One man’s scaremongerer is another man’s talker of common sense.

I totally agree. One would have hoped for better from the BBC.

Of course, what the silent majority really think is the big question

“The best lack all conviction while the worst are filled with passionate intensity”
W.B.Yeats

“The fact that someone believes strongly in something is a reason for us to disrespect their belief and to discount it as the product of a fevered, fanatical and irrational mind.”

What? The strength of someone else’s belief is little, if any, guide to its veracity or worth. I have strong confidence that France is in Europe (factual) and that shooting people in the street at random should be illegal (moral). Will you now claim that these beliefs are wrong?

Don’t throw “irrational” around as an insult when you’re tubthumping for irrationality.

“Fanatics think their beliefs are so important and true that they set up lobbying groups and “thinktanks” to promote them, whilst rational people devote less time and organization to pushing their opinions.”

Alternatively, people whose beliefs are not being enacted in the status quo have more incentive to organise and convince than people for whom the current system is acceptable.

Let’s transpose this argument back to the early very 1900s. The people who were claiming that women should have the vote in the UK were organising, pushing their line of argument, and in many cases committing criminal acts in support of their cause. Many of them were by the dictionary definition fanatical about it, and most of them were criticised by the quiet reasonable members of society as irrational (there are some fascinating political cartoons and postcards from those days)

Nowadays, of course, believing in votes for women is considered a rational stance. But that very definitely was not true back then. Have the laws of logical deduction changed over the last century? Or is it that what is considered “rational” in political rather than mathematical terms is merely an artifact of the current political consensus and subject to change. (If so: congratulations, you’ve defined “irrational” as “non-centrist” and “rational” as “centrist”. Nice try.)

The fact that someone believes strongly in something is a reason for us to disrespect their belief and to discount it as the product of a fevered, fanatical and irrational mind.

Chaise has already said why this makes absolutely no sense, but I’d like to go further than that and note that “irrational” is not a synonym for any of “wrong”, “evil”, or “dangerous”.

Trivial proof: show, solely using rational arguments from unarguable first principles, Chaise’s example “shooting random people in the street should be illegal”. It’s trivial if you pick the right first principles, obviously, but since one can logically and rationally prove anything no matter how absurd if the right starting point is chosen, you need to find axioms which are not contestable to start from.

I am perfectly comfortable to strongly believe that Chaise is right about this, in the full knowledge that I have no proof to rational standards that he is actually correct.

‘scaremongering’ is a very nice word to use when describing Andrew Green. It’s an utter crime that his views are treated by the BBC as though they have any validity.

Credit where credit is due. The Right have skilfully pushed the idea that the BBC is some kind of ‘Left Wing mouthpiece’, with the help of the Left, it has to be said. While the Right have been attacking the BBC, the Left chose not to defend it, but instead raised its own half hearted attacks on the BBC as well. I am sick to death of Left Wing people shooting the messenger when it comes to the BBC. It is the BBC’s job to report the news as objectively as possible. We on the Left neither need nor want a ‘Left Wing broadcaster’. All we want is a level playing field.

Obviously, in recent times, post election, some cases of downright dishonesty (single parent workers, portrayed as non working) have occurred but what we have witnessed is the steady dumbing down of the BBC to accommodate the Right Wing fuckwits. Now, the fact that the much of the Right Wing is made up of fuckwits is not the BBC’s fault. A good solid interviewer should be able to tear these pricks apart, but the BBC is hamstrung because they fear further political interference.

Look at the free-range people like Digby Jones, David Starkey and Peter Hitchins get on Any Questions and the like. The Dimbleys are shitting themselves, lest they are accused of bias once they get onto a droning stream of consciousness rant.

That is where the Left should be aiming their fire at, the dumbing down and the political interference at the BBC, not the BBC itself.

What is being suggested? Interviewees who say things like; ‘well, I don’t know … I’ve never really thought about it before’ ?

As for Peter Hitchens, much as I disagree with him over his views on drugs, he is an author and journalist of some standing, and is very usually great value for sticking the boot into party hacks of all sides, and I applaud his views opposing the Iraq War, ID cards, detention without trial etc.

@4. Chaise Guevara: “What? The strength of someone else’s belief is little, if any, guide to its veracity or worth.”

Chris Dillow was deliberately overstating the point — strongly expressing an opinion about strong opinions — and you’ve come up with a more moderate wording to support his case.

However there is truth in Mr Dillow’s overstatement. Those who speak strongly about a subject may be judged as obsessive which may further lead observers to conclude (perhaps incorrectly) that the argument holds no merit. How do we determine whether a strongly presented argument is cock waffle and bluster, or whether it illuminates us (ie eloquent delivery of facts)?

He played another thought game with the statement: “this is what gave us the law against religious hatred”. Those with strong opinions in favour of protection of religion promote laws to deny those who strongly speak against religion.

Moderation is not a good thing. We need an extreme left government

“We need an extreme left government”

As in Labour’s 1983 election manifesto or even more extreme?

We need to know a bit more detail.

@Sunny: There’s a typo in the headline. Surely it should read: “For reason why the BBC gives a platform to extreme voices”?

@5. cim: “Alternatively, people whose beliefs are not being enacted in the status quo have more incentive to organise and convince than people for whom the current system is acceptable.”

I wonder about the words “organise” and “convince”. In the 1970s, gay people established openly gay-oriented night clubs and pubs in the UK. Those creations were socially transformational but not all were intended to change minds; they were about making money (an ideal) and providing a friendly place for gay people and friends. Their social influence was coincidental with two youth fashions (glam and punk) which challenged conventions of gender/sexuality. BDSM clubs have provided a similar challenge since the 1990s.

My friends and neighbours are actively involved in societies to maintain historic buildings, the public and wild nature areas where I live. They organise to maintain status quo or a sustainable version. They are about convincing, but they are more about balancing local government decisions.

I’m not dismissive of cim’s point, but most social organisations start off from the premise “let’s do something for ourselves”. And most never have to concern themselves about politics or conviction.

@ Charlieman,

“How do we determine whether a strongly presented argument is cock waffle and bluster, or whether it illuminates us (ie eloquent delivery of facts)?”

By listening to the argument and deciding for oneself, perhaps.

@14. Richard Carey: “By listening to the argument and deciding for oneself, perhaps.”

Anyone who stands up for Peter Hitchens on LibCon deserves a reply. I am not taking the piss, on this occasion.

The problem, Richard, is that we know much less about what happens in the world than social scientists proclaim. Hypothetically, if you read a story in a newspaper related to your job, your response may be that it was ill informed or badly reported. Your judgement would be based on your knowledge.

But a thousand people might write comments in response: about lumbago, patients who snore and nurses who fart. How do you design a service around that?

Complainants may be bonkers, on the whole, but if they are right, you are in trouble.

@ Charlieman,

I would say the answer is found through diversity and competition, rather than trying to design a service for everyone. I wasn’t trying to be sarcastic with my comment btw. I wasn’t sure what you were saying. The thing is, with regard to the initial premise of the OP, I would rather hear the diverse, possibly extreme opinions and decide for myself, than have someone else do it for me.

I get annoyed with the choice of guests on Radio 4, but no doubt different ones to Chris Dillow. For me, it’s the constant trotting out of ‘experts’ from Chatham House. For me the solution does not lie in the BBC achieving some better level of ‘objectivity’ (or do I mean better reflecting my opinion?), but in me seeking information from diverse, including many foreign, sources.

Oh, for God’s sake. This is absurd.

@17. vimothy: “Oh, for God’s sake. This is absurd.”

Which bit? If I know, I can scratch a bit harder.

Jim: While the Right have been attacking the BBC, the Left chose not to defend it, but instead raised its own half hearted attacks on the BBC as well.

You have this the wrong way around. If the left keeps defending, while right attacks, it doesn’t inoculate the BBC, it actually reinforces the perception that the BBC is nicer to the left.

Also, programme makers within the BBC would prefer being attacked by both sides (makes you think you’re ‘balanced’) than just one side.

So when lefties unthinkingly defend the BBC, they’re not helping any cause.

This raises the point that there is adverse selection in political debate: fanatics are given attention whilst sober, rational voices are overlooked.

There are four channels through which this happens

Channel 5 not reached where you live yet?

And once you get cable there’s hundreds of channels.

If Andrew Green is a bit of an extremist, aren’t some of those who take the opposite view also somewhat extreme in their ”everything’s fine with immigration and asylum” approcah?

The population of the UK is set to grow because of immigration. By several million.
Andrew Green thinks that’s terrible and goes on about needing to build new towns and cities to take them ….. and Philippe Legrain (who’s a bit on a ”Spiked” person as far as I know) thinks that open borders are the way to go and the population could be a hundred million if we just built the right environment. Megacities etc.

Supporters of asylum seekers can be pretty extreme too, with their emotional appeals against detention centres and accusing staff at them of racism …. and even trying to get the co-founder of Migration Watch sacked from his position at Oxford University.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1544328/Students-try-to-oust-MigrationWatch-don.html

Btw. All those ”direct action stuntspeople” (Climate Camp, Plane Stupid etc) are also pretty extreme. What do we want the BBC to be ….. even more boring, safe and middlebrow?

Sunny @ 20

You have this the wrong way around. If the left keeps defending, while right attacks, it doesn’t inoculate the BBC, it actually reinforces the perception that the BBC is nicer to the left.

I would suggest that it all depends on how and who you attack, though, doesn’t it? We could go round the houses with this all day, but let us think to the ‘debate’ regarding ‘Global Warming’ as one example.

The science is pretty much one-sided, all the science points one way. Yet when the BBC are accused of ‘bias’ for reporting the fact that every major scientific study comes to the same conclusion. The Right have demanded ‘balance’ and in this case, ‘balance’ means having a scientist the scientific side, and a fucking moron on the anti science side.

We need to be a bit more aggressive toward the moron, we need to point out that he is only the programme to make up the numbers up because the Right have no one better qualified and we need to stop giving these cunts creditability by indulging their half baked quibbles as ‘legitimate’.

Also, programme makers within the BBC would prefer being attacked by both sides (makes you think you’re ‘balanced’) than just one side.

Hmm, this is a bit of a cop out though, because it assumes that every complaint is equally valid. Trust me, if you have been ina Scottish pub in the aftermath of an old firm game you will see that denying one team two stonewall penalties because you have denied two fifty fifties is balance.

The Right complain about everything; they despise truth because it fails to match up to what their ideology tells them. The Left rarely complain because they are too meek to make a fuss, by and large, the odd one here and there, when there is outright bias, but we do not (and should not) carp every day. Complaining about how the BBC report unemployment figures because it doesn’t say what you want it to say, is not the same as complaining about portraying a housing benefit recipient as unemployed to fit your agenda.

So when lefties unthinkingly defend the BBC, they’re not helping any cause

Nobody wants an ‘unthinking’ defence of the BBC. We need to examine the motives of those who attack the BBC and attack that. So when someone complains about ‘bias’ in Robin Hood because they are too many black faces for example? What does that tell us about the complainer? Or when someone complains about the unemployed seen as anything other than lazy?

Perhaps we need to look at what these people want? Do they want truth or something to re-enforce their bigotry?

We should be using attacks on the BBC to expose their real agenda, not a reason to trot out out little quibbles regarding top gear, thought for today and the Royal Wedding.

“The fact that someone believes strongly in something is a reason for us to disrespect their belief and to discount it as the product of a fevered, fanatical and irrational mind.”

This is perhaps the singlemost idiotic things I’ve ever read on this website.

But since you clearly believe strongly in it, it’s ok because I can write you off as a ‘fanatic’.

Idiot.

The fact that someone believes strongly in something is a reason for us to disrespect their belief and to discount it as the product of a fevered, fanatical and irrational mind.

I think someone who just, kinda, you know, thinks there’s probably no conclusive evidence of global warming, needs to be confronted more than someone who passionately dismisses global warming as a lefty conspiracy because the former is open to persuasion while the latter will interpret your intervention as further evidence of conspiracy.

Agreed.

@4 Chaise sets up not only a logical fallacy, but also a quality strawman with…

“I have strong confidence that France is in Europe (factual) and that shooting people in the street at random should be illegal (moral). Will you now claim that these beliefs are wrong?”

Firstly the fallacy. My degree of belief in something does not in itself have any bearing on the truthfulness of the belief. Psychologically speaking we measure our degree of belief by the ease it comes to mind – the easier something is to recall the more certain we are correct. Say my memory gets a bit flaky, and I forget where France is, but I do remember that France has lots of Algerian immigrants, and I know Algeria is in Africa, so I think France might be in Africa. If somebody asks me, and I say Africa, and I am not challenged then I may come to believe that France is in Africa. Now if I went and checked an atlas, I would see that France is in Europe – however we very rarely check our beliefs.

In short what matters is the body of knowledge that the belief is based upon. As it is your argument follows the form….

If I wholeheartedly and absolutely believe in fairies, then they exist.

Now the strawman….

Your examples are universal beliefs – there is a high degree of agreement about these beliefs. The article is about the high degree of belief held by people such as Andrew Green when it is unwarranted. The issue on whether immigration causes youth unemployment is deeply uncertain.

the statement

“The fact that someone believes strongly in something is a reason for us to disrespect their belief and to discount it as the product of a fevered, fanatical and irrational mind.”

is rather extreme – I am assuming it is intended to be. I would rewrite it as…

“I believe that people who hold very strong beliefs in situations where there is lots of contradictory evidence are irrational, and should be ignored.”

However, people generally appear to do the exact reverse of this. They prefer the most confident speaker, except that we know that in uncertain situations a high degree of confidence is irrational, hence people behave irrationally in uncertain situations.

“Fanatics think their beliefs are so important and true that they set up lobbying groups and “thinktanks” to promote them, whilst rational people devote less time and organization to pushing their opinions. ”

Is this serious? If so, it is so packed with idiocy on so many levels that I think it should win some kind of prize.

The rest of the article seems little more than a demotivatingsludge.

How on earth did this get published for serious consideration?

Migration Watch UK is affiliated to the Galton Institute.
http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/MigrationWatch

Thinking about it, there are times where the irrational side normally *appear* to hold their beliefs more strongly than the rational side. But 1) this has to do with the rational/irrational thing specifically, not fanaticism, 2) that word “appear” is important, and 3) it’s not a good way to judge which side is right, partly because people can believe the right things for bad reasons (“I believe that the world is round, because spheres are prettier than planes”).

This crops up in things like creationism vs evolution/science/reality. Being a creationist means you never have to say “I’m not certain”. You’ve already rejected reason and empiricism, so why would you suddenly act scientifically when a specific morsel of your belief is called into question? Scientists, meanwhile, do have to operate within reason and empiricism. That’s what makes them scientists.

So, if a creationist holds up two related fossils and says “can you say for certain that this evolved from that?” the scientist may be in a position where they need to say “that’s where the evidence leads, but there’s room for doubt because we’ve only got so much data”. To the layman this can sound like “I don’t know” in the face of the creationist’s unwavering conviction, whereas what it actually means is that the scientist checks their beliefs and the creationist doesn’t.

See the lesswrong blog for more on this; I feel I should name-check them as I’m stealing their example.

@ 27 Mark

“Firstly the fallacy. My degree of belief in something does not in itself have any bearing on the truthfulness of the belief.”

Um, are you saying this is a fallacy on my part? Because “degree of belief in something does not in itself have any bearing on the truthfulness of the believe” is the argument that I’m making! You should take this up with the OP: he’s the one who thinks degree of belief has bearing on truthfulness.

“Now the strawman….

Your examples are universal beliefs – there is a high degree of agreement about these beliefs. The article is about the high degree of belief held by people such as Andrew Green when it is unwarranted. The issue on whether immigration causes youth unemployment is deeply uncertain.”

Firstly, that’s not a straw man. It’s a reductio ad absurdum. The OP simply claims that a strongly held belief is evidence of wrongness. It doesn’t say “except for ones with a high degree of agreement”.

Secondly, the rules of rationality don’t change for “agreement” any more than they do for “degree of belief”. Oh, it’s useful shorthand for the layman, in terms of scientific consensus and so on, but beliefs don’t suddenly become unquestionable just because enough people believe in them.

I’m having trouble with your post TBH. In accusing me of fallacy (fallaciously), you rightly said that degree of belief does not affect truthfulness. In accusing me of straw-manning, you now seem to be arguing that degree of belief DOES affect truthfulness in cases where there isn’t much agreement. Please clarify.

@31 Chaise.

I re-read your original post and I believe misunderstood

“What? The strength of someone else’s belief is little, if any, guide to its veracity or worth.”

We indeed agree on this point. However and this may be a misunderstanding on my part, you seem to be saying that you can’t simply automatically assume that a strong belief is a sign of irrationality.

I don’t believe this is what the OP is arguing for. Earlier the OP makes the point

“People mistake confidence for knowledge, and so give too much credence to the irrationally overconfident.”

The following statement

“The fact that someone believes strongly in something is a reason for us to disrespect their belief and to discount it as the product of a fevered, fanatical and irrational mind.”

Makes sense in this context – strong believers are as a rule irrationally overconfident.

The examples you give are where knowledge is highly certain – this knowledge is also commonly known. The topic is about knowledge that is uncertain or contested. Where small groups are trying to push a particular understanding – e.g. immigration causes youth unemployment.

The point I am making is that generally people can not tell the difference between beliefs based on a sound body of knowledge, and beliefs that aren’t – because we almost never check the body of knowledge they are based on. Instead we use a proxy – confidence.

Example we all know that France is in Europe. And we assume that this is as true as immigration causes unemployment, because when we think about them they both fit comfortably in with what we already know – psychologists use the term cognitive ease to describe this process.

The argument is a strawman, because I believe your your point is that having a high degree of belief is justified where there is a sound body of knowledge to underpin it. I think the OP would agree with this point, but this is not what the OP is arguing. And finally on…

“you now seem to be arguing that degree of belief DOES affect truthfulness in cases where there isn’t much agreement. Please clarify.”

That’s not quite what I am arguing..

I am arguing that it is a better bet to take more note of the less confident speaker, in situations where I do not possess a sound understanding of the underlying body of knowledge. To consciously discount the opinions of the speaker with the strongest beliefs.

Because that speaker with strong beliefs got those strong beliefs not because the evidence is overwhelming, but because they had to discount all the contradictory evidence.

There is a difference between the person trying to make the best decision, in the face of uncertainty, and the person who is convinced they are right.

I know who I would rather listen to.

Surely ‘reasonable’ is a subjective judgment? Who defines it? Is it “reasonable” to defend the status quo something similar? I would argue not.

The BBCs problem isn’t that it gives the right a platform. It’s that it hardly ever gives the left the chance to respond (and by “the left” I don’t mean David Aaranovitch…………..)

I think Winston Churchill defined ‘ fanaticism best when he said,

“A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject”.

The folks who complain that we can’t speak about immigration tend to be the ones who speak about nothing other than immigration. So they are fanatics. Politics for the sake of our own sanity is most definitely an arena where we do not want fanatics. Unfortunately, politics and political issues attract the fanatics like flies to cow pats. Contemporary society is inundated with fanatics who all display a single-minded obsession with their pet issue. I think this rise in fanaticism is related to the wider loss of religious faith. Issues that obsess the zealots are replacing the religious fervour that afflicted previous generations. The particular issue is not that important, it is the level of engagement and zealotry around the issue that matters.

The fanatic of course believes that their fanaticism is entirely normal and it is the rest of us who are at fault for not sharing the fanaticism. The desire to convert new converts to the fanatics obsession is also an indication of the replacement religion nature of contemporary political issues.

33 so what do you mean by the left,Anyone who admires Stalin and Chairman mao, Come to think of it didn’t livingstone say that he lost the mayoral election as the BBC was bias towards the tories!!!

@32 Mark Redwood

Thanks for your reply. Considering what you said, I think we interpreted the OP’s original statement differently (quite possibly I simply got the wrong end of the stick) so could have been at cross-purposes from the beginning.

The statement: “The fact that someone believes strongly in something is a reason for us to disrespect their belief and to discount it as the product of a fevered, fanatical and irrational mind.”

I took this to mean “…a reason for us to decide that belief is wrong”. So, if someone fervently believes that a tax rate of over 50% will result in less income, we should assume that a tax rate of over 50% will result in the same or more income. Aside from the deeper logical issues, this runs into the problem of what happens when you encounter a fanatic with the opposite view.

However, you seem to have taken this to mean “…a reason to decide this person isn’t worth listening to”. In other words, we’re rejecting their *confidence* in the belief, not the belief itself. So we’d pretty much just ignore the above fanatic in our attempt to work out the effects of the proposed tax rate.

If so, I agree with you entirely.

“I am arguing that it is a better bet to take more note of the less confident speaker, in situations where I do not possess a sound understanding of the underlying body of knowledge. To consciously discount the opinions of the speaker with the strongest beliefs.

Because that speaker with strong beliefs got those strong beliefs not because the evidence is overwhelming, but because they had to discount all the contradictory evidence. ”

I’ll certainly accept this as a rule of thumb.

“There is a difference between the person trying to make the best decision, in the face of uncertainty, and the person who is convinced they are right.”

Absolutely. One observes the world and tries to find out the truth, the other decides ahead of time what the truth should be and tries to twist their worldly observations to fit. And yeah, I know who I’d rather listen to as well. That’s why, as a non-scientist, I have strong confidence that evolution is true: all of the nay-sayers are in camp B. When a large group of people have a strong interest in proving something, and all they can come up with is obvious fallacies and lies, it seems pretty likely that their belief has no basis.

@ 34 Richard W

Excellent post.

“The fanatic of course believes that their fanaticism is entirely normal and it is the rest of us who are at fault for not sharing the fanaticism. ”

And sometimes they can’t imagine that anyone could be anything other than a fanatic. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve got into arguments with particularly zealous believers who just can’t understand the idea of atheism. Either they interpret it as another faith (the god Evolution and the prophet Darwin), or they honestly think that I know God exists but have decided to reject him out of pure contrariness.

Hence the popularity of the “How can you not believe in Jesus when he loves you?” argument.

I don’t object to any idiot airing his views – the problem comes when the BBC journalists don’t have the intellectual capacity (or the opposing guest) to show the absurdity of the fearmonger’s argument.

I think all extreme views should be aired – otherwise how else are we going to demonstrate what a lot of old bollocks it is?

We give teh BNP validity by not allowing them to speak – just let them have the floor – it won’t be 5 minutes before they trip up and expose themselves for the racist bigots they are.

The same goes for middle of the road immigraition scaremongerers like Green.

What is more important is the BBC should be highlighting WHO SET UP AND WHO PAYS for the group being represented. For example, nobody should be able to watch the ‘taxpayers alliance’ – without it being pointed out that their members represent less than 0.000000001% of ‘tapayers’. Also it should be pointed out that ‘sir anthony bamford’ donates for this ’cause’ – despite the fact that he is a multimillionaire who uses tax avoidance measures for both him and his company (JCB)

Facts like this for example.

“In October 2009 Elliott admitted that another director of the group, Alexander Heath, had not in fact paid any British taxes for several years as he resides in a farmhouse in the Loire in France. Heath has lived and paid taxes in France since 1973.[6]”

Taxpayers alliance my arse- there should be a law against such deception.

It’s not the extremists on the BBC which worry me – I have recently complained (to no avail) that the BBC keep bringing on ex-reality TV stars on ‘news based programmes’ and interviewing them with a caption which indicates they are some form of ‘experts’ – despite their only ‘qualification’ being a failed career which ended when they decided to ‘go for broke’ and go on reality TV.

These are the real worries because they are given legitimacy by the BBC – then they sput the most amazing uncontrolled crap – usually a right wing confused spiel as they explode the few thoughts their daily paper gave them all over our screens.

This then leads to further morons actually thinking what they say is legitimate and correct – despite it being total crap – and then we just end up with a society filled with moronic subsitutes for human beings as they are taught by ‘senior morons’ and waifs.

@ Standard

The lazy approach to expertise is a problem in general. I might award myself a Certificate of Expertise in Everything, instantly making me an important voice on any subject.

Once you realize an extremist is just someone with a different opinion, and by definition we are all extremists this article becomes completely devoid of reason or purpose.

@ Dave

“Once you realize an extremist is just someone with a different opinion, and by definition we are all extremists this article becomes completely devoid of reason or purpose.”

The article’s about fanatics, not extremists. Which is a different thing: you can be fanatically moderate, or hold a position that might be considered extreme by most, but not be too bothered about it. I know the headline says “extreme” but that’s because Sunny writes the headlines, not the OP. General rule of LC: don’t assume headlines reflect the article unless the OP is by Sunny.

It’s still not a great article, but I don’t think it’s talking about a meaningless concept. We can probably vaguely agree on what a fanatic is: as has been pointed out already, one good definition is “someone who can’t change their mind and won’t change the subject”.

Chaise @36

Despite an adversorial system – we seem to be finding more we agree on than disagree on.

On your statement

I took this to mean “…a reason for us to decide that belief is wrong”.

I agree – you can not argue that overconfidence = wrong. I do believe however you can argue that overconfident strong believers are more likely to be wrong than those whose level of confidence more realistically reflects the level of evidence.

Which I believe is Chris Dillows point – we take more notice of the people who are more likely to be mistaken.

On

“(quite possibly I simply got the wrong end of the stick)”

Actually neither of us know precisely what he meant by “disrespect their belief.” It could be that your interpretation is more correct than mine. The reason I argued strongly for my position was that I felt he was saying something really fundamental about the way we do politics in this country.

We have an adversorial political system. One side wins, the other loses. The winning argument is right, the losing one is wrong. When an argument is presented, we the observer do not have time to logically think through their argument or fact check their statistics. Rather what we rely on is how well it fits with what we already know, and how confident they sound. That’s one reason why soundbites win over complicated arguments.

What adversorial debate really does is to polarise opinion. The participants views diverge, as they focus on the differences rather than similarities, AND each becomes more convinced they are right. Losing a debate strangely does not weaken your belief in your position, it usually strengthens it.

They are other debating strategies which increase consensus rather than decrease it – however they do not make good television.

and I find myself agreeing with your position on

“The lazy approach to expertise is a problem in general.”

Although Donald Rumsfeld was slated for his “known, knowns; known, unknowns; and unknown unknowns” speech, he actually said something very valuable about expertise which nobody wanted to hear.

We have experts back to front. We assume that confidence is a universal sign of expertise, the reverse is true.

An expert is not an expert simply because of the body of knowledge he has acquired. A true expert is also aware of where his knowledge is incomplete and missing. The confidence he has in his beliefs reflects the strength of the body of knowledge that supports it.

So we can tell the non-expert apart. The non-expert is unaware of where they lack knowledge – they always sound confident, even when they do not possess the necessary knowledge. However we find these non-experts more reassuring, more believable than a true expert, and so we are poor at choosing experts.

“The Right complain about everything; they despise truth because it fails to match up to what their ideology tells them. The Left rarely complain because they are too meek to make a fuss..”

Not sure reality is on your side with this one.

Poll tax rioting.

Student demonstrations attacking Conservative Party HQ.

Polly Toynbee calling the 50k benefit cap a ‘Holocaust on the poor’.

Direct action (usually illegal)

Twitter mobs versus un-PC (indeed offensive) comments.

Intimidatory tactics by trade unions. (watch videos of flying pickets if you are too young to remember).

I’m not sure where you get the idea that the Left, ‘don’t make a fuss?’.

Indeed, ‘the silent majority’ is actually small c conservative, like it is in every major western country. Leftist views are actually overrepresented in the media.

@ 43 Mark Redwood

You have my full agreement. Your point about “loser = wrong” and “winner = right” in an adversorial system is vital and I should have raised it myself.

There are a few cases where the informed person sounds more confident (I once got into an argument with someone who thought that the Conservatives and the Tories were different parties, and I sounded pretty damn confident then, although I realise this is another example of a non-controversial claim) but I imagine your rule holds for complicated issues. One problem with know-nothing “experts” is that they don’t even know that the issue is complicated.I ‘m guessing you’ve heard of Dunning–Kruger effect?

As an aside: regarding the Rumsfeld line, I don’t think people didn’t want to hear his point exactly. I think they were too busy laughing at how silly it sounded *on the surface* to notice he was actually making a very thoughful remark, and quite elegantly too.

@ 44 tory

“Leftist views are actually overrepresented in the media.”

Depends on the media. Read the right tabloids and you’d think everyone despises taxation, immigrants, traffic wardens and France.

You’re right about Jim’s “The Right complain about everything…” shtick though. It’s just Jim: his fundamental worldview seems to be “anyone who disagrees with me is a monster in human form”.

Tory @ 44

Hold on, that comment was directed at the Left’s relationship with the broadcast media, not on ‘the Left’ in general. You appear to conflate normal, everyday people complaining and protesting with ‘The Left’. Funny that.

You people own most of the media and you expect it to bow to your every whim and when anyone in the BBC has the audacity to point to the actual facts of any particular issue, you go off and scream ‘bias’. Just because people want to know the truth, doesn’t make them ‘Left Wing’ it just means they have more integrity than most of you cunts, but that wouldn’t be hard.

Chaise @ 46

his fundamental worldview seems to be “anyone who disagrees with me is a monster in human form”.

Not true, though. I am more than aware that there are plenty of decent people who have different views from me. I see lots of people posting on here whose views differ from my own, who I can respect.

It just so happens that some people hold views that I find revolting and a reasonable conclusion to draw from their beliefs and views as to what kind of person they are.

How many ‘decent’ holocaust deniers have you met?

I think it entirely reasonable to assume that a holocaust denier is unlikely to be a decent person in ‘real life’.

@ 47 Jim

I’ve never met any holocaust deniers.

Yes, there are certain beliefs that (depending on the circumstances) may lead me to automatically write someone off as an arsehole. Some of these fall under the vague auspices of right-wingery. Even a lot of people on the right seem to think that lefties are “nicer”, hence terms like “bleeding-heart liberal”.

The problem with your approach is that you feel this way about everyone who could be tentatively labelled “right-wing”. Deciding that everyone on the other side is less than human isn’t just rude and needlessly antagonistic, it cripples your ability to deal with them rationally, because you end up replacing their real motives with “Let’s do evil, bwahahaha!”

Chaise @48

The problem with your approach is that you feel this way about everyone who could be tentatively labelled “right-wing”.

Being ‘Right Wing’ does not automatically make you a bad person in my book. There are lots of people whose views could be described as ‘Right Wing’ whose positions I can respect, even if I disagree with them. I would hate to see libraries privatised, but that view, in isolation, does not mark those who would out as ‘scum’ in my book.

However, abhorrent views are the ones that colour my views with regard to that individual. For example, I genuinely find it difficult to warm to people who think that Down’s Syndrome sufferers should be ‘allowed’ to undercut the National minimum wage. That is not ‘Right Wing’ as I would use the term; that is downright nasty and oafish. In fact, I genuinely see that as on the same curve as Nazi ideology. Not faux ‘invade Poland’, ‘parking ticket’, ‘smoking banning’ Nazi ideology noris that exactly on a par with death camps, but certainly on the same wavelength. By the way, the term ‘Nazi’ has become a general term of abuse and thrown about like confetti, but I never use the Term ‘Nazi’ without giving it careful thought.

I find the concept that people would openly advocate that we would use a person’s genetic defect as weapon against them or use that person as a battering ram against a policy they dislike to be thoroughly horrible. I find it depressing to think I live in a Country that such views are deemed reasonably respectable. To think it up is one thing, but to openly suggest it in Parliament means that I am unlikely to find any redeeming characteristic in the person advocating it, or the people who such a policy is designed to appeal to, for that matter.

I feel the same way towards those people who attack Sue Marsh for ‘scrounging’ by exaggerating her illness. Or who use offensive terms like ‘parasite’ to describe public sector workers and the unemployed. It’s funny that when I use the term ‘vermin’ to describe those who see it as their duty to drive others into grinding poverty all hell breaks loose, but we are expected to write of terms like ‘parasites’ to describe fellow human beings as an oversight.

I am repelled by Climate Change deniers too. There is nothing ‘Right Wing’ about denying science (not in the UK at least), merely because it clashes with your ideology. That is not ‘Right Wing’, that is simply being an arsehole. Show me groups of Left Wingers who deny Climate change and I will be as equally scathing. I am not talking about some old guy in a pub who hasn’t got a clue about anything; I am talking about the ideological nutters that engage in political debate here and places like it. These people are not ‘mistaken’, ‘miss-informed’ or ‘misguided’, these people deliberately go out of their way to be ‘mistaken’, ‘miss-informed’ or ‘misguided’.

Chaise, I not use caustic language to describe people who hold ‘Right Wing’ views. I use such terms to describe deeply unpleasant people.

Chaise @48, quite so.

Jim @ 47, I think you find a gulf in views that isn’t really there.

Leftists are very rarely Stalin lovers, and Rightists aren’t often Nazis*.

We are pretty much all believers in the mixed economy model, however, one side believes in bigger, and the other in smaller government. The mainstream left may, at a guess, believe that government should be 45% of the Economy. The consensus on the right may be 35%.

So careful with the insults. You may be superior to most, but you’re still 7/9ths of a cunt (approx).

* Let’s not have that argument again by the way.

@47

“You people own most of the media and you expect it to bow to your every whim and when anyone in the BBC has the audacity to point to the actual facts of any particular issue, you go off and scream ‘bias’. Just because people want to know the truth, doesn’t make them ‘Left Wing’ it just means they have more integrity than most of you cunts, but that wouldn’t be hard.”

Myself and 99.9% of people with centre-right views, or cunts as you would say, do not ‘own the media’. My stake in the media is probably about the same as yours, as we both pay the TV licence. Slightly O/T, but I never understand why the Left still obsesses over the politics of the MSM. Look at where we are talking (or insulting) now – this is the future, and any view can be reinforced online. The dislike of Murdoch’s Times is even crazier – you can now only get the Times by paying for it. Anyone who pays for it obviously wants to read it.

Time to stop blaming the vast right-wing conspriracy for the unpopularity of socialism?

On the BBC – i think is pretty OK. Culturally left-wing perhaps. I quite like them because people like Jim clearly think it should the broadcasting arm of the far-left. By and large, they ignore nutters like him.

Jack @ 50

We are pretty much all believers in the mixed economy mode…l

That might well be true and I do not condemn people for merely wishing moving along the slider along, for example. I do not think people who want a more capitalism are by definition, evil people. I think that people who scapegoat the disabled or the unemployed and want to see them driven into poverty are a pretty nasty group of people. When that persecution borders onto territory that resembles the ideological ground that the Nazis used, then I think we are entitled to call it that.

Tory @ 51

The ‘Right’ own the media, irrespective your personal ownership, the people that tell you what to think, use the media they own.

The dislike of Murdoch’s Times is even crazier – you can now only get the Times by paying for it. Anyone who pays for it obviously wants to read it.

The Murdoch press tell lies and distort the truth for the Tory Party. Those lies and distortions are used to blight the lives of millions of decent people.

people like Jim clearly think it should the broadcasting arm of the far-left

You see this is exactly why I hate you cunts. It would be far easier to actually read what I have said, but not for Tory boy, here. You would rather invent a position for me to defend. The last thing we need the BBC to have a bias. Those of us on the Left need the BBC to as objective as possible, that way we get an honest view of the World.

On the BBC – i think is pretty OK. Culturally left-wing perhaps

Fucking nonsense. Anyone who is not a dyed in the wool Tory, is ‘culturally left wing’?

This is why you people get everything so wrong, you are simply unable to examine anything objectively; you see everything through a Right Wing lens, that means anything that falls short of your ideal is evidence of ‘Left Wing bias’

@Jim,

” I think that people who scapegoat the disabled or the unemployed and want to see them driven into poverty are a pretty nasty group of people.”

I’m sure most people would agree with this statement. Unfortunately this is the caricature which you paste over anyone who disagrees with your opinions. The real misanthropist, I fear, is you.

@51. tory: “Myself and 99.9% of people with centre-right views, or cunts as you would say, do not ‘own the media’.”

You know what, tory, you’d never say a sentence like: “Myself and Fred went to the chip shop last night.” It sounds ridiculous and you would hear it in your head before you uttered it. It is “Fred and I went to the chip shop last night”, and, being well mannered, you would put Fred before yourself in the sentence.

Reflexive pronouns have a purpose; there is no purpose to antagonise people like me such that we make thoroughly cuntish comments about grammar. People like me, not myself, of course.

Use of myself is easy to understand and you can live life without using the word. I myself rarely use it.

—
Back tracking a bit: “You people own most of the media…”

There’s a lot of presumption there. You presume that I believe what they believe, and that there is a big club.

Group think, I agree, is a big problem. But as the OP suggests, an aspect of the BBC group think problem, the consequential BBC fairness policy, gives too much time to extreme voices.

Richard @ 53

Unfortunately this is the caricature which you paste over anyone who disagrees with your opinions. The real misanthropist, I fear, is you.

No, there are plenty of people who I disagree with on this site who I do not accuse of scapegoating the unemployed and the disabled. It is only those who I see describing such people as parasites, scroungers and the like I would say were actually attempting to drive decent human beings into poverty.

Things move about Jim. Until fairly recently, the majority of the MSM (including Murdoch) supported the left against the Tory party. Maybe they just follow the zeitgeist.

As for the BBC, the consensus amongst insiders has been that it has had a metropolian-liberal bias (broadly centre-left in effect). There was certainly a pro-Labour bias in the years immediately before and after 1997, but, in fairness, that was where the centre-ground was.

Anyway, cheer up chicken, I don’t think we’re in Nazi territory just yet. The “success” of the Nazis in Germany required an unremittingly efficient government machine, without which their appalling world-view would have been impossible to realise. I don’t think the Coalition can be accused of unremitting efficiency.

@ 49 Jim
“Being ‘Right Wing’ does not automatically make you a bad person in my book. … Chaise, I not use caustic language to describe people who hold ‘Right Wing’ views. I use such terms to describe deeply unpleasant people.”

Yes, I’m aware I cut a huge amount of your post out there. But I feel you’re simply misrepresenting your own actions. Please note that it’s not “caustic language” that bothers me, it’s unreasonable treatment of other people. So here’s your quote, the one that made me criticise you to begin with:

“The Right complain about everything; they despise truth because it fails to match up to what their ideology tells them.”

Now, that sounds like you really want to demonise every right-winger, regardless of what you might claim after the fact. It’s practically a Sallyism, if I’m honest.

@ 54 Charlieman

Are you being satirical, or are you seriously telling people on the internet that they ought to follow Charlieman Approved Writing Style? Because, if the latter, this probably isn’t the forum for it. You’d want a linguaphile blog where people can scream to their heart’s content about whether it’s acceptable to start a sentence with a conjunction.

(And, for the record, it’s totally cool to start a sentence with a conjunction. Don’t let any of those prescriptivist false prophets tell you otherwise.)

@ 57,

“It’s practically a Sallyism,”

Funny.

Jack @ 56

Things move about Jim. Until fairly recently, the majority of the MSM (including Murdoch) supported the left against the Tory party.

That is a straightforward lie and rather typical of a Tory supporter. Murdoch’s stable never supported ‘the Left’ in any way, shape or form. You could argue that they broadly supported ‘Blair’ or you could argue that they tolerated aspects of ‘New Labour’, but that is as far as it went. They did not support anything from the Left of the Party. They would not have supported relaxation of anti union laws, they did NOT support the signing of the Human Rights Act for example, nor did they support environmental protection.

They supported Blair when he was doing the Right’s bidding. It wasn’t the Left of the Party that demanded merciless attacks on Iraq or Afghanistan. The ‘Left’ took to the streets in millions to protest against the War, but whose side was Murdoch’s papers on?

There was certainly a pro-Labour bias in the years immediately before and after 1997, but, in fairness, that was where the centre-ground was.

You see? Typical Tory, condemned by your own words. This is exactly the type of thing I was alluding to earlier up the thread and goes someway to explain to Chaise’s what is going on. ‘In fairness this, this is where the centre-ground was’ should have alerted you to the wider fact that it was not bias. When you are dealing with Tories, you come to expect that type of thing. It would never occur to you cunts that it was you that was wrong, no it must be bias, eh?

The BBC’s job is to be on the centre ground. They are supposed to be objective and keep to the truth as far as possible. So that means explaining the unemployment figures as honestly as possible. Or house prices, or gas prices or whatever. The Government of the day want to spin those figures one way, by hiding unemployed people from the figures for example.

When the Tories do this type of thing and the BBC find that out, it is not ‘bias’ to reveal the true figure. It is simply journalism and good journalism at that.

When a political Party moves from the Left to the Centre their analysis is likely to become more objective as well. It is not ‘bias’ to be reporting what objective people are saying. It happens to be true.

This is why you Right wing Zealots are so fucking wrong all the time. You are not interested in the truth, you want propaganda. You want the BBC to parrot what you want ‘the truth’ to be. Too many immigrants? You publish made up figures and then expect everyone else to take them at face value and when the BBC don’t you scream ‘bias’. Unemployment not coming down? Sure, change the method the figures are counted and shout ‘bias’ at anyone looking at page two of the report.

@ 60 Jim

“This is exactly the type of thing I was alluding to earlier up the thread and goes someway to explain to Chaise’s what is going on.”

No it doesn’t, because my complaint is that your generalise. Holding up something said by one person (which, true to form, you’re overreacting to) does not in anyway explain why you apparently think everyone on the right is culpable for each other’s failings.

Oh, and way to bury a response to me halfway down a long post addressed to someone else.

The premise of this article is completely crackpot. It is not “extreme” to be concerned about open ended large scale never ending immigration, or the effect it has on community cohesion and the provision of public services, employment opportunites and housing availability. Migrationwatch quite rightly raise these concerns whenever they are given the opportunity – a very necessary role given the way self righteous liberals and “progressives” have for decades sought to suppress debate on this issue, to the detriment of the interests of ordinary people.

@ 62 Charlies Lockwood

“Migrationwatch quite rightly raise these concerns whenever they are given the opportunity – a very necessary role given the way self righteous liberals and “progressives” have for decades sought to suppress debate on this issue, to the detriment of the interests of ordinary people.”

1) In what way have liberals sought to suppress the debate?
2) “Ordinary people” doesn’t mean anything.

Chaise @ 57

Now, that sounds like you really want to demonise every right-winger

Not me, Chaise, it what they do to themselves. Go and look, look at the dozens of websites and blogs that claim ‘bias’ in the BBC. Go and look at what the small, petty minded bigots complain about.

Judge these bastards by what they actually say. How many times do these pricks whine about ‘bias’ and when you examine the evidence, it turns out that what they are complaining about is not actually ‘bias’, but news? Given that ‘news’ is something someone doesn’t want you to know, the rest is adverts, we shouldn’t be surprised to find that the Tories don’t like the truth about their failures. It is not ‘bias’ to report that, it is called telling the truth.

The Tories complain about reporting the truth everyday. Look at the language they use ‘The BBC are pro/anti’ and insert anything from fox hunting, abortion the death penalty etc. you have to remember, Chaise, these people are zealots of the worse kind. They are spoon-fed their opinions like the North Koreans and the make the assumption that the rest of are spoon fed like them. Again, we could go round the houses with this, but one example from a long list:

The BBC report AGW as a scientifically accepted theory, why is that? Is that because:
a) The BBC is biased
b) The entire scientific community have firmly swung behind the theory of AGW?

It is not the BBC’s job to ‘have an opinion’ on AGW, it is the BBC’s job to explain the facts to the public. Pretending that scientists are fifty/fifty on AGW would be a distortion of the facts and therefore would be bias. Just because the Right would dearly like it to be true does not make it true. The fact is that there is a scientific consensus regarding the cause and the existence of AGW and no amount of Tory spin can change that. They find it incredible that people would look at the evidence from a position of complete disinterest and examine the facts and draw conclusions based on objective study. They normally pay a think tank to come up with a rationale to justify a policy and assume that the ‘green lobby’ have done the same.

Chaise @ 60

No it doesn’t, because my complaint is that your generalise. Holding up something said by one person (which, true to form, you’re overreacting to) does not in anyway explain why you apparently think everyone on the right is culpable for each other’s failings.

But, it is not one person, is it? It is all of them. Stand up at any Tory conference from about 1975 onwards and use the term ‘BBC Left Wing bias’ and you would be guaranteed wild applause.

In fact, here is an open invitation to all those on the Right who have ever posted on this blog. Does anyone feel that the BBC is NOT got an institutional Left Wing bias? Anyone on the Right willing to concede that the BBC are honest in their reporting?

@ 64 Jim

Why did you spend so much time writing a post that irrelevant to what I’m saying? I don’t need to be convinced that SOME right-wingers are bastards. Yeesh. Onwards…

@ 65 Jim

“But, it is not one person, is it? It is all of them.”

So, to sum up, when you said “Being ‘Right Wing’ does not automatically make you a bad person in my book” you were telling a big fat lie?

The bigotry is bad enough, Jim, but the doublethink leads you around in circles.

“Stand up at any Tory conference from about 1975 onwards and use the term ‘BBC Left Wing bias’ and you would be guaranteed wild applause.”

Sigh.

“Applauding at a party conference” =/= “actually in agreement with the speaker”.
“Most Tories at a conference” =/= “all Tories”.
“Tories” =/= “all right-wing people”.
“A scenario Jim just made up” =/= proven fact, even if it’s plausible.

You’re doing the traditional hater thing of equivocating, brush-tarring and generalising from fictional evidence. And you’re making the left look bad.

Chaise@ 66

“Applauding at a party conference” =/= “actually in agreement with the speaker”.
“Most Tories at a conference” =/= “all Tories”.
“Tories” =/= “all right-wing people”.
“A scenario Jim just made up” =/= proven fact, even if it’s plausible.

Fine, then you find it no problem showing a couple of Tories who defend the BBC’s coverage. But really if you want to quibble about how many Tories complain about ‘BBC bias’ justbecause they don’t like the truth and how many see bias due to actual instances of bias, then fine, show me this ‘bias’

@ 67 Jim

“But really if you want to quibble about how many Tories complain about ‘BBC bias’ justbecause they don’t like the truth and how many see bias due to actual instances of bias, then fine, show me this ‘bias’”

Um, why would I want to show you bias when I’m not claiming it exists?

You’re not by any chance trying to move the goalposts, are you?

@ 67 again

“Fine, then you find it no problem showing a couple of Tories who defend the BBC’s coverage. ”

Just parsed this sentence. I’m not sure my google-fu is up to this, because putting “BBC” into the search bar gets you swamped with articles from the BBC’s website. But it’s a complete straw man anyway. I never said anything about Tories, or for that matter right-wingers, defending the BBC.

And you’re STILL conflating “right-wing” and “Tories”. Have you just reached the “la la la I’m not listening” stage of your argument?

Chaise @ 68

Okay, Chaise, from the begining:

I have asserted that Tories, on the whole, complain about ‘bias’ on the BBC because they cannot accept the truth and see anything that goes against their ideology as evidence of bias.

I further assert that because of this blinkered attidude, they are unable to see things in an objective fashion, they have became enbittered, nasty people.

You have defended the Tories by saying that not all Tories whine about bias on the BBC. Therefore, all I am asking is for you to show us examples of the Tories defending the content of the BBC without their usual anti BBC stuff or show us examples where such claims are justified. Fairly simple.

@ 70 Jim

“I have asserted that Tories, on the whole, complain about ‘bias’ on the BBC because they cannot accept the truth and see anything that goes against their ideology as evidence of bias.”

Oh, for god’s sake. Here is the quote I first talked about:

“The Right complain about everything; they despise truth because it fails to match up to what their ideology tells them.”

Could you point me to the word “Tory” in that sentence? No? I criticised your blanket attack on right-wingers. You’ve moved the goalposts to “Tories” to make your stance a little more defensible. I’ve pointed this out three times now. If you keep ignoring it I’ll assume that you’re irredeemably dishonest and give up.

Oh, and if you’re about to claim that you only meant certain members of the Right, here’s your later quote: “But, it is not one person, is it? It is all of them. ”

“You have defended the Tories by saying that not all Tories whine about bias on the BBC. Therefore, all I am asking is for you to show us examples of the Tories defending the content of the BBC without their usual anti BBC stuff or show us examples where such claims are justified. Fairly simple.”

Simple, but a non-sequitur. Consider the following two statements:
1) “Not all right-wing people whine about BBC bias”
2) “Some Tories publically defend the BBC from accusations of bias”

Even ignoring the Tory/right-wing thing, these are not the same claim. I am making the first claim. You are asking me to prove the second, which I have never said. This is called a “straw man”.

I don’t know what “show us examples where such claims are justified” means. Do you want me to show you a right-winger not attacking the BBC? Or do you want me to somehow prove that a specific right-winger has never accused the BBC of bias in their lives? The first would be irrelevant, the second impossible.

I can find plenty of people saying “Nah, it’s not biased”, but sadly they generally don’t stop to add “and by the way I’m right/left-wing”.

http://biased-bbc.com/

Here you go, Chaise. One example of the Right’s pathetic attempt to smear the BBC.

And guess what? The cunt who wrote this and his contributers hates OBama, Muslims, doesn’t believe in Climate Change and think the BBC paints the Paralympians as Plaster Saints.

http://biased-bbc.com/2012/09/03/monday-open-thread-5/#comments

Now when one of the BBC plaster saints (Paralympians) is caught cheating, has a sweary hissy fit, or otherwise throws a wobbly, then the Beeb tend to run the story as his ‘apology’ for said misbehaviour.

Classic Tory mouth frothing.

So according to this contributor, ‘as I see it’ the BBC is responsible for Oscar Pistorius’s outburst. Perhaps poor old Oscar has shown a bit of sour grapes? Nope Nicky Campbell was ‘somehow’ responsible.

Then we have ‘more’ evidence of Left Wing bias in the BBC when it announced that Michelle Obama has not been watching the Republican conference!

So let me get this straight, reporting that Mrs Obama has not watched the Republicans is evidence of bias at the BBC? Eh?

After that we get the usual run of the mill stuff an anti Palestine rant and good olg George Gently gets it in the neck too.

Then the open thread turns nasty as the contributers ‘real’ thoughts come into sight and, hey guess what? They all turn out be your typical Tory/Republican types. Here is what a is what a ‘Dysgwr_Cymraeg’ says about a story in the BBC:

Hands up those who wish for more of these barbarian savages in our country?

If ‘Dysgwr_Cymraeg thinks the BBC is biased, then fucking good because when cunts like him are enjoying the BBc it will long have ceased to be credible.

And at that point the thread turns to the usual Right Wing bingo.

So, it turns out that these people are not actually complainimg about ‘bias’ all they want is the BBC to be a nasty as they are.

Someone has suggested that removing Baroness Warsi was a racist move (I am not aware of such a statement, and cannot be arsed to check) and the scum on the blog announce that the BBC are biased for reporting it.

This Biased BBC blogg is not about ‘bias’ it is one fucking bigot after another whining at things he does not want reported, much as I expected. So, show me someone who complains aboutLeft Wing bias on the BBc and I will show you another Tory fuckwit with a space where his life should be.

Chaise @ 72

Could you point me to the word “Tory” in that sentence? No? I criticised your blanket attack on right-wingers. You’ve moved the goalposts to “Tories” to make your stance a little more defensible. I’ve pointed this out three times now. If you keep ignoring it I’ll assume that you’re irredeemably dishonest and give up.

Sometimes I use these terms as interchangable, Tories and the Right, much the same people. I would describe much of UKIP as Tories, even if they are no longer in the Conservative Party.

Having said that, by the Time Tony Blair wept at the ‘bias’ of the news coverage of Katrina, he was pretty much Right Wing by then.

@ 72 Jim

“Sometimes I use these terms as interchangable, Tories and the Right, much the same people. I would describe much of UKIP as Tories, even if they are no longer in the Conservative Party.”

Probably not the best of ideas when someone is pointing out that you’re making blanket statements and has repeatedly pointed out that you’re conflating the two words.

But even so I’m getting the logic “Rightwing = Tory and Tory = arsehole” from your posts.

“Having said that, by the Time Tony Blair wept at the ‘bias’ of the news coverage of Katrina, he was pretty much Right Wing by then.”

Yep, agreed.

@ Jim,

if I could point out one of your mistakes; you conflate and confuse objectivity with being in the ‘centre-ground’ of politics. These are not at all the same thing. You write @ 60

“The BBC’s job is to be on the centre ground. They are supposed to be objective and keep to the truth as far as possible.”

The centre ground in the context it was being used means a definable political position, neither right-wing nor left-wing but nevertheless a political position, whereas being objective is to distance yourself from all political positions and try to be neutral. It may well be that people whose political views place them on the ‘centre ground’ are naturally more objective, being less prone to the passionate polemics of each wing, but one’s proximity to the ‘centre-ground’ does not provide a measure of one’s objectivity.

Chaise @ 74

But even so I’m getting the logic “Rightwing = Tory and Tory = arsehole” from your posts.

No, Chaise, you need to think a bit wider than that. Being ‘Right Wing’ does not ‘automatically’ make you an arsehole in my book. I can respect (to an extent) Ken Clarke, even though he is further to the Right than me. He joined a Party at some point in the distant past and that is fair enough. He is the closest you get to a ‘One Nation’ Tory in today’s political spectrum. Unlike his younger and brasher colleagues, who could pass for inspiration for the ‘Lord of the flies’, Ken comes across as a decent sort. Oh, I dare say that I could find his views a bit off, but he apparently lacks that angry, vicious, streak the likes of IDS, Lansley or even David Davis has. I cannot imagine Ken Clarke going after the disadvantaged with the same zeal as the rest of the shower he has aligned with.

I could be wrong about that, he may hate the disabled as much as the rest of his party, but I give him the benefit of the doubt.

Richard @ 76

I understand what you are saying wrt the centre ground. Just because a given political party moves closer to what the BBC are reporting does not mean the BBC are showing bias.

If the BCc are reporting something accurately, then it is not their fault if political movents are wrong. I used the AGW debate as an example because the Tory side have got it wrong and claim the BBC are showing bias. What the Right want to be true and what the scientists say are two different things. The Right want scientist to be at loggerheads, but they are not. It is not the BBC job to infer that they are just to appease a few morons on the Right.

@ Jim

So you’ve changed your mind from when you said: “But, it is not one person, is it? It is all of them.”?

It’s not that I need to “think wider”. It’s that you can’t decide whether you’re demonising the entire right or just certain sections of it. In fact, I’ve spent the last umpteen posts trying to urge you to broaden your approach.

Chaise @78

Seriously, dude, you are determined to split hairs on this? Okay, it is the odd 98% that get the rest a bad name. Fuck me, it is not that hard, Chaise.

Look at anti BBC stuff written by Tories/the Right in general and ask yourself this: ‘is it reasonable to suggest that what they are complaining about is ‘bias’ or are they just whinging about stuff they would rather we didn’t know about’.

@ 79 Jim

“Seriously, dude, you are determined to split hairs on this?”

Oh, please. Don’t argue the matter for post after post then make out like the argument’s beneath you.

“Okay, it is the odd 98% that get the rest a bad name. Fuck me, it is not that hard, Chaise.”

What’s hard, Jim, is trying to communicate with someone who can’t decide from second to second whether he hates everyone in a set group, or just the ones who deserve it. And who, when in mode 1, condemns everyone in said group as disgusting, evil human beings, and then switches into mode 2 and wide-eyed innocence the moment someone calls him up on it.

See what I mean? It’s not my fault your discourse is so schizophrenic. If you’re going to deny saying something, then say it again in the very next breath, you’ve got nobody to blame but yourself when the conversation crashes and burns. You’re running around antagonising everyone with stupid comments, then when asked to account for your claims you (eventually) go, “Oh, I didn’t MEAN it…”

Fuck, we could have settled this half a thread ago if you’d just stopped lying.

“Look at anti BBC stuff written by Tories/the Right in general and ask yourself this: ‘is it reasonable to suggest that what they are complaining about is ‘bias’ or are they just whinging about stuff they would rather we didn’t know about’.”

Occasionally I think they have a point. Most of the time I think it’s just “whaaa, the BBC lets people I disagree with say stuff, it’s not faaaiiir!”

I feel exactly the same about lefties whinging about BBC bias, BTW. Although lefties do that a lot less, in my experience.

@ Jim,

you think the BBC isn’t biased because it toes a politically centrist position, which you falsely equate to ‘objectivity’. In fact, if the BBC does espouse a centrist position, then it is necessarily biased in favour of this position.

Naturally those who also put themselves in the centre or centre-left will not notice the bias as much as those who don’t. People further to the left will scoff when the right claims bias, and may point to certain things the BBC has done which they think of as right-wing, such as a documentary on islam or people claiming benefits, or anything which a Daily Mail reader might think is fair and balanced.

I’m old enough to remember when the BBC was seen as wholly biased in favour of the tories, and jokes were made to this effect, such as a voice-over on (I think) ‘The Young Ones’, saying ‘This is the BBC, broadcasting on behalf of the Conservative Party’. My view is that it puts out the establishment message, which is socially-liberal but closes ranks when necessary, such as when there’s a war to sell to the public (e,g, Libya and now Syria).

Chaise @ 79

What’s hard, Jim, is trying to communicate with someone who can’t decide from second to second whether he hates everyone in a set group, or just the ones who deserve it.

Is that a serious comment? Are you genuinely telling me that you cannot understand the term ‘But, it is not one person, is it? It is all of them.’ In anything other than a literal sense? So, if someone said that there were ‘half a dozen’ people in a pub, that you would need a count? Or if someone uses the term ‘a couple of pints’ you only understand that to mean two. It’s a figure of speech, Chaise; us normal people use terms like that all and every day.

Here are some pointers ‘half a dozen’ does not always mean exactly six, nor does ‘a couple’ always mean ‘two’, ‘half an hour‘ does not always mean exactly thirty minutes. It doesn’t mean we are liars, it just means we use terms to give a broad impression of what we mean. And do you know what? Aside from the odd anal person we meet, we all get it. I bet the vast majority (no exact percentages, just a guess) of us get by with vague estimates on numerical values. Our heads do not explode when someone says a dozen people were on a bus when there was, in fact, fifteen. We don’t all accuse each other as liars in that position, because this is a skill we all learn when we are young. We know when we can be vague, to get across our general feeling and when we need to be precise, like injecting insulation into someone in a diabetic coma.

got nobody to blame but yourself when the conversation crashes and burns.

What crash and burn? The only crash and burn I see is when you started getting all ‘Rainman’ on our collective asses.

I haven’t anyone else wonder about what I meant with, “But, it is not one person, is it? It is all of them.”

I am confident that most of the people who read that remark would manage to understand that I was trying to convey my general contempt of the Tory Party and the Right, not imply that I have conducted a poll of the entire Country and cross referenced them into a ven diagram, before subjecting my findings to peer review.

Fuck, we could have settled this half a thread ago if you’d just stopped lying.

Or perhaps you could manage not to require a deconstruction of every sentence and learn some basic social conventions. Surely you could find a mate or a sister or someone to help you with the socail conventions that surround this type of thing?

Richard @ 81

you think the BBC isn’t biased because it toes a politically centrist position

No, what I am saying that the BBC used to toe a reasonably objective and non political line. When a Party moves towards the Centre they will become more objective (or at least pragmatic) they will find themselves in line with the BBC (assuming the BBC have remained as objective). Both sides may be saying broadly the same thing, but for different reasons.

Think back to the so called ‘dodgy dossier’. The BBC remained objective in it’s reports about the ‘sexed up’ nature of said dossier. Blair et al wanted to WMD to exist so much, they ceased to be the pragmatic Party of Blair’s first term and became convinced that believing something hard enough meant it would become true. Now, without dragging up the entire history of the Iraq war, the BBC’s reporting was vindicated somewhat, because they had not took their eye of the objective ball. Labour had became zealots and eventually looked stupid. Did Gillighan know for certain that WMD did not exist? No, but he knew that Labour had been up to no good and told everybody within a Country mile that he knew that to be case. Honest, objective reporting won out and the slimy bastards got found out.

@ 82 Jim

Yeah, “a couple” doesn’t always mean two. Thanks for the information. But if you constantly go on a rant about how so-and-so are a bunch of evil cunts, and then you phrase that in such a way as to make it sound as if you mean the whole group, and you do this on EVERY FUCKING THREAD, and when people directly question you on it you keep evading and contradicting yourself instead of saying “I didn’t mean that”…

Then yeah, you’re gonna be taken literally. Because you’ve decided to present yourself as a bigoted maniac fuelled entirely by hatred. I’m not going to go out of my way to give you benefit of the doubt when you’re spitting bile everywhere, including at your fellow human beings.

Oh, and social conventions? A good one is trying to communicate honestly. A bad one is trying to start flame wars and reacting to people disagreeing with you by exploding into a hate-filled rant along the lines of “ARRRGH cunts cunts cunts I hate you all you’re just like Hitler!!!!11111″. Let me know if you need any more tips on interacting with the non-deranged.

Chaise @ 84

But if you constantly go on a rant about how so-and-so are a bunch of evil cunts

I only ever use terms like that when someone expresses an opinion that I find objectionable. I do not find every Right Wing idea objectionable, though, Just the ones that seek out to deliberately demonise, scapegoat or degrade innocent people. I feel that people who paint the disabled, for example, as scroungers and malingerers have lost any right to the courtesy that one can expect on a message board/blog.

I am sorry if that annoys people. I am sorry if people feel they have the right to denigrate millions of people who they have never met and have no knowledge of their circumstances, yet still feel that they are entitled to the common decency that the rest of us enjoy.

You are right in way, of course. I too have never met (to the best of my knowledge) any of the worse offenders here. Perhaps I would really like some of these people if I meet them in the flesh, but right now, based entirely on what they choose to write on a blog, I find these people to be extremely unpleasant.

What I am supposed to feel towards the people who suggest that Down’s Syndrome suffers should work for less than the minimum wage, simply because they happen to suffer from a genetic defect?

How am I supposed to feel about people who think we should let people rot in the street, if they are unable to find work?

How am I supposed to feel about people who think that salvaging scrap from rubbish tips and child prostitution represents an alternative to the Welfare State?

These people all have the same political compass and vote for the same kinds of political Parties. You can judge a lot about someone with the company he keeps.

As you may or may not know I am an SNP voter. I do not agree with every policy they have, but lets say three percent of their followers believed that all English people living in Scotland should be forced to leave? I could dismiss such people as fucking twats, but what if it rose to ten per cent? You would be quite within your rights to judge me, by the policies I would condone and the type of Party I support. I would never support such a Party and under no circumstances would I condone such beliefs, either. Such views would have you shunned in polite society and booted out of the Party. Alex Salmond would be expected to condemn such people without reservation. Yet, every day, we see people with long term illnesses derided and the unemployed used as scapegoats. Yet, no Tory can condone such outrageous slanders. The Tory Party are happy to see such vile attacks in this Country.

I think that say it all, really. I think the Tories are to be condemned in their own terms.

@ Jim,

“How am I supposed to feel about people who think we should let people rot in the street, if they are unable to find work?

How am I supposed to feel about people who think that salvaging scrap from rubbish tips and child prostitution represents an alternative to the Welfare State?”

These are not commonly held opinions, but rather the accusation that you level at people who disagree with you on social policies.

@38. Standard

I don’t object to any idiot airing his views – the problem comes when the BBC journalists don’t have the intellectual capacity (or the opposing guest) to show the absurdity of the fearmonger’s argument.

That I think is the crux of the matter. The relentless dumbing down of the BBC, rather than necessarily any deliberate bias. Try comparing an edition of say Panorama from 20 or 30 years ago with one today, and the decline in the quality of journalism is quite stark. But dumbing down seems to have been a feature across the board in every sector of society over the last 20 or so years. Not just confined to the BBC. I’m not sure why this is.

@44. tory

Leftist views are actually overrepresented in the media.

How do you work that one out? The print media is overwhelmingly right wing. At the last general election 11 national newspapers (about two thirds) backed the Tories, with just four backing Labour or the Lib Dems. Given that just over a third of the electorate actually Voted Tory at the last election, one could argue that pro-Tory views are vastly over-represented in the print media at least.

Richard @86

These are not commonly held opinions

They are common enough though. There are plenty people who would happly see the welfare state tore up. Not only that, they are winning and their policies are bearing fruit:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/9521238/Save-the-Children-launches-first-poverty-campaign-in-Britain.html

The point is, the next time a Tory suggests the welfare state should be scrapped, every ‘decent’ Tory should condemn him, but all we get is tumbleweed.

Jim @ 60:

“That is a straightforward lie and rather typical of a Tory supporter. Murdoch’s stable never supported ‘the Left’ in any way, shape or form”.

Well, I knew you’d say something like that. Let me put it another way: most of the MSM backed Labour against the Conservatives, particularly in 1997. I was simply making the point that no party enjoys the perpetual support of the press. What Labour chose to do after 1997 is neither here nor there. You also have to accept that backing the party of the unions, and of those who self-identify as left-wing, is supporting the left in some “way, shape or form”.

“You see? Typical Tory, condemned by your own words. This is exactly the type of thing I was alluding to earlier up the thread and goes someway to explain to Chaise’s what is going on. ‘In fairness this, this is where the centre-ground was’ should have alerted you to the wider fact that it was not bias. When you are dealing with Tories, you come to expect that type of thing. It would never occur to you cunts that it was you that was wrong, no it must be bias, eh?”

No, my point was that there was a pro-Labour bias, not a pro-centre-ground bias. I mentioned the centre-ground as a partial excuse for the BBC’s occasional bias at the time (Labour was “cool” then). And don’t forget, the centre-ground also moves.

I’m not sure why you think I’m a typical Tory, Right-wing zealot and a cunt, but hey-ho.

Jack @ 90

You also have to accept that backing the party of the unions, and of those who self-identify as left-wing, is supporting the left in some “way, shape or form”.

Sure thing, give me an example of this support for the unions. Show me the Sun caling for repeal of the union laws, show me them defending Left wing causes. The Sun supported ‘Blair’ and that was about it. The Sun and the rest of the stable where still as Right Wing as they always were and as Right Wing as they were now.

No, my point was that there was a pro-Labour bias

Oh, what ‘bias’ is that then? Anything that has not been through Tory central office for approval? You hate the truth because it shows you up for the socially backward cunts you are.

The mistake you are making here is that because you own most of the media and control it’s output is to assume that anything that you don’t agree with is evidence of bias. Well sorry to have to let you know this, but there is a big World out and things are often more complex than your Tory rags, allow you to understand. The fact that you and the rest of the intellectually crippled out there are unable to grasp the fact that your papers are lying to you to is not the fault of the BBC.

Some of us are adult enough to examine news objectively, that is why we don’t vote Tory.

@ 85 Jim

“I only ever use terms like that when someone expresses an opinion that I find objectionable. ”

Maybe so. But you frequently apply it to them and anyone who looks like them.

“I am sorry if that annoys people. I am sorry if people feel they have the right to denigrate millions of people who they have never met and have no knowledge of their circumstances, yet still feel that they are entitled to the common decency that the rest of us enjoy.”

Given that “denigrating millions of people who you’ve never met” is your raison d’etre, I’m not sure you’re in a position to throw stones here. However, of course individual arseholes deserve to be treated like arseholes. I’ve never denied it and have in fact confirmed that I agree with you on that. But I don’t know why you keep going back to it, because for the 76th time I am criticising you for brush-tarring, not for insulting those who deserve to be insulted.

Jim, you’re just making stuff up again.

1) Regarding the MSM:

I originally reacted to your remark that “The Murdoch press tell lies and distort the truth for the Tory Party”, and similar remarks about the Right owning all of or most of the media. That the Murdoch supported a party against the Tories is not great evidence of that.

Neither did I say that the Murdoch press actively supported union causes. I merely pointed out that, in certain elections, Murdoch and the unions were backing the same horse.

2) Regarding the BBC:

I don’t think it’s contentious to say that there were some examples of pro-Labour bias around 1997. I didn’t say there was much, and nor was I making much of a criticism of the BBC.
Maybe if you just calmed down a bit, you might find something objective to say.

(Btw, I get my news from the Guardian, Independent, Telegraph, LC and the BBC in the UK. The Telegraph has gone badly downhill in recent years, both in factual content and humour, but the sport remains good. And Matt of course. What about you? I lack your amazing powers of detection).

@ 89 Jim,

Nobody within anything resembling serious political discourse argues that “salvaging scrap from rubbish tips and child prostitution represents an alternative to the Welfare State”. You seem to want to dehumanise your political opponents, and drown out rational debate.

I know what you’re thinking – “those cunts deserve dehumanising because [insert lurid description of political opponents enjoying sadistic pleasure in the sufferings of others]“. As I said above, I fear you are the misanthropic one.

Jack @ 93

I don’t think it’s contentious to say that there were some examples of pro-Labour bias around 1997.

No, you wouldn’t because you go about in circles with people who believe that kind of nonsense.

The momentum had swung to New Labour by 1997 and the Tories were dead on their feet, and were sporting gaping wounds caused by their internal divisions in Europe. To be honest, they (John Major in particular) had the hollowed out eyes, of the thoroughly defeated. In the run up to the election, every piece of news was yet another nail in the coffin of the Tory Party.

When the Tories started ‘back to basics’ the like and their ministers were found to have bedded dozens of women and sired children, I have to tell you that was not the fault of the BBC. It is not like Newsnight had paid these women to impale themselves onto any passing erection whose owner happened to be wearing a blue rosette, nor was it BBC journalists who forced Tory Ministers to take thousands of pounds from multi nationals, theft suspects and lobby group. The BBC did not become a whoremaster for a Saudi prince, and then tried to sue the Guardian for breaking the story. Nor did the BBC tie a cord round the neck of a cross dressing Tory MP, jam a drug laced orange into his gob and then toss him of on a kitchen table. You know what? All that happened because the Parliamentary Tory Party had became infiltrated by sleazy, underhand people who squeal ‘bias’ when they get found out.

Post 1997 the Sun and the rest of News International were still telling lies and distorting the truth, giving ammunition to the Tories. They were still exaggerating the numbers of Asylum seekers, still printing scare stories about Asylum Seekers eating swans, still printing made up stories about ‘PC gone mad’ and ‘Health and Safety madness’ and ‘benefit cheats’. They weren’t making up these stories for the benefit of Labour.

Oh and just one last point, just to clarify something.

When the BBC (among others, but lets keep it on the BBC) reported in great length, Brown’s ‘bigotted woman’ private remarks and then filmed him head in hands in despair, was that anti Labour bias, or solid objective reporting?

@ 95 Jim

“When the BBC (among others, but lets keep it on the BBC) reported in great length, Brown’s ‘bigotted woman’ private remarks and then filmed him head in hands in despair, was that anti Labour bias, or solid objective reporting?”

The Beeb gets no blame once the story’s out. But the journos who picked up the comment in his car and decided to release it into the wild get an “irresponsible, opportunistic blighters” label. It certainly wasn’t good journalism. Might have been bias, hard to say.

Jim,
So what? is my answer to most of your post, there won’t be many who need to be reminded how things were in 1997.

As for your question: it was a hot story wasn’t it? Journalists tend not to ignore that sort of thing. My own view is that it was a private remark, accidentally recorded, and it should have remained private.

However, that was never going to happen. I would say it was somewhere between bias and objectivity. Nothing was made up, but the first remark was off the record, and the head-in-hands moment was sneaky (it was radio wasn’t it?)

Btw, I think he was about right with “bigoted”, but his instant (and incorrect) blaming of a loyal member of staff was pretty unpleasant.

Jack @ 97

So what? is my answer to most of your post, there won’t be many who need to be reminded how things were in 1997.

The ‘so what?’ is that the Tory Government had stopped positively setting the agenda and were firefighting. Tony Blair was making the headlines and pushing the agenda. It was not bias to report that fact, the BBC were not ‘pro Labour’ in reporting the rise of New Labour. It was not ‘bias’ to report that Blair had won the clause four debate, it was not bias to report that Labour had effectively ditched any pretence of being a Socailist Party. Reporting that was a statement of fact, not evidence of bias.

The Tory Party was dead on its feet due to its own actions, New Labour were on the ascendancy due to a charismatic leader. Major could have found a cure for cancer and the tabloid headlines would have been ‘Tories close hundreds of charities and hospices’.

The BBC reporting the former’s demise and the rise of a de facto ‘New’ party was merely an accurate reflection of what was actually happening, not the BBC’s ‘version’ of what was happening.

I would say it was somewhere between bias and objectivity

That is a cop out and you know it.

halfway between bias and objectivity, is that like being pregnant and not pregnant? Pull the other one.

Jim, well that’s a few more strawmen.

I suppose I did cop out a little via-a-vis objectivity v bias, if only because I don’t know. I’ll try again:

To prove bias, you’d have to prove that the story would have been repressed had it involved a favoured politician. I don’t know the answer to that.

Let’s pretend it definitely wasn’t bias (ie that we definitely know that the story would have been reported regardless of who it involved). Does that then mean it’s solid objective reporting? I would still say it was underhand, but you’ll never remove that from politics.

Jack @ 99

To prove bias, you’d have to prove that the story would have been repressed had it involved a favoured politician. I don’t know the answer to that.

Yet, you feel confident in stating that there was pro labour bias in 1997. Why Jack? What did we all miss 1997 that you and a few others knew?

@58. Chaise Guevara: “@ 54 Charlieman

Are you being satirical, or are you seriously telling people on the internet that they ought to follow Charlieman Approved Writing Style?”

My comment was semi-ironic. I was venting a peeve about something that really annoys me but which I would not wish to enforce strongly. Which rather fits in with this thread about the merits of strong opinions.

@ 101 Charlieman

Heh. Fair enough.

It’s odd to notice the differences between we pedants, by the way. “Myself” etc. has never bothered me but other things make me want to tear my hair out. And I didn’t even realise the vital distinction between “which” and “that” until I had to learn it for my job, and now I flinch every time I see them misused.

Back in 1997 it was obvious that Labour were going to win, and that the Tories by the mid-90s were unelectable. Murdoch didn’t want to get egg on his face by backing a turkey so he told the Sun et al to support Blair. It had absolutely nothing to do with any sort of principle or supporting the left, just cynical commercial opportunism.