double standards b y moderators??

Was locked pending a dispute resolution and the following dispute happened:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056172484

Which recommended that it be returned to feedback

and given

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056176908

having been discussed in advance in the above two threads
was subsequently locked

can the Politics: Double standards b y moderators??

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056171425

thread be reopened and renamed "bias in the politics forum"?

dashboard_hula

With every respect intended, that post was extremely hard to follow, as have quite a lot of your other posts. Are you posting from a Blackberry or phone?

P. Breathnach

I have reported a number of posts by ISAW, but I have no idea if what I said determined moderators' actions.

I find it highly objectionable that ISAW repeatedly attacks Carol Hanney (Eamon Gilmore's wife) even though she is not active in politics.

gandalf

I also reported that thread on multiple occasions even though I have isaw on ignore. The only issue here is why the politics mods let a thread designed to smear go on for five pages.

I would also question the value of a member who posts tripe of that variety to the politics forum.

Tom Dunne

ISAW - let it go.

Consider this your final warning.

Tom Dunne

Ok, it has been drawn to my attention that I was inappropriately hasty in closing this thread.

I had not realised Dades had asked ISAW to take this to Feedback.

I apologise to ISAW and those that wanted to discuss this matter.

P. Breathnach

Politicians make a choice to operate in the public eye, and that gives us reasonable licence to scrutinise their behaviour. It would be difficult to spell out fully what constitutes "reasonable licence", but I think that most people would agree on what amounts to unreasonable intrusion.

In some cases, members of a politician's family become involved in the politician's public role. To the extent that they do so (and only to that extent) the licence to examine behaviour is extended to them.

In other cases, people connected with politicians are not involved in the politician's public role, and should enjoy the same rights to privacy as any other citizen.

I would expect the moderators of the politics forums to operate on this basis, and I think that they do, but with the occasional Homeric nod.

Beruthiel

There are no politicians in my family, but if there were, I would be more than annoyed if it impacted on my life in any way. I would consider it an intrusion of the highest order.

Nodin

As regards the second thread - it was a meandering semi-coherent series of lists, names and dates with a narrative so scant as to be barely noticable, which increasingly seemed to be an attempt at guilt by association. It was allowed progress for 5 pages, which was more than generous, and at no stage appeared to be improving.

The only fate more appropriate than locking it would have been to retitle it 'Three Degrees of Seperation From Kim Jong IL" with a move to a humour-themed section of the site.

Yitzhak Rabin

I am honestly still at a complete loss as to what point ISAW is trying to make.

I think it would be useful if you forced yourself to make your point in a maximum of, say, 6 sentences, because as it is it is extremely difficult to follow what your complaint/point is with the meandering nature of your posts.

southsiderosie

I think a lot of politics regulars (myself included) have their hobby horses, whether immigration, republicanism, libertarianism, or ragging on a particular political party. And I think the mods are generally consistent when it comes to stepping back and letting threads evolve, even if it is clear from the start who is going to jump into the conversation and what they are going to say. Whether that is always a good thing or not is perhaps the topic of another thread.

That said, it seems as if there are an awful lot of posters these days who think that throwing up a bunch of links and/or information with no critical analysis or coherent question makes for a somehow legit OP. The Gilmore IRA thread was a case in point: a whole lot of dates, ONE link to a wiki page, and no real discussion points. I think it is a perfectly legitimate - and interesting - question to ask if, when, and how do we hold politicians accountable for their past political affiliations, and this is a particularly relevant question in Ireland. However, the OP for the thread in question just read (if you could actually read through it, which I couldn't) as a poorly put-together laundry list, and I was surprised that the thread went on as long as it did.

I don't think that it shows political bias to demand that posters 1) craft an OP in a way that presents an issue clearly, takes a position, and provides some rationale for that position, 2) provides links and content analysis of those links, and 3) focuses on political attacks, not personal or familial behavior (unless that is the focus of the thread, i.e. something along the lines of "Should there be financial reporting requirements for both politicians and their spouses?"). I think the complaint in this case is particularly ill-founded given that the standards of OPs in the Politics forum in general have dropped somewhat over the last few months. While this is not surprising given all of the interest in the elections, I think the bar is relatively low, and if an OP doesn't meet the current threshold, then perhaps the problem lies with the poster and not with the moderation.

Wolfe Tone

If a politicians wife/husband does something untoward it is not unreasonable to expect their OH knew of it. The actions of someone so closely linked as someones spouse are very relevant.

P. Breathnach

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

If a politicians wife/husband does something untoward it is not unreasonable to expect their OH knew of it. The actions of someone so closely linked as someones spouse are very relevant.

Not unless (a) there is some good reason to believe that the politician condoned the behaviour and (b) it has some bearing on the politician's actions in his or her political role.

Most people believe that an extra-marital affair is "something untoward". If the husband of a politician had a fling, is it proper material for public discussion?

ISAW

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Politicians make a choice to operate in the public eye, and that gives us reasonable licence to scrutinise their behaviour. It would be difficult to spell out fully what constitutes "reasonable licence", but I think that most people would agree on what amounts to unreasonable intrusion.

In some cases, members of a politician's family become involved in the politician's public role. To the extent that they do so (and only to that extent) the licence to examine behaviour is extended to them.

In other cases, people connected with politicians are not involved in the politician's public role, and should enjoy the same rights to privacy as any other citizen.

I would expect the moderators of the politics forums to operate on this basis, and I think that they do, but with the occasional Homeric nod.

To be honest I agree with you. I only find it annoying that it applies to some politicians and not to others.

I would also make an exception if for example a "high moral standards" politician is constantly talking about homosexuality being wrong or speaking against promiscuity and it is then discovered he has a gay lover or uses prostitutes. It had noting to do with the gay lover or the prostitute maybe but one has to mention them to expose the hypocrisy.

But this points to a broader issue for moderation and media. One of the "accepted paradigm" as Kuhn's structure of Scientific revolutions suggests
Or chomsky's Manufacturing Consent

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent:_The_Political_Economy_of_the_Mass_Media

Look at section four about flak

The ability to produce flak, and especially flak that is costly and threatening, is related to power. Serious flak has increased in close parallel with business's growing resentment of media criticism and the corporate offensive of the I970s and I980s. Flak from the powerful can be either direct or indirect.
...
The producers of flak add to one another's strength and reinforce the command of political authority in its news-management activities. The government is a major producer of flak, regularly assailing, threatening, and "correcting" the media, trying to contain any deviations from the established line. News management itself is designed to produce flak.

I'm suggesting the Official SF, Workers Party, people ( some of whom are Labour Party today) had and has a huge influence on the NUJ and media mindset. In one sence ther was orchestrated control of the media and that isn't paranioa it is documented.

But in another it is more subtle. chomsky elsewhere ( ill have to look it up )
[EDIT]:
I looked it up - What Makes Mainstream Media Mainstream by Noam Chomsky in You Are Being Lied To
The Disinformation Guide to Media Distortion,
Historical Whitewashes and Cultural Myths
edited by Russ Kick
ISBN 0966410076
It is a few years since I read the book but it is in the first chapter

Hard to find but worth getting if you are into media studies: http://www.theconnextion.com/disinformation/disinfo_product.cfm?ProdAutoID=4107&CatID=93
[end edit]

writes of the media which filters itself. In other words fintan O Toole or Kevin Myers or mary Ellen synon can all say "I dont get told what to write . I have total editorial control of what I write" but the who process of how they were selected is a filtering process. so the fact that the owners of the Irish Times or Irish Independent or Newstalk or RTE or boards.ie don't tell people how to think isn't that significant really. Myers or synon got the position they were in due to having a particular mindset and irrespective of their ability to write what they like it is unlikely they will be writing from certain perspectives.

Boards.ie or Newstalk as newer organs are more susceptible to the flux of the masses but they are likewise more susceptible to flak. the important thing is knowing about it - metacognition - and thinking about it. Being aware that one was not aware.
Ill provide some references later. after the big five debate maybe

ISAW

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Not unless (a) there is some good reason to believe that the politician condoned the behaviour and (b) it has some bearing on the politician's actions in his or her political role.

Most people believe that an extra-marital affair is "something untoward". If the husband of a politician had a fling, is it proper material for public discussion?

In general no but...
Yes if that politician portrays herself as a family person and touts family values. For example the case of Peter Robinson's wife. Of course she was also a politician but say she wasn't?

bonkey

ISAW wrote: »

I'm suggesting the Official SF, Workers Party, people ( some of whom are Labour Party today) had and has a huge influence on the NUJ and media mindset. In one sence ther was orchestrated control of the media and that isn't paranioa it is documented.

You claimed in that thread that you were able to predict that the OP you posted would lead to a number of reactions.

Were you to start a thread with an OP which contained effectively nothing more then what is in the quote above would you predict the same reactions?

If so, what do you feel is so inflammatory in the quote above?
Conversely, if not, what do you feel was inflammatory about the other post that is missing here?

ISAW

southsiderosie wrote: »

I think a lot of politics regulars (myself included) have their hobby horses, whether immigration, republicanism, libertarianism, or ragging on a particular political party. And I think the mods are generally consistent when it comes to stepping back and letting threads evolve, even if it is clear from the start who is going to jump into the conversation and what they are going to say. Whether that is always a good thing or not is perhaps the topic of another thread.

That said, it seems as if there are an awful lot of posters these days who think that throwing up a bunch of links and/or information with no critical analysis or coherent question makes for a somehow legit OP. The Gilmore IRA thread was a case in point:

Ill give you i mentioned Gilmore but just as one might mention Gerry Adams to flag PIRA or some who mention "Sinn Féin/IRA".

a whole lot of dates, ONE link to a wiki page,

the dates were in chroniologicval order and given so people could not say "When was that" later.
You are WRONG about the wiki page. I provided a reference to a published source and gave about fifteen or twenty page references from that. I had to paint the Official IRA timeline first.

and no real discussion points.

The evolution of the Official IRA and Workers Party associated people into leadership of Labour and into the Oireachtas is the discussion.

I think it is a perfectly legitimate - and interesting - question to ask if, when, and how do we hold politicians accountable for their past political affiliations, and this is a particularly relevant question in Ireland. However, the OP for the thread in question just read (if you could actually read through it, which I couldn't) as a poorly put-together laundry list, and I was surprised that the thread went on as long as it did.

It was a chronologically ordered and sourced list of how Official Sinn Fein were involved in union control and Media Manipulation

I don't think that it shows political bias to demand that posters 1) craft an OP in a way that presents an issue clearly, takes a position, and provides some rationale for that position,

No it does not show bias to complain about style. what shows bias is not being able to critique Labour or WP or OIRA to the level that SF and FF are. I would do what you asked and had already begun to do so but the thread is now locked.

2) provides links and content analysis of those links,
[/quot e]

I provided some of the links later in the thread. It is only about o tenth of the references I have. I'd get around to it if the thread was opened and I was allowed to post to it.
I usually cover things to a fairly extensive degree. I apologise if my ponderous and pedantic style is off putting to you but i would think I am not short on analysis or references if and when I get the chance.

and 3) focuses on political attacks, not personal or familial behavior (unless that is the focus of the thread,

In the Gilmore case it was related to the thread because the Official Sinn Fein Marxist background of Gilmore and his wife was 180 degrees away from their position today. People can and do change their political views, poachers become gamekeeper but
- it should be made quite clear by them that they renounce their prior involvement in the thing they now oppose e.g. reject the opposition to people becoming personally wealthy to regulation of incomes of the wealthy and to taxing them down to the level of non wealth people as socialists would do
- The Party which represents them should not be making pronouncements about greed of friends and family making money on land when they are doing the same thing

but this is a fringe issue to that of A the OIRA media control, bombings, forgery and other illegal activities and the background of people involved in that control and what effect that has on society as a whole. there is also the issue of B the bias in which A presented as compared to "golden circles" and "Provos"

I think the complaint in this case is particularly ill-founded given that the standards of OPs in the Politics forum in general have dropped somewhat over the last few months.

so now it is back to a personal criticism of my standard and style of posting and not about A or B?

While this is not surprising given all of the interest in the elections, I think the bar is relatively low, and if an OP doesn't meet the current threshold, then perhaps the problem lies with the poster and not with the moderation.

The actuall facts if you go and look will show upo the holes in that contention.
How many threads posted about Official IRA workers party and named names of people in the Labour Movement or the Labour party?

Care to list say ten posts from every week ( excluding any made by you or me )

How many discussed Fianna Fáil in relation to corruption, manipulation, greed etc. and Sinn Féin in relation to terrorism, forgery etc.

excluding any made by you or me Im sure there are far far more.

Care to test my contention? go ahead show I am wrong and there is just and many posts mentioning Rabbitte or Gilmore or Trade union leaders or other ex official SF/Workers party people in a critical way as there are about Lawlor Haughey ( both of whom are dead) Callelly Bankers or builders who were friends of FF etc. ?

That is one of my central points[/]
and it is easy to check.

I may be wrong but my feeling is I am not.

All we need do is have two people read through each thread and post
1 how many messages
2 how many critical of FF or SF
3 how many critical of labour

You can add in GP FG as well if you like.

I think the picture would be clear and unequivocal but Ill admit I don't know.

Care to test it?

ISAW

bonkey wrote: »

You claimed in that thread that you were able to predict that the OP you posted would lead to a number of reactions.

Yes but I didn't necessarily start the thread for that reason.

Were you to start a thread with an OP which contained effectively nothing more then what is in the quote above would you predict the same reactions?

Yes. But given now that people have already had the heads up that might affect the level of the reaction. If also there are people posting or refraining from posting because they have been in contact with each other and either conspired or not in it that would also affect the level.

If so, what do you feel is so inflammatory in the quote above?

I feel ther is an "accepted view" or paradigm in favour of Labour in particular as it manifests in Ireland. Elsewhere it manifests in other biases.

Conversely, if not, what do you feel was inflammatory about the other post that is missing here?

Which other post? How can I comment with authority on something of which I am ignorant?

ISAW

yekahS wrote: »

I am honestly still at a complete loss as to what point ISAW is trying to make.

I think it would be useful if you forced yourself to make your point in a maximum of, say, 6 sentences, because as it is it is extremely difficult to follow what your complaint/point is with the meandering nature of your posts.

People have the same problems with Chomsky

Here is how I expressed it elsewhere:

Why are representatives one political party not allowed to be criticised and have family members deemed off limits but the families of representatives of other political party's are fair game?

Why should I be banned for pointing that out to posters?

i was posting about a culture of moderators and non moderators alike who line up SF FF and others as whipping boys and can't accept from the high moral ground that the same argument can be applied to Labour e.g. associations to Official IRA, Union control, media control, Marxist Bolshevist structures. Gerry Adams can be mentioned with the IRA but Eamon Gilmore Pat Rabitte or P D Rossa can't! FF and SF TD's can be catagorised as all belonging to a culture of corruption or bank robbers and but people with a Workers Party background involved in gun running or forgery indeed of printing their own money can't!

It reminds me of leftists who supported free speech "except for Nazis," and bit by bit others who don't agree with them are tarred with the "nazi associations" brush

To ban someone for how they post is tantamount to saying "it isn't what your argue but your accent/skin colour/religion/ sexual orientation".

I mean if you are going to become a style nazi where does it stop?

I accept i have an aggressive style but which devoted some time to pedantic analysis and deconstruction and then attacks the argument but I don't attack the person. If I am going to be banned for an unwritten rule about "aggressive style" will you progress to banning "boring posters" or posters that post to much?

By the way as I tend to take up a contrary position to those attacking the IRA SF FF Catholics or whoever is this weeks whipping boy, it is all the more likely that it tends to become ISAW posting replies to several people attacking me. I only recently learned how to multi quote but the result will either be lots of posts by me or huge multiquote posts by me. Am I to be banned for posting too much?


Im suggesting there is a "whipping boy " culture developing where people are singled out by a "lynch mob" mentality.

I'm not saying this is planned by moderators but that some of them are affected by it and it involves everyone.

When such a thing happens it may well be that someone they lynch is guilty but the problem with lynchings is sooner or later someone is lynched who isn't properly tried
or their family or anything connected to them is also brought in. SF are derided for connections with the IRA, FF are derided for all being corrupt and anyone voting for them or supporting them is either corrupt or a fool.)

I witness the manifestation of this mindset in the way the church, Fianna Fáil, Sinn Féin etc. are threatened by high moral ground groups.

In the politics forum [my opinion] I would have thought Fine Gael people would be more likely to adopt this mind set [given church connections and "law and order party" ]this mindset but this seems to me to be [my opinion] a Labour element.

What I home to clarify is fair level standards.

southsiderosie

I know I write some epic posts but DANG your posts are long! And they are very hard to read. If that was the issue you wanted to raise in the OP, then you should have just done it in a paragraph or two, and then maybe provided some links to the book or a timeline. Ultimately, your main point got (gets) lost in a whole lot of text.

Having started threads about Labour in which some of the comments became very heated, I do not think that Labour is protected by the mods in a way that other parties aren't. I think the bigger issue is that FF provokes a huge reaction having been in government, and SF provokes a huge reaction given their history with armed republicanism. Labor has been the eternal bridesmaid of Irish politics, and therefore people just don't have as strong of opinions about them.

That said, if Labour and Fine Gael form the next government, I'm sure there will be just as much ire hurled at them over time.

bonkey

ISAW wrote: »

Yes but I didn't necessarily start the thread for that reason.

I never suggested that you necessarily did.

I note in passing, however, that your choice of wording here doesn't rule out the possiblity that this is, in fact, what you did.

Yes. But given now that people have already had the heads up that might affect the level of the reaction.

I see. I'm assuming that you mean the level of reaction might be lessened by people being given a heads-up that you are aware that your comments might be seen as imflammatory.

On has to wonder, therefore, why you choose to take the path with a greater risk of antagonism.

If also there are people posting or refraining from posting because they have been in contact with each other and either conspired or not in it that would also affect the level.

A conspiracy against you? Come now...that's all a bit cloak-and-dagger, don't you think? I'd hope that this is merely idle speculation on your part, and not in any way shape or form an allegation against other users in the absenve of evidence.

GuanYin

Look, I closed the initial thread and the one on Hannafin (which I admit I was late coming to, but that's time zones and a busy life for you).

I made a moderation call which is outlined in the closing post.

Quite simply, the actions of a a private citizen are not open for dissection on politics based purely on familial association, without any evidence of political motive bar conjecture. The threads I closed were mudslinging threads and they are not allowed on Politics. That is the moderation decision and it stands until someone above me says it doesn't. I'm not going to change my mind on that, so the decision isn't up for discussion, if you want to enter discussion from an academic standpoint, OK fine, but limit your posts to 250 words or less if you expect me to read it or respond.

Regarding political bias and conspiracy, gimme a break. For what it's worth, I live in the USA and have no bias or affiliation to any Irish party, not being able to vote for them and all that. As a registered US Republican, I imagine, looking at the options available, that FG or Labor wouldn't be my parties of choice anyway.

ISAW

bonkey wrote: »

I never suggested that you necessarily did.

I note in passing, however, that your choice of wording here doesn't rule out the possibility that this is, in fact, what you did.

If it was what I did it was not the main or only intention nor. As I had flagged in advance that I expected people to berate me it would be wrong toi say I din't expect it would happen.

Edit: I use "not necessarily " usually to indicate that even if true it is not sufficient to prove something. Also, another poster of similar thinking to me might post the same thing with or without having a certain intention so the intent isn't important for the main issue i.e. why I posted it is separate to whether the argument in post is valid sound and reliable.

I see. I'm assuming that you mean the level of reaction might be lessened by people being given a heads-up that you are aware that your comments might be seen as imflammatory.

By people just being aware I expected something to happen. They might be increases or lessened. I would expect lessened. It might be consciously contrived done be conspiracy or unconscious.

On has to wonder, therefore, why you choose to take the path with a greater risk of antagonism.

I already stated why/how I used the name "Gilmore " in the title. I expected a topic of OIRA would "draw flak like a magnet" I think is the phrase used abouyt Orr in catch 22. It did.

A conspiracy against you? Come now...that's all a bit cloak-and-dagger, don't you think?

Not when people label me as part of conspiracy when in fact I posted all on my own bat. Ill admit I heard of the book about a year and a half or so ago and bought two copies.

I'd hope that this is merely idle speculation on your part, and not in any way shape or form an allegation against other users in the absence of evidence.

If I had the evidence I would present it. I have shown how a "mindset" can be tested for existance. It is sufficient to show that . it isn't necessary to show collusion.

ISAW

southsiderosie wrote: »

I know I write some epic posts but DANG your posts are long! And they are very hard to read.

Okay here is my first analysis. Picking the threads which are at the top on first page in forum
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056174080
what party is best 4 me?

28 posts

1 Labour
1 FG 1 FF (same poster)
2 independents 9 one is anti Sf and anti Labour)
4 anti FF

Other 20 not recommending anyone or opposing them.

Thread = Unionist Consent -125 posts
1 pro SF
4 anti SF
2 anti FF

Loyalist and IRA are mentioned both modern ( PIRA) 1916 and the civil war in the 1920s.

NONE mention Official IRA, WP, socialism marxism etc.
I have several posts of my own in that thread neither pro or anti anyone. just information which I suggest is not promoting a biased agenda.

Anyone else care to chip in? I think it adds to my case but you would ahve to cover say ten or twenty threads to get a fuller picture.

If Labour and Fine Gael form the next government, I'm sure there will be just as much ire hurled at them over time.

Wait and see.

Yitzhak Rabin

So do you think its the moderators job to try and create some kind of balance whereby you have a quota of posters who are pro/anti: FF/SF/FG/Lab/OIRA etc.?

Its not their job to regulate public sentiment.

bonkey

ISAW wrote: »

If it was what I did it was not the main or only intention nor. As I had flagged in advance that I expected people to berate me it would be wrong toi say I din't expect it would happen.

And again, your wording doesn't rule out the possibility that provocation was at least part of your intent.

Lest you be concerned I'm trying to trap you here...I accept fully there is a distinction between intending a consequence and knowing it would come about.

The Politics mods could readily predict the creation of this thread once your most recent thread was closed....but we didn't intend for it to be created. We didn't close the thread to try and provoke you to start this thread. It was not our main aim. It was not a side aim. It was no part of our intent.

To that end, it concerns me that twice now you've worded around your intent leaving the door open that at least in part your intent was to provoke people.

You're clearly an intelligent person, with a good grasp of the english language...and it worries me when such people shy away from making clear and unambiguous statements about their intention(s).

I already stated why/how I used the name "Gilmore " in the title. I expected a topic of OIRA would "draw flak like a magnet" I think is the phrase used abouyt Orr in catch 22. It did.

Yes, its quite clear that the flak drawn was not about the OIRA, but rather about your inclusion of Gilmore. Which is exactly my point...unless you wanted to associate Gilmore (and specifically Gilmore) with the OIRA for some reason, then one has to wonder why you chose the option which would draw (the most) flak.

This is the problem for me. I see someone who's able to understand and even predict reactions to posts, and clearly able to argue their point eloquently when they choose....who then goes and starts a thread in close to the most "flammable" manner I can imagine, and complains about being the injured party when it all catches fire.

I'm honestly trying to figure out why you didn't start the thread in a manner less likely to cause aggravation.

Not when people label me as part of conspiracy when in fact I posted all on my own bat. Ill admit I heard of the book about a year and a half or so ago and bought two copies.

I saw no allegations of you being part of a conspiracy, nor to my knowledge were any reported. Could you report them so I can review them, please?

If I had the evidence I would present it. I have shown how a "mindset" can be tested for existance. It is sufficient to show that . it isn't necessary to show collusion.

Your comments weren't about a mindset, ISAW, they were about people communicating with each other behind the scenes and posting or not posting based on those communications.

Don't be disingenuous.

bonkey

ISAW wrote: »

I think it adds to my case

How does a distribution of what posters choose to talk about add to your case that there is double-standards being shown by moderators?

ISAW

GuanYin wrote: »

Look, I closed the initial thread ...

I made a moderation call which is outlined in the closing post.

I'm not criticising you at all. If I have a personal difference with you ill tell you. I respect you are trying to be fair and I don't envy the difficulty of the job. I'm just saying we should be aware of bias even if it is unintentional. And that also isn't about you it is about a general "consensus". ( see my last quote below)

, if you want to enter discussion from an academic standpoint, OK fine, but limit your posts to 250 words or less if you expect me to read it or respond.

I do and I have.

Regarding political bias and conspiracy, gimme a break. For what it's worth, I live in the USA and have no bias or affiliation to any Irish party, not being able to vote for them and all that. As a registered US Republican, I imagine, looking at the options available, that FG or Labor wouldn't be my parties of choice anyway.

You will love my reference to chomsky then
http://www.theconnextion.com/disinformation/disinfo_product.cfm?ProdAutoID=4107&CatID=93 Chapter onbe

I found a similar piece online:
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199710--.htm

There are all sorts of filtering devices to get rid of people who are a pain in the neck and think independently. Those of you who have been through college know that the educational system is very highly geared to rewarding conformity and obedience; if you don’t do that, you are a troublemaker. So, it is kind of a filtering device which ends up with people who really honestly (they aren’t lying) internalize the framework of belief and attitudes of the surrounding power system in the society.

1- Be aware

Now boards.ie is seminal and now as subject to such control so

2- Don't become like the others.
Rage against the machine!

This is where the Internet has potential to step outside the traditional media motif.

He [George Orwell in the introduction to Animal Farm] talks a little, only two sentences, about the institutional structure. He asks, why does this happen? Well, one, because the press is owned by wealthy people who only want certain things to reach the public. The other thing he says is that when you go through the elite education system, when you go through the proper schools in Oxford, you learn that there are certain things it’s not proper to say and there are certain thoughts that are not proper to have. That is the socialization role of elite institutions and if you don’t adapt to that, you’re usually out. Those two sentences more or less tell the story.

When you critique the media and you say, look, here is what Anthony Lewis or somebody else is writing, they get very angry. They say, quite correctly, "nobody ever tells me what to write. I write anything I like. All this business about pressures and constraints is nonsense because I’m never under any pressure." Which is completely true, but the point is that they wouldn’t be there unless they had already demonstrated that nobody has to tell them what to write because they are going say the right thing. If they had started off at the Metro desk, or something, and had pursued the wrong kind of stories, they never would have made it to the positions where they can now say anything they like. The same is mostly true of university faculty in the more ideological disciplines. They have been through the socialization system.

ISAW

bonkey wrote: »

How does a distribution of what posters choose to talk about add to your case that there is double-standards being shown by moderators?

Read my posts. I suggested double standards by moderaters and posters alike buying into media "socialization" ( as Chomsky calls it - see my last post). Posters don't have the direct power over other posters though.

The distribution of posts show I would posit that ther is a heavy criticism of FF or SF and moderate criticism of Labout. SF are describes in terms of a "terrorist" PIRA past but Labour aren't.

Propaganda-
Manufacturing Consent: last paragraph but read the third and fourth paragraph before that one. beginning "For stories that are useful, ..."

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Herman%20/Manufac_Consent_Prop_Model.html

In sum, a propaganda approach to media coverage suggests a systematic and highly political dichotomization in news coverage based on serviceability to important domestic power interests. This should be observable in dichotomized choices of story and in the volume and quality of coverage... such dichotomization in the mass media is massive and systematic: not only are choices for publicity and suppression comprehensible in terms of system advantage, but the modes of handling favored and inconvenient materials (placement, tone, context, fullness of treatment) differ in ways that serve political ends.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ISAW

yekahS wrote: »

So do you think its the moderators job to try and create some kind of balance whereby you have a quota of posters who are pro/anti: FF/SF/FG/Lab/OIRA etc.?

Its not their job to regulate public sentiment.

I agree but we should be aware of outing people as like me as "nutjobs".
I submit if my stats were produced for more politics threads the trend would emerge.
One would expect an anti government weighting but SF are anti government and they are ostracised as PRA but OIRA are not and FG are not promoted as much as public opinion of them being as big as FF were suggests.

This got me into looking at the old media control thing. Which led me to the Book about NUJ control and stickies and I saw this in parallel with attacks on Hanafin and Callelly when ones on Gilmore were sidelined.

It got me to thinking abut what people had written on it

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Herman%20/Manufac_Consent_Prop_Model.html

Last para but see the two four paras earlier beginning
"For stories that are useful..."
Manufacturing consent - Propaganda

In sum, a propaganda approach to media coverage suggests a systematic and highly political dichotomization in news coverage based on serviceability to important domestic power interests. This should be observable in dichotomized choices of story and in the volume and quality of coverage... such dichotomization in the mass media is massive and systematic: not only are choices for publicity and suppression comprehensible in terms of system advantage, but the modes of handling favored and inconvenient materials (placement, tone, context, fullness of treatment) differ in ways that serve political ends.



http://www.theconnextion.com/disinformation/disinfo_product.cfm?ProdAutoID=4107&CatID=93

found a similar online version of the first chapter
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199710--.htm

He [George Orwell in the intro to his book Animal Farm] talks a little, only two sentences, about the institutional structure. He asks, why does this happen? Well, one, because the press is owned by wealthy people who only want certain things to reach the public. The other thing he says is that when you go through the elite education system, when you go through the proper schools in Oxford, you learn that there are certain things it’s not proper to say and there are certain thoughts that are not proper to have. That is the socialization role of elite institutions and if you don’t adapt to that, you’re usually out. Those two sentences more or less tell the story.

When you critique the media and you say, look, here is what Anthony Lewis or somebody else is writing, they get very angry. They say, quite correctly, "nobody ever tells me what to write. I write anything I like. All this business about pressures and constraints is nonsense because I’m never under any pressure." Which is completely true, but the point is that they wouldn’t be there unless they had already demonstrated that nobody has to tell them what to write because they are going say the right thing. If they had started off at the Metro desk, or something, and had pursued the wrong kind of stories, they never would have made it to the positions where they can now say anything they like. The same is mostly true of university faculty in the more ideological disciplines. They have been through the socialization system.

for in and out groups read this
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

Authoritarian followers usually support the established authorities in their
society, such as government officials and traditional religious leaders. Such people
have historically been the “proper” authorities in life, the time-honored, entitled,
customary leaders, and that means a lot to most authoritarians. Psychologically these
followers have personalities featuring:
1) a high degree of submission to the established, legitimate authorities in
their society;
2) high levels of aggression in the name of their authorities; and
3) a high level of conventionalism.

By the way this isn't my academic field. I'm just interested in the subject.

I think media like Boards.ie are a way which Chomsky and others due to their ignorance of potential of technology didn't identify as a way to break out of this control if we are aware of it.