Q&A tonite

[lightning]

you are right al they stole the new thread button and now to put up a thread you have to submit the thread topic and if they allow it they post it, so much for free speech!!

[Al B. Fuct]

yeah, sucks kinda, but there were some folx who were abusing the Q&A forum to drive their nutball (JoooOOooOOOs/New World Order/RUDD!!socialistcommiechinesespyRUDD!!) agendas. I think I said it before, it's hard to focus when your eyes involuntarily roll back in their sockets every 2nd msg. I really don't know why Q&A has attracted the wacko element, but they've been getting far more than their fair share. Free speech is one thing, but when the signal-to-noise ratio passes a certain point, the utility is lost. When the conspiracy nuts take over, no one benefits, so I don't mind the forum admins reining it in a bit.

 

I do trust that if there's enough reqs for a "Cannabis: Legalise & Tax?" topic, they'll do it. I hope my faith isn't misplaced. I've put in a req under that topic name. It's a firey-hot issue in world (particularly US) news at the moment- Q&A would be truly remiss to ignore reqs to discuss it. When Der Governator calls for public debate at the risk of his political life amongst more-conservative-than-you'd-think California voters (not to mention Obama's brave pledge to stop the DEA from busting Prop 215 patients), it's probably a pretty safe topic for the ABC.

[lightning]

Al I agree the s/n ratio tends to be pretty poor in the Q&A forums but then again the biggest problem with democracy is that 50% of people are below average intelligence so the noise floor in a democracy is always fairly high.

I believe the correct approach to a noise issue is to increase the "Signal" above the noise by addressing the extremist position with rational logic and show them for what they are, idiots! That is what the mods should do and if people resort to personal attack etc. then ban them for set periods of time to bring them back into reasonable language and behaviour that is not offensive.

 

While I do seriously question the "stability" of many conspiracy theorists, we are all aware here of the conspiracy by Hearst Dupont Asslinger et al to prohibit the plant of renown. And anybody that believes that conspiracies do NOT occur has obviously NEVER sat through a business or political meeting were by their nature people conspire to make money or gain power.

[luciddreaming]

I agree with that lightning. Some people just take it too far. i.e Making up conspiracies that have no evidence whatsoever, or connecting to completely unrelated things.

 

Maybe you should suggest that ban thing to them?

[Al B. Fuct]

oh, you bet, conspiracies definitely do occur and the Hearst/DuPont/Assmuncher conspiracy is a great example. King George taking the US to war on the pretense of WMD is another one. However, it's a lot harder in modern times for a big conspiracy to exist without it wikileaking all over the place.

 

However, the trolls' game is to make you work really hard to disprove their absurdities when the burden of proof really isn't on you. Reasoning with a wackjob just wears your patience and your keyboard.

 

Plus, it pays to be clear on our definitions of 'freedom of speech' and 'censorship.' Censorship is something only governments can do. Freedom of speech is a right you exercise in public spaces. The ABC, while wholly funded by govt, is operated by a corporation 'at arm's length' from govt, meaning govt doesn't interfere in the day-to-day editorial decisions taken at the ABC. Consequently, the ABC being essentially a private venue, if the ABC chooses not to publish something, it's an editorial decision, not govt censorship.

 

If the Q&A forum admins choose not to publish something, they have made an editorial decision just as might happen with letters-to-the-editor at the SMH. If the SMH were obligated to print every submission to protect freedom of speech, the daily op-ed section would be delivered with a forklift.

 

If the govt leaned on the ABC to not allow discussion of any given issue, you can bet that the ABC would leak like a flyscreen door on a submarine. As they showed when they were being tromped on by Alston and Jonathan Shier, they don't submit to govt attempts at editorial control very willingly.

 

I've lived in a bunch of places on the planet, consuming the local meeeedja in my travels and worked in radio & TV broadcasting for a couple of decades, on two continents. The journalistic ethic at the ABC is amongst the highest standard you can find anywhere, in no small part because they are a fully govt funded yet hands-off operation. This means they don't compromise editorial control to please advertisers and are protected by the ABC Charter from govt meddling.

 

Again, I hope my faith isn't misplaced, but I doubt very much a govt conspiracy to control content at the ABC exists nor would exist for too long before it became public knowledge.

[lightning]

Unfortunately the prohibitionists have been placing their people in media jobs in Australia for years ie Murdoch etc and this has also progressed throughout the ABC and other "arms length" bureaucracies. The ABC board is after all appointed by the government not the public and you do not bite the hand that feeds.

Name even one Australian newsreader that is Pro-Cannabis for medicine even let alone responsible adult use?

If you can think of one I would be REALLY surprised they were on the ABC.

Look at the ongoing anti-canna shows being put on the ABC week after week, when was the last time you heard about the medical studies on ABC news that are proving Cannabis to be effective in treating the MANY ailments it treats or the breakthroughs in cancer treatment that have recently come back to light of day.

 

Look at the constant use of the Marijuana, dope, pot etc language on all stations, rarely if ever is it called by the proper name used in the law, Cannabis,

They call Heroin by it's correct name not by smack junk etc the slang names.

If they were truly independent they would use the proper scientific terms to report the issue not the vernacular of prohibition.

Bottom line is .....You WILL know them by their fruits.

If you wish to ignore the trolls on a forum you just don't reply don't spend time on their threads start topics on YOUR issues and if they come in and go off topic on one of their rants report them to the mods to deal with and get their posts deleted as abuse, they soon stop the bullshit.

the biggest problem with censorship is who watches the watches and who decides what is "Filtered"

If somebody puts up a thread that is wacko most people just don't read any further, free will.

 

PS it is OUR ABC not the Governments propaganda arm

Edited May 31, 2009 by lightning

[Al B. Fuct]

Unfortunately the prohibitionists have been placing their people in media jobs in Australia for years ie Murdoch etc and this has also progressed throughout the ABC

 

Noise Ltd's lowbrow editorial policy has been zero-tolerance for yonks- reflects the will of Murdoch hisself. If you work for Rupe, you write Rupe's party line or you don't write for Rupe. However, I tend to disagree about the editorial stance of ABC. The eds over there tend to favour harm minimisation. HM is a logical position and not hard to support with evidence, and the tone of the writers generally reflects this where appropriate. I can't recall any stories where ABC News repeats zero-tolerance talking points, unlike Noise Ltd, who do so gleefully whenever they can. 'Psycho weed' is a dream story for Noise Ltd and they tell those tales enthusiastically.

 

and other "arms length" bureaucracies.

 

When I describe the ABC as having an 'arm's length' funding arrangement, I'm referring to the fact that most national, govt funded broadcasters in the rest of the world DON'T have any insulation from govt meddling. It's the usual case o'seas that a national broadcaster is the mouthpiece of the govt of the day. The ABC is a great big exception to the rule. The ABC charter specifies that govt may not have any editorial control over the ABC.

 

The ABC board is after all appointed by the government not the public and you do not bite the hand that feeds.

 

The ABC board is govt appointed, but the board has little to nothing to do with editorial policy or the day-to-day running of the ABC. The board can TRY-and has tried- to influence the culture within the broadcaster but hasn't had any luck. You'd think with Albrechtson, Brunton and Windschuttle on the board that IF the board could alter programming or editorial decisions, they would have canned Message Stick, AWAYE and ESPECIALLY Media Watch. Shier managed to kill MW for a season, but it came back, biting hard as ever. The evidence of ABC board influence I refer to is the inclusion of rebuttals from MW story subjects during Monica Attard's tenure. I think that's why she quit the program. The rebuttals turned into timewasting liefests and were discontinued when Jonathan Holmes took over the MW chair.

 

Name even one Australian newsreader that is Pro-Cannabis for medicine even let alone responsible adult use? If you can think of one I would be REALLY surprised they were on the ABC.

 

Frankly, a good newsreader should not actually reveal any bias. Bear in mind that there's a difference between a journalist and a newsreader. Journalists actually get stories, write the copy and usually present the package on air. A newsreader does just that, reading news copy which others have written. Journalists are more prone to revealing some bias but a good one tries very hard to reveal none. Any journo whose bias is plain is hard to call a journo. A biased journo is usually referred to as an editorial commenter. If an obviously biased journo is reporting straight news, not editorial or opinion bits, you have... well, Anna Coren.

 

Look at the ongoing anti-canna shows being put on the ABC week after week, when was the last time you heard about the medical studies on ABC news that are proving Cannabis to be effective in treating the MANY ailments it treats or the breakthroughs in cancer treatment that have recently come back to light of day.

 

I agree that the selection of some of the prgs on the ABC have had a zero-tolerance bent. Catalyst did a show on cannabis last year and they repeated just about every stupid Z-T lie on the books. They got whacked in the shins really hard by a lot of viewers (including me), so they did another one on cannabis recently. It was a bit more reasonable.

 

However, it may not be the fault of the makers of Catalyst etc. that the preponderance of anything even close to reliable medical evidence about cannabis has been produced by anti-drug agencies of govt such as NDARC, the National Cannabis Prevention Centre, etc. There's very very little objective evidence about cannabis because no one funds objective research. Govt funds 'research' that gets them the anti-drug answers they want to hear. None of that is the fault of the ABC, but it certainly does colour their reportage when all the info they can get that looks even remotely reliable comes from an agency with a stated goal of discouraging drug use. I WISH that news orgs would rely more on evidence-based drug researchers and treatment experts like Dr Alex Wodak from St Vincents Hospital in Sydney. Wodak is the closest thing to an objective drug researcher you'll ever find.

 

Look at the constant use of the Marijuana, dope, pot etc language on all stations, rarely if ever is it called by the proper name used in the law, Cannabis,

 

The ABC normally calls it 'cannabis.' Fairfax sometimes says 'cannabis', sometimes 'marijuana.' Noise Ltd almost always calls it 'pot' or marijuana.'

 

If you wish to ignore the trolls on a forum you just don't reply don't spend time on their threads start topics on YOUR issues and if they come in and go off topic on one of their rants report them to the mods to deal with and get their posts deleted as abuse, they soon stop the bullshit.

 

Yeah, well, users can't start topics there anymore. I would hope that under the new moderation style, the mods on the Q&A forum DO hold the discussions more on-topic.

 

the biggest problem with censorship is who watches the watches and who decides what is "Filtered"

 

Sure, that's a given.

 

If somebody puts up a thread that is wacko most people just don't read any further, free will.

 

Yeah, that's true but that wasn't the problem. There was a cadre of nutzoposters who turned every single issue into a Zionist conspiracy, regardless of the topic. If anything, by removing the ability of users to start their own threads, the trolls now will get their attention fix by polluting more 'legitimate' threads, instead of being contained in ther loopy little circle jerks that most ppl generally ignored.

 

PS it is OUR ABC not the Governments propaganda arm

 

I agree. And in the overwhelming majority of cases, the ABC is not presently used as a propaganda machine, certainly not on the instruction of govt.

 

Remember, just because they're not openly expressing a bias toward legalisation/med cannabis doesn't mean they're against it. It means they're reporting on the balance of probabilities given the 'research' that's available, which is what journalists are supposed to do.

[lightning]

Author ABC (Moderator) Date/Time 01 Jun 2009 1:33:36pm Subject WHAT DO YOU WANT FROM YOUR MESSAGE BOARD? Dear Message Board Users,

 

Q&A is in recess and we were closing down the Message Board over the break BUT just before we go