NOT so long ago I was talking to someone at Swindon Borough Council who told me how members of the council will pour over their copy of the Adver for any item of council business. They will read the headline assiduously and agonise over the copy for any possible nuance of political leaning.
It made me laugh to read the thread on another website which accused the Adver and me, in particular, of being politically bias.
I’ve been accused by the Conservatives for being a Labour supporter because we have given platforms to the town’s two MPs on a variety of issues without, it has been said, of challenging them sufficiently. And I’ve been accused by some in the Labour Party of being too closely aligned with the Tory-dominated council.
The Lib Dems, UKIP and the Greens have kept their opinions to themselves.
Why it makes me laugh is because when I read some of the comments on this website about the Adver’s apparent political leaning, and even comments attached to my recent blogs, I wonder at how sad people are wishing to detect these deft nuances.
They imagine we walk around the newsroom with bloomin’ great chips on our shoulders and a pre-determined political agenda for whichever coloured party is the flavour of the moment.
In fairness to Rod Bluh and Fionuala Foley at the council and MPs Michael Wills and Anne Snelgrove, they have been very fair in their comments about the coverage we have given them in the Adver. They haven’t always been happy with what has written, but never once have their perceived the newspaper to be politically biased. In fact, they too have laughed at the suggestion.
It is not a case of he doth protest too much, but as we approach the local council elections the point needs re-stating that the Adver will continue to provide a platform for a variety of political views.
Our coverage aims to be fair and balanced, and if you think about it since the newspaper serves quite a tight community it would lunacy for any newspaper to pin its colours to any particular mast. In doing so we would alienate a section of our readership.
Politics is important, but it certainly not the top of my agenda. My staff don’t know my political views, Rod, Fionuala, Michael and Anne have no idea, because it is irrelevant. It’s issues, not politics.
So in the run up to the local council elections, let me remind the cynics that the Adver will endeavour to be fair and balanced. We will strive to present a cross-section of political views and help readers to understand the local issues affecting them when they go to the ballot boxes on May 1st.
To believe otherwise is simply being mischievous.
Posted by: LordBelacqua at 9:29am on Fri 18 Apr 08
Hear hear. I have to note though, you do seem rather anti-BNP (kidding - I can rather understand the dislike of neo-nazism. Unfortunately to maintain some form of political balance they must be tolerated). You're not a reader of Searchlight by any chance? Not a fan of it. Seems rather dedicated to quashing the BNP, but then, who isn't. Rather a marmite party if you ask me.
Certainly, it's a good job you came out and explained it all - although I daresay it won't assuage some.
Hear hear. I have to note though, you do seem rather anti-BNP (kidding - I can rather understand the dislike of neo-nazism. Unfortunately to maintain some form of political balance they must be tolerated). You're not a reader of Searchlight by any chance? Not a fan of it. Seems rather dedicated to quashing the BNP, but then, who isn't. Rather a marmite party if you ask me.
Certainly, it's a good job you came out and explained it all - although I daresay it won't assuage some.
Whilst I have seen no evidence of outright political bias one way or the other in this paper I would contend that the statements and views of the local politicians (of the major parties) are often just reported with no attempt made to question the truth of their statements or to provide any other point of view.
As to the sorry questions LordBelacqua raised about the BNP, I fell that no matter how wrong we may thing their policies may be they must still be treated in the same way as any other legal political party in this country.
To do otherwise in an insult to freedom of speech.
Whilst I have seen no evidence of outright political bias one way or the other in this paper I would contend that the statements and views of the local politicians (of the major parties) are often just reported with no attempt made to question the truth of their statements or to provide any other point of view.
As to the sorry questions LordBelacqua raised about the BNP, I fell that no matter how wrong we may thing their policies may be they must still be treated in the same way as any other legal political party in this country.
To do otherwise in an insult to freedom of speech.
Posted by: LordBelacqua at 10:20am on Mon 21 Apr 08
[quote]As to the sorry questions LordBelacqua raised about the BNP, I fell that no matter how wrong we may thing their policies may be they must still be treated in the same way as any other legal political party in this country.
To do otherwise in an insult to freedom of speech.[/quote]
Actually, I had a letter published in the Advertiser that made that exact same point.
As to the sorry questions LordBelacqua raised about the BNP, I fell that no matter how wrong we may thing their policies may be they must still be treated in the same way as any other legal political party in this country.
To do otherwise in an insult to freedom of speech.
Actually, I had a letter published in the Advertiser that made that exact same point.
[quote]I would contend that the statements and views of the local politicians (of the major parties) are often just reported with no attempt made to question the truth of their statements or to provide any other point of view.[/quote]
John C is spot on there. What I believe most people want is some challenge - you seem to quote whatever the MP's issue to you in press releases - the same with the council - what you don't do is investigate the background behind those statements to establish whether or not they are true.
A classic example was the closure of the post offices - you gave more than adequate coverage to what the MP's said but when they voted for the closures they really should have been shamed - on the front page. Another is the canal - a concept I am very much behind, however are we really meant to believe there isn't an orchestrated attack by the local Labour party against it ? You publish letters almost daily from people who are against it and even gave two labour councillors a front page headline because they are against it and yet if the conservatives ever do anything good you bury the news in the body of the paper rather than the front page.
I also note you printed a retraction on a story on page 19 or something when the original flawed report had the story on the front page.
People really just want to read the truth and if you are genuinely non-political surely it is in the interests of your paper and its readers that you present that.
We cancelled our sub for your paper because I don't believe you are reporting the truth. If you start, I will reconsider.
I would contend that the statements and views of the local politicians (of the major parties) are often just reported with no attempt made to question the truth of their statements or to provide any other point of view.
John C is spot on there. What I believe most people want is some challenge - you seem to quote whatever the MP's issue to you in press releases - the same with the council - what you don't do is investigate the background behind those statements to establish whether or not they are true.
A classic example was the closure of the post offices - you gave more than adequate coverage to what the MP's said but when they voted for the closures they really should have been shamed - on the front page. Another is the canal - a concept I am very much behind, however are we really meant to believe there isn't an orchestrated attack by the local Labour party against it ? You publish letters almost daily from people who are against it and even gave two labour councillors a front page headline because they are against it and yet if the conservatives ever do anything good you bury the news in the body of the paper rather than the front page.
I also note you printed a retraction on a story on page 19 or something when the original flawed report had the story on the front page.
People really just want to read the truth and if you are genuinely non-political surely it is in the interests of your paper and its readers that you present that.
We cancelled our sub for your paper because I don't believe you are reporting the truth. If you start, I will reconsider.
Web Team wrote:
We would like to remind everyone that they are legally responsible for what they post on this site. You can be taken to court if you libel someone. A number of comments have been removed because they were deemed potentially libellous. If you aren’t sure what libel means, put simply, it means anything which is damaging to the character of an individual or a company or organisation. Even if you can prove your claims, you could well end up in court doing so – at huge expense and with a strong possibility of losing and facing an unlimited fine. Basically, stick to verified fact and never make unfounded allegations. Do not accuse people of crimes or other wrongdoing. Anyone who continually libels others will be banned from our website. Sorry to be so officious, but it’s important people leaving comments understand the rules. Thank you.
Wow ... this is serious stuff!
Like many others, I would imagine, I have considered this and the content of a post now becomes a different shooting match on the Comments section.
It would be very difficult for some posters to keep within limits like that, myself included, at times. Insults are the ongoing trend. I certainly would never consider taking someone to court for libel on here, it's pretty much a bit of a laugh, even when it is hurtful on occasions.
The anonimity, presumably, has gone out of the window with a briefing like that?
Are we to assume that these Comments sections are being closed down, because on the face of it, the banter which goes on, especially politically charged comments, are indeed potentially libellous at times.
I would like to read any other posters comments on this statement of the rules because I feel it should be open to debate over whether we can risk the wrath of the legal system by putting our four penn'rth into the melting pot.
Even the newspaper's editor could have actually gone against the rules in his defamation of my character on his blogsite? There is a thin line.
The Web Team are right in bringing this information to our notice, though it does spoil the tactics of the majority I'm sure.
Web Team wrote:
We would like to remind everyone that they are legally responsible for what they post on this site. You can be taken to court if you libel someone. A number of comments have been removed because they were deemed potentially libellous. If you aren’t sure what libel means, put simply, it means anything which is damaging to the character of an individual or a company or organisation. Even if you can prove your claims, you could well end up in court doing so – at huge expense and with a strong possibility of losing and facing an unlimited fine. Basically, stick to verified fact and never make unfounded allegations. Do not accuse people of crimes or other wrongdoing. Anyone who continually libels others will be banned from our website. Sorry to be so officious, but it’s important people leaving comments understand the rules. Thank you.
Wow ... this is serious stuff!
Like many others, I would imagine, I have considered this and the content of a post now becomes a different shooting match on the Comments section.
It would be very difficult for some posters to keep within limits like that, myself included, at times. Insults are the ongoing trend. I certainly would never consider taking someone to court for libel on here, it's pretty much a bit of a laugh, even when it is hurtful on occasions.
The anonimity, presumably, has gone out of the window with a briefing like that?
Are we to assume that these Comments sections are being closed down, because on the face of it, the banter which goes on, especially politically charged comments, are indeed potentially libellous at times.
I would like to read any other posters comments on this statement of the rules because I feel it should be open to debate over whether we can risk the wrath of the legal system by putting our four penn'rth into the melting pot.
Even the newspaper's editor could have actually gone against the rules in his defamation of my character on his blogsite? There is a thin line.
The Web Team are right in bringing this information to our notice, though it does spoil the tactics of the majority I'm sure.
Readers who submit articles must agree to our terms of use.
The content is the sole responsibility of the contributor and is unmoderated.
But we will react if anything that breaks the rules comes to our attention.
If you wish to complain about this article, contact us here.
