Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

delete

Lady Comstock

delete

(edited 8 years ago)

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

viddy9

Original post by Lady Comstock

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/31/readers-editor-on-readers-comments-below-the-line

Anyone who follows CiF articles will know that readers' comments tend to be totally against the Guardian line on these three topics, and the most critical receive the highest 'recommends'.

Views?

Anyone who reads these articles also knows that a lot of racist and bigoted views are put forward in these comments' sections and that a lot of trolling goes on these days. The sheer volume of people commenting on these articles make it difficult to moderate.

This is why they're not banning comments on articles concerning race, immigration and Islam, but they're limiting the articles on which comments are allowed to ensure that the moderation team can cope with the number of people who are commenting.

Furthermore, I highly doubt that the people making these comments are regular Guardian readers. Often, they're simply trolls, whose accounts were created only recently.

There are also other topics on which the readership and the commenters are completely against the Guardian line - on Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie Sanders, for instance, the readership are hugely in favour of them whilst the Guardian's line is to oppose them.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 2

Yuck Fou

DailyMail moderates their comments too. Which is why I never see any of mine appear.

Damn censorship.

With the Guardian as soon as you post something that counters what they're saying they can delete it.

Reply 3

viddy9

Original post by Yuck Fou

With the Guardian as soon as you post something that counters what they're saying they can delete it.

Some of their moderation decisions are debateable, but I've seen numerous comments that have been kept on despite countering what they're saying, whether it's on race, immigration, Islam or Jeremy Corbyn.

Reply 4

FriendlyPenguin

Original post by viddy9

Anyone who reads these articles also knows that a lot of racist and bigoted views are put forward in these comments' sections and that a lot of trolling goes on these days.

Check out the sheer number of banned comments here:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/06/hungary-two-tailed-dog-viktor-orban

(Order by newest or oldest, then go through the pages - ordering by recommendations obviously excludes most deleted comments)

I can assure you that the vast majority of posts were not anything near offensive; TSR lets much more extreme views be expressed here than in that comment section.

I saw some banned for simply mentioning the Cologne attacks (which the Guardian had not reported at the time)... like "Hopefully it'll help cheer up the women in Cologne!" Given that the article promotes satire to make political points, it is a bit rich for the Guardian to remove those posts.

I have also seen some quite disturbing comments about Tories and David Cameron... unsurprising, of course, but they would not be allowed on TSR, but are on the Guardian. Double standards...

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 5

Aj12

I really do not see the issue here. It is the same issue that crops up with moderation on TSR, people think they have an inalienable right to freedom of speech every where, to any degree. That is not the case. You have freedom of speech on these platforms as far as they allow it. Don't like it, vote with your feet

Reply 6

HAnwar

Can we ban comments on Daily Mail too thanks.

Reply 7

The_Internet

The only news outlets that you should really have an issue with, that is if you can actually call it a "news outlet" is perhaps Britain First who delete absolutely every thing that is critical about it. See normally I'd be of the opinion of "Its their page. They can do what they want" but they talk quite a lot about how their freedom of speech is being trampled upon and how they can stir up hatred in the name of freedom of speech

Its only then fair that they let us argue against them in the comments section. No matter how polite you are, they will ban you

Reply 8

Chief Wiggum

I've had completely innocent comments removed from The Guardian several times. They are completely ridiculous with their moderation.

One time I posted a research study which suggested the opposite to what the article's author wrote, and it was deleted for being "off-topic"!!

Reply 9

FriendlyPenguin

Original post by Aj12

Sure, but we can criticise them for it. They might even be interested in debating it

Reply 10

KimKallstrom

But wait a second, OP, I thought that the media was run by Tories and others with a right-wing agenda to demonise poor people and Muslims. Strange.............

Reply 11

ChaoticButterfly

Original post by KimKallstrom

But wait a second, OP, I thought that the media was run by Tories and others with a right-wing agenda to demonise poor people and Muslims. Strange.............

The Guardian is generally social liberal to some degree. The OP is talking about stuff like LSBT and feminism. It very different from the likes of the Telegraph on these issues. IF you count being pro every LSBT and feminist as left wing then guardian is very left wing. Economically though , like Viddy pointed out, it's not that different.

The Paper generally dislikes Corbyn and prefers Clinton over Sanders by a mile. They would rather get a woman as President than get Sander's who has real social democrat policies that would help millions fo american women no end. More than Clinton. Especially considering Sanders is a lot more electable in America than Corbyn is here. Also since the Republicans seem likely to submit Donald Trump Sanders has a strong chance of winning the election. But nope. Hilary all the way even though economically she is basically a moderate republican with all the **** that comes with. Nothing will really change other than stopping a very right wing republican getting in like Cruz. The Guardian doesn't do socialism, even if it is the completely benign soft form with Sanders, most of the things he talks about are not even left wing over here, health care for example, or working rights such as maternity leave.

It has a history of showing it's true colours whenever something left wing might actually happen. It's liberal. Not socialist.

"The paper so loathed Labour's left-wing champion Aneurin Bevan "and the hate-gospellers of his entourage" that it called for Attlee's post-war Labour government to be voted out of office.^[28] The newspaper opposed the creation of the National Health Service as it feared the state provision of healthcare would "eliminate selective elimination" and lead to an increase of congenitally deformed and feckless people.^[29]"

It;s like when the independent, a paper that printed endless anti Tory-Lib dem stories, has what can be considered a big left wing readership base, backed the coalition at the general election. The owner was a non-dom funnily enough. :laugh:

Reply 12

caravaggio2

The Guardian has been not running comments on selected articles since , well forever really.

Reply 13

YouNeed2Know

I have no respect for Guardian who shill for NATO and not long ago the bombing of Syria.

Reply 14

Ronda Rousey

Original post by Lady Comstock

So The Guardian bans people from being racist and xenophobic.

What's the problem here?

Reply 15

TeeEm

well, we have a choice whether we want to buy/read the guardian ... so they can make their choices which I am sure is based on their readership and we can make ours....

Reply 16

the bear

Original post by Mathemagicien

Check out the sheer number of banned comments here:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/06/hungary-two-tailed-dog-viktor-orban

.

about 10% were deleted.... not a huge amount really

Reply 17

nulli tertius

Original post by Lady Comstock

Obviously no. The Guardian bans, by default, all people commenting on the three types of articles because of what it refers to as toxicity.

The Telegraph has severely curtailed the articles which can be commented upon. I suspect the time and cost of moderation has been too high. It may also be, I do not know, that hostile comments on matters of controversy reduce to traffic to a webpage.

Reply 18

FriendlyPenguin

Original post by the bear

about 10% were deleted.... not a huge amount really

Are you ordering them by recommendations by any chance? That excludes deleted comments (except for daughter comments)

Order by oldest or newest, then go through the pages