Enemies of Reason Poundshop potshots at the media moral maze.

Towards a sensible comments policy, and why the BBC’s HYS bollocks might be the least worst option

In my earlier post, I spotted more than a couple of loons whose factually incorrect, bigoted, brainless, ignorant and rather twattish views had been waved through with a cheery smile by the Hate's moderators.

These are the same moderators, you have to remember, who quickly siphon any criticism of their deranged columnists into the cyber bin (except for the odd glorious occasion when a few dissenting views sneak through, even if they are quickly removed again).

So let's get this straight. Comments making polite and reasoned criticism of Richard Littlejohn or Melanie Phillips are out. Whereas comments telling lies, insulting dead people and accusing people of having committed crimes they haven't been convicted of is fine.

But the Mail's comments policy goes a bit deeper than that, and a little bit dirtier, wouldn't you know it. Oh, you would. OK, but it does. Mailwatch regulars detail many stories where perfectly honest comments on a story, not insulting, abusive or unpleasant, simply aren't allowed. Why might that be? Is there some kind of quality control at work? Yet how can you square that with some of the utter reactionary rubbish that gets through? Might it not be the case that the Mail only 'allows' comments that reflect a certain viewpoint - even if they're completely false - and doesn't tolerate voices of dissent to its way of thinking on a particular subject?

They aren't very open about their comments policy, as far as I'm aware, so I don't know the criteria they use. But it shows how a pre-moderated comments policy could be used to give the appearance of a false reader reaction - every time you see a Littlejohn column on the web, it would appear that *every single* reader is applauding his genius and brilliance. Which isn't the case. So the comments published don't give the full picture, to say the least.

Which brings me to the Express, who until recently went in the other direction. Something - we're not sure what, as once again, like the Mail, they're less than frank about it all - has happened with their web comments. It began with them saying it was a 'revamp' but I'm not so sure. But in general, the Express allows anything through, unless it's obviously illegal or spam. And I mean anything. Anything like this beauty:

Yes you are letting in to many immigrants.
I am from Texas and in Arizona the illegal immigrants are leaving because we have stopped letting employers hire them or go out of business.
I know in my heart that England is our mother country.
I hate to see the Muslims act as if they are going to harm – take over and rule England - Remember Germany yall had to fight – Please enforce a work law
And if need be ask America to help drive out the Muslims that are there make laws that state that IF a Muslim breaks the law he and his family have to go back to Islam - Mohamed was nothing but a murderer and a child molester.
What is it they say that if they kill a non believer they get so many virgins?
Well what is there mind set . and right now where are the virgins – they are our Children – drive them out – I know we will help. Thank you from America

Let's look a little more closely.

IF a Muslim breaks the law he and his family have to go back to Islam

Yes. That's what it says. Think it couldn't get more weird and borderline racist? Think again, amigo.

if jonathan ross humour has upset the viewers there is an easy solution ,turn him off ,simple .ross like so many comedians thrive on shock tactics and believe me we have a lot more to worry about in this country than the the suggestive remarks of jonathan ross it seems quite acceptable for a muslim to ask his brothers to become matyrs and now he becomes the victim of the law .

Er, what? Jonathan Ross makes a joke... right... I see that... so, wait, where did the Muslims come from?

Every year the Turner freak show comes along. Psychiatrists retire. Asylums release the inmates. Sane people eat worms. Cancer is my friend. Who needs money ?. I'm going to live with the squirrels in that lovely big tree overlooking the cesspit. Even as a kid I had a big fat healthy suspicion of many things English - and my ancestry goes back a zillion years. What's the answer? Brain surgery before the madness of puberty? I love art at it's best. Even photography by an expert can evoke nostalgia and haunting beauty. But Turner? It's a pee take, folks. And who are the creeps who make it respectable?.

Yes, yes, I see what you're saying there. (What the fucking hell?!)

The Express would tell you, I'd guess, that this is closer to 'freedom of speech' than the Mail, which selectively screens its comments. There are also legal implications - commenters themselves are responsible for their comments, not the website as publishers, which is barmy as far as I can see, but that's apparently the case.

However, these legal implications for libel are certainly not OK for ongoing court cases, which are affected by contempt of court legislation. Not that that stopped Expressites from launching into anti-Muslim foaming tirades during the start of the 'liquid bomb' trial. Yes I know, I've written about it myself today, but I haven't assumed guilt on the part of the accused, which is kind of regarded as a bad thing, I'm led to believe.

And while the Mail protects its columnists, the Express leaves them to the wolves. Poor Richard and Judy. Actually, not poor at all, a few thousand quid a year richer for writing for the most right-wing and evil newspaper in Britain, but there you go.

In addition, the Express won't take comments down until they're complained about. Isn't that mad? They won't take responsibility for journalistic decisions until an untrained member of the public tells them something's gone wrong. Doesn't that strike you as catching the bus from the strange side of the street?

So there are flaws with both systems - and the way they're used by the newspapers in question, obviously. Local papers don't fare any better either. Often they innocently open comments on crime stories, and get a 'he should be sent back to where he came from' when the man in question is a British Asian. Sometimes they open comments for tributes about dead people, only to find a 'she took it up the arse' from Mike Giggler. Which is pretty horrible if you happened to be a member of the family looking at it. "Oh we've taken it down" - but it's too late. You can't un-see things. You can't be un-distressed. News media don't exist to take a chance with people's feelings and just cross their fingers that people don't behave badly. Do they?

So that brings me to the BBC and the HYS nutcases. It's often like reading the kind of wilfully dumb loons who phone up Jeremy Vine, and as I've mentioned before, there's always the chance of vandalism and misappropriation by people deliberately targeting the site to give a false impression of their own support.

But... it might just be the least worst option. At least you don't have comments opened on each individual story, for idiots to wreck the journalism above with some ignorant twattery. So that's a positive. If there are issues to discuss, at least it's all in one place, in the HYS dungeon of rubbishness. And every now and then, the commenters do surprise you by actually coming out and rounding on the ignoramuses.

Which isn't to say that when they're blatantly hijacked they shouldn't do something about it. And it doesn't mean I don't wither and chew the carpet every time I read the fools and numpties 'having their say'. But it just seems to make more sense. Yes, comments are removed if they're offensive or nasty, and you don't have to wait for a member of the public to point it out to a journalist before the journalist actually gets off his or her arse to do something about something they clearly know to be wrong, but have to pretend by some kind of pathetic pantomime that they haven't seen, when they have. And stories have a cleaner look to them.

It's not ideal. The Beeb still had to allow the views of idiots who falsely claimed Jean Charles de Menenzes jumped the barriers at Stockwell Tube station when actually he hadn't, the police admitted he hadn't and CCTV footage clearly showed he hadn't. What to do in those circumstances? It's a tricky one. I'm sure the BBC doofus who writes that self-aggrandising balls every week about 'We had a few tricky decisions but we made all the right ones yet again', which is supposedly a blog but which clearly isn't, will know best. But I just think that sometimes common sense must play a part. If dozens of people are saying something that is demonstrably a lie, is it right to let them lie? When it's an opinion, fine, but when it's a fact, that's a different matter, isn't it? I would say it is.

But I have to come to the conclusion that the BBC's HYS, annoying, vandalisable and hijackable as it is, is probably a better system than the Mail or Express. It seems more honest. I hope it is; I'd like to think it is.

No related posts.