Yesterday I promised to respond to your points here, but this morning things seem to have moved on, what with Donald Trump’s LBC debut
and that young fellow’s sparky contribution to last night’s QT.
“Bring on a general election. I hope Boris gets a majority, delivers Brexit and defeats a Marxist Jeremy Corbyn government”, says this #bbcqt audience member. pic.twitter.com/1XQS42KYVC— BBC Question Time (@bbcquestiontime) October 31, 2019
No matter how much we strive to be less of a ‘hate-site’ and more of a platform for legitimate criticism, the BBC gets worse, not better. Naturally, we feel discouraged by our own impotence. I can’t speak for Craig here, but recently I have detected a stagnant air about this place. I found the dwindling number of below-the-line contributors disheartening.
The page-views are still buoyant, but if you’re merely lurking, why not join in?
Perhaps the comments facility is a deterrent - it’s not at all user-friendly - but people complain about Disqus as well. To those of you who have stuck with us - your loyalty and thoughtful contributions are much appreciated.
These (we call them introspective) posts come across as ‘fishing for compliments’, which isn’t exactly what I’m fishing for at all. I’m fishing for engagement and debate. To liven things up.
(This is today. I might feel different tomorrow.)
(This is today. I might feel different tomorrow.)
Once upon a time, the BBC considered the sincere criticism they found on the Biased-BBC blog worth engaging with and refuting. But when the site was reinvigorated (taken ’downmarket’) some of the petty and factually questionable comments that popped up discredited the whole enterprise and let the BBC off the hook, so to speak. They took the easy option and dismissed the whole thing as ‘hate’. In a way are collateral damage. But we knew that when we started this.
I thought the idea of ‘handing it over’ was slightly absurdist. I mean, what’s to hand over? It’s a free blog, run on goodwill and gratis. Nothing to stop anyone setting up one of their own. I suppose the domain name could be transferred. D’you think it has commercial value? Any offers? (Only joking)
All nine of your questions are up for discussion as and when you like. Open debate is exactly what this site is (wishes it was) about. So, how can we encourage it any more than we do already? Genuine question.
Bear in mind that self-publicity is not our strong point. We’re hard-wired against it. This is what Douglas Murray calls a 'hardware' rather than a software issue - it’s genetic, inborn; nature rather than nurture.
Battle-weary is a good diagnosis. The general election might reignite some passion - but as I’m more of a long-form merchant, the appropriate brevity is hard to master and I don’t know if there’s any future in churning out posts that end up “tl;dr”. (I do try.)
Being tied to a crumbling system is not a pleasant thing.
ReplyDeleteI committed to Blogger years ago, I guess as it was tied to something I used... Mac? Google?
One thing that may reduce engagement is the lack of clickable links and other 'shiny-shinys'.
Unless you have a secret revenue model, fear not about numbers. That is a BBC obsession, as it is how they maintain those market rates, and the heck with quality.
Which is what we have here.
Move on Sue. I prefer Craig’s posts to your random ramblings. .
ReplyDeleteWell, we can agree that Craig's posts are great, but I thought that was a particularly mean-spirited put-down.
Delete(But I did ask for engagement I suppose.
Yes, an unkind and uncalled-for comment. I prefer Sue's posts to my own.
DeleteLooking back, sometimes I can’t even tell if a post was one of yours or one of mine till I check. I prefer them all equally - and here’s a substitute emoji ;-)
DeleteFrom the point of view of somebody who's been reading
ReplyDeletethis blog for 3 years or so, I'd like to make the following observations.
- It's a bloody good blog. I like the way both you and Craig write. I like your humour and I like the fact that you're both analytical and not reactionary.
You write from the angle of disappointment in the decline of quality at the BBC, not implicit hatred of it as an entity.
That angle keeps me on my toes because sometimes I despise the whole organisation.
- I've written many comments here. My experience is that sometimes the blog BTL can feel a bit like a private do in a pub where the occasional commenter may feel that they're butting in like an embarrasing drunk looking for a chat. I've written some comments that I would have appreciated some reaction to (from anybody), but there was no interaction. I had the impression that there is some suspicion of posters who post anon and don't post from a clear right leaning stand point.
I still read all your articles, but I post BTL less.
Just to add. When a poster doesn't get a response, there are only 3 alternatives :
Delete1- It didn't get read
2- I agree - there is nothing more to add
3- Go away outsider.
That's a potential problem in our up-tick down-tick world.
Thank you. That's opened my eyes a bit. All comments do get read - I'm quite obsessive about it in fact - but can I now imagine how unsatisfactory it is not to get any response at all. It could even feel rude - though, as I write below, it's really not meant to be. It's actually because I don't want to be the kind of blogger who overdominates the blog by being here, there and everywhere. Anonymous posting is perfectly valid - especially if the blog's comments system making posting otherwise ridiculously difficult! - but sometimes, especially when several anonymous writers are engaging with each other, to get a sense of who's saying what.
DeleteAs for the political standpoint of comments, we began by hoping to get comments from right across the political spectrum. Indeed, it was a serious wish to encourage that. But I don't been a great success on that front! We'd still like it to happen though.
Ah, thanks Anonymous. That's cheered me up again. I'll respond more fully later - after dinner if I can.
ReplyDeleteI have been visiting this site for many years now and what keeps me coming back is the (relative) sanity above and below the line. It also means that I can keep track of the dreadfully disappointing output of our national broadcaster without the pain of actually watching it. I mean this as an almost literal thing as screaming and shouting at the tv is just bad for you! You do however both highlight the occasional gem that creeps through and for that I'm grateful. I rarely comment as I fear repeating "I completely agree" under just about every post and comment would look a little weird! Please help in maintaining my sanity by continuing to run this blog.
ReplyDeleteMy sentiments exactly!
DeleteThanks. We should do more of the highlighting of the occasional gem that creeps through though. I've lapsed a bit on that front recently.
DeleteKeep going - as above I come here because the comments both above and below the line are normally sane. I regularly check the site and I’m disappointed if there’s not a new story to read.
ReplyDeleteThank you Clockworkorange. You've always been of our most stalwart supporters.
DeleteIf it wasn’t for MB and Arthur there would be no below the line comments. Others used to post regularly but gave up and left due to apparent lack of interest and responses. No encouragement by Sue and Craig either for those posting regularly (MB excepted). Craig also goes AWOL for weeks on end. Posting by the owners can be irregular so you can look for days and there is nothing new. By and large, Sue is focused on one particular example of bias. The blogger site itself makes posting difficult. No HTML, no ability to insert links, pics or graphics or reference an earlier btl post. Hence the current situation. You reap what you sow.
ReplyDeleteAs Lou Reed sang at the end of 'Perfect Day'. You have several points.
Delete“Perhaps the comments facility is a deterrent
ReplyDeleteIt is. Logging on to my Google account is impossible these days. I have no idea why. And my last attempt to comment just vanished when I tried to post entering my name. Hence all the Anonymice. Actually, scrub that. It just did the same as Anonymous. I’ll try posting on my phone now.
For what it’s worth, I find this site an invaluable counterpart to Biased BBC. Notwithstanding Craig’s AWOLs, at least there are articles for Craig to go away from.
Roland Deschain
To add to my earlier post I have, after much hair-pulling, managed to log on. Partly because it became a matter of principle but also because I think it important to register my appreciation for this site, which I’m sure applies to many other lurkers who either give up trying to comment or feel they have little to add, but are glad to know they are not alone in what is, frankly, an increasingly irrational world.
DeleteFor those struggling to register. It doesn’t like Safari, hence my difficulties on both iPad and iPhone. I eventually used Chrome which allowed the Captcha box for posting anonymously, which it seems Safari was suppressing. Although Captcha was a trial in itself. Chrome also seemed happy to see my Google account - well it would, wouldn’t it - so I was able in the end to log back on.
Just for the inevitable perversity it will create, i am posting this as a reply to Roland's 13:13 (lucky for some?).
DeleteTried posting on another thread and even with my 'dodge' got this:
The following errors were found:
Input error: Memcache value is null for FormRestoration
Now I vaguely recall once doing something in Safari but darned if I can recall what.
What I did was obliterate my history. Yay (I think).
DeleteI wish we could get rid of the Captcha box but it's not something Google Blogger allows. We have 'Who can comment? Anyone', 'Comment moderation? Never' and 'Show word verification? No' on our Settings but, unfortunately, it's at the user's end where the problem is. It's a real pain to have to try out difference browsers to find ways to comment. Good to see you're back to yourself again though.
DeleteAh, some interesting points raised (she said, in an unintentionally patronising manner)
ReplyDeletePeter,
Thanks, and I understand and agree about the lack of shiny things.
Anonymous 16:52
Your comment came across as gratuitously hurtful. The anonymity of the internet enables stuff like that, so I guess I have to suck it up.
Anonymous 17:42
Thank you for your supportive remarks. I completely get the feeling of being an intruder.
I don’t think calling yourself ‘anonymous’ arouses suspicion, but I do think it signals a kind of non-committal approach. Made-up names (any kind) still preserve anonymity but give one individuality and differentiate your contributions from other anonymouses (and are more likely to attract a response)
Anonymous 19:24
Thanks for that. “I completely agree” is fine with me!
Clockworkorange
Oh God. I hate disappointing people! There’s always an open thread though.
Anonymous 20:10
You’re right, we are indebted to MB, Arthur, Peter, Terry, Ozfan… there are still quite a few left when you get round to totting them up.
Of course commenters come and go - every blogger knows that. Sometimes bloggers (owners) disappear without a trace too.
Yes, I am most interested in antisemitism and related issues, but not completely confined to it. I haven’t made a secret of it.
Craig and I are busy in real life - maybe I should respond btl more than I do, but to be honest I already put in quite a bit of effort. There’s a lot of paddling going on below the surface, and I’m probably a bit slow.
Anonymous 21:12
Oh, it’s Roland off B-BBC! Hello.
Yes. The one time when Craig imported Disqus all the existing comments disappeared down a black hole so he undid it pdq I‘d like to try it out again, but I don’t think Craig is keen. Also, it’s not universally popular - people who use it are always cursing it.
I'm pretty sure that Anonymous 16:52 was just missing a winking emoji. It certainly made me laugh out loud.
DeleteI come here at least twice a day, when I can, for a sanity check and to learn from the brilliant contributors - both named and anon - and I am very grateful to you Sue and to the others. I don't know what caused your downer, but I hope you feel better very soon. Lots of love and best wishes. Anon.
I have regularly read and enjoyed the blog for over two years; I visit Biased BBC from time to time but it is often too strident and I find Craig’s and Sue’s thoughtful appraisals more rewarding. But I have only commented a couple of times and then anonymously. Why? Because the comment system is antediluvian and even now doesn’t assure the poster that his URL won’t be displayed. Sorry, but the idea that anonymous commenters are non-commital simply because they are anonymous seems to me completely wrong.
ReplyDeleteIt is antediluvian. It's a basic Google blogger blog and, whatever we do next, we ought to finally get round to fixing it - somehow. It's entirely my fault that we haven't. Sue has been up for sorting it out for ages but I panicked when we tried it before and seemed to wipe out all the previous comments. (They returned when we restored the old comments system). We definitely can't see your URL, or at least don't know how to. We used to be able to see everything when behind the scenes at Biased BBC. We could see when people were posting under different names, for example, and 'ganging up' on someone else or in support of their own comment (i.e. one chap pretending to be half a dozen agreeing with himself). A surprising amount of that sort of thing went on. Psychologists would be fascinated by it - as I was. It probably still goes on, as per Fedup2's grim experiences with shapeshifting commenters there suggests. We, luckily, have none of that here.
DeleteOh dear...this is like one of those family moments when someone says "Yes, but what did you really think..." The most important point is that we are family...in that we don't anyone of us think the BBC is living up to its impartiality obligations.
ReplyDeleteI am always a broadest as opposed to a splitter. So I think it's best we agree on what we agree on. :)
Disqus like Facebook is the work of the devil in my view - have nothing to do with them! lol
Like Sister Sledge. :)
DeleteSue's right about my worries about Disqus. And Facebook is the work of the devil. Or a devil.
Hi Sue and Craig,
ReplyDeleteI'm a lurker who remembers Natalie, Andrew,Ed & Archduke, Pounce & yourselves amoung others from Biased BBC. I lurk over there too but thought I'd stick my head over the parapet here to show my support.
Keep doing what you are doing.
Thank you.
DeleteOne other factor is that the BBC has, maybe since the 2016 Referendum, become completely and obviously biased. In response I have greatly reduced my use of it and replaced with podcasts, LBC, Fox etc.. So I have less to comment on!
ReplyDeleteWhen I do listen to it, I then come straight here to see if you or the BTL have picked up the outrageous bias I have just heard - and usually you have. This is important to me. Before I discovered this site I thought it was just me.
The BBC "gaslights" the nation!
I had that feeling when I first discovered Biased BBC all those years ago. It was very reassuring in a way.
DeleteYes, I know what you mean about the urge to listen to things beyond the BBC. I know that I ought to be monitoring BBC output when I get the chance but the BBC's output is less and less enjoyable. Radio 4, my preferred channel, is becoming more and more of a desert - and a desert full of likeminded preachers - and it's getting worse, quicker and quicker. So I seek out more entertaining things away from the BBC when I want to give my brain something interesting to chew on.
I don’t post replies very often because most of the time I haven’t heard or seen the programmes referred to. When I have a general point I usually wait for the subject to come up. Also I don’t like to repeat myself, although I often do. I don’t think that any of the Anons should feel unwelcome. I was originally an Anon. Nor do I think that posters should be deterred by the absence of an immediate response to a comment. Surely to be read and to have got your point across is enough. I think the absence of “likes” is a good thing and prevents any kind of playing to the gallery, so to speak. Sensible discourse is what makes this blog stand out, and that is down to the tone set by Sue and Craig’s well written and extremely considered posts.
ReplyDeleteThank you, Terry. We've both very much appreciated your support over the years. Your comments are 'sensible discourse' made flesh.
DeleteThe absence of "likes" is something I like too, for the same reasons.
As for not seeing or hearing programmes, that's become a real problem for me recently. When I did my first solo blog I had time to listen to huge amounts of the BBC's output and get a serious handle on it. Now I've barely time to watch anything. It's making it hard to say anything signficant about BBC bias - and I've been worrying about that a lot lately.
Oh, I wish I didn't have a life! That was a charge slung at me in the dying days of my old 2009-10 blog. It would be hard for anyone to sling it at me now. I've got far too much of a life!
Thank you for all your support over the years. It really is much appreciated - especially as it sounds like a nightmare ever trying to comment on our comments system. It is becoming ever more difficult to find the time to blog - which is why, when I get the chance, what Sue and I call 'avalanches' usually follow (i.e. about ten posts in a single day). Please keep on commenting - if you can. Whatever we decide to do, we won't be closing ITBB as a forum.
ReplyDeleteI would suggest that BTL commenters try their hand at an occasional guest blog. It's unreasonable to expect Craig and Sue to cover all of the BBC output looking for inaccuracy and bias.
DeleteNobody ever comments on BBC III online output, even though it is extensively trailed on BBC One and Two TV. I guess that the channel is aimed at the youth - does anyone know what sort of distorted messages are being sent their way?
Indeed, Arthur. Just email me if you've got a guest blog you think would do us proud - as Arthur does.
DeleteAre you following up on Rob Burley's spat with... yet another bonkers lawyer? If not, it almost makes me sorry for him. Almost. Were it not for him using such as this to distract from when he doesn't go near actual issues of relevance and concern.
ReplyDeleteTo reinforce Roland's point, another factor beyond the signing in via Google is what you will see here, and that is ITiots like me can only get on and comment via their PCs (if Mac), and then only post something that gets dumped at the end no matter who you reply to... and thennnn... only by right clicking the 'Comment as' once you have posted to open another window.
And that is after saving it as it can just 'vanish' what you wrote anyway for the lolz.
Disqus has its issues too, but in the spirit of 'where's a teenager when you need to vote in two areas' how about Wordpress?
I am thinking of moving my company site blog over to that as Blogger was doing my head in.
But I have only dabbled and it looks like at best I trash everything before and start again with a back link.
I am also planning to reignite my specialist blog to complement ITTB and BBBC that is aimed purely at the BBC Complaints system from first template blow off through the belief of an ECU Director to OFCOM saying they are not interested.
I have teased Craig with this before and its first incarnation was way too complex, but with time and space ( a BBC editorial favourite) I will get there. Just £5Bpa and 19,999 staff short of the ideal.
I have been following it. It's barking madness at its most barking. Rob Burley has had a very odd couple of days.
DeleteWe have been looking at WordPress but are finding it hard to get to grips with. It must be more flexible than Blogger though. Blogger's main benefit is how basic is it. Too basic.
Good luck with getting the complaints blog going again, especially with Ofcom getting involved now.
I do take the point that I don't reply enough to comments, but it's part of The Blogger's Code (a code so tight it makes the Freemasons look shambolic in comparison) that we shouldn't overdominate the blog. Our family of commenters should feel relaxed about saying what they want to say while knowing that we're listening, with our feet up and having a nice cup of tea (or a glass of wine), quietly enjoying the conversation. (That's the way I tend to behave at parties too!).
ReplyDeleteAnd the more the merrier, as Sue says.
I missed this post
ReplyDelete#1 There are a lot of blogs and Tweets , so it is difficult to keep up
#2 If you look at the web stats you usually find that the number of readers who are lurkers can be way bigger than those who post.
eg BBC staff who don't want to get caught out
#3 You can't take posts at face value
eg "rape threat" tweets have turned out to be from 12 year old girls
.. So when someone posts something that could seem unPC, that could mean that writer is trying to cause trouble
If you waste time pursuing them, that can be "feeding the troll"
BTW on this blog it's easy to hit the SignOut button
ReplyDeleteinstead of Publish
One thing people can do is follow blogs with Wordpress reader
ReplyDeleteThat way the page lists blog updates on one page whether they are on wordpress or from other platforms
https://wordpress.com/
I wish I had half your tech savvy!
Delete