04-26-2014, 01:34 PM
quote:Tiffany is the one who made a point about the bringing in a different editor.
Who says her website is, or has to be, politically neutral?
I was clear that my problem isn't with open bias. My problem is with trying to score perception points for keeping it unbiased, but not following the protocol she announced she would follow.
quote:What does "OK" mean? I think it's OK if it doesn't affect other people and if people don't rely on your behavior having some consistency. Plus, she didn't change her mind about the rule. She tried to do the "I still have a rule, but I'm just making an exception or two" dance.
Oh, and the thing about making your own rules;
Rule #1; It's OK to change your mind.
If the rule is made to score points for a certain type of behavior, then if you break the rule, you can expect to lose the points.
My criticism is that Tiffany is trying to keep the points she thinks she gets for making the rule, but isn't adhering to the standard she publicly set for herself. We all set private standards for ourself that we can't make good on, but it is something else to announce a standard as a candidate for public office and then renege.
To be clear, I don't think BIC has ANY credibility as a neutral news medium. It lost that when Tiffany decided to moderate all comments before publishing them.
It is one thing to do as Rob does here and occasionally moderate visibly pertaining to already posted opinions, in accordance with guidelines.
In Tiffany's case, she can at all times suppress any opinions she doesn't like, by never allowing them to appear in the first place. For example, she will publish opposition that is easy in her mind to knock down, but can censor opposition that she doesn't wish to debate.
Nothing is on the blog that she hasn't personally approved as content, based on Tiffany's arbitrary standards. Of course it is absolutely worthless as any kind of unbiased reporting. It is purely op-ed and commentary and puff pieces sprinkled with a medley of contributor pieces at this point. Editorializing has its value, but lets not call it news.
However, before Tiffany moderated all the comments, I liked BIC, as it was a place the community had a voice just as Punaweb is. Her commentary was open to free expression for or against her POV.
It is a farce trying to appear neutral by bringing in another editor, as long as comments are censored. However, it is how Tiffany announced she would do it to try to appear to be reporting news.
My concern is very simple. I support a candidate who has the ability to play by the rules he or she publicly commits to following. I think a candidate should demonstrate that capacity during the campaign, because there will be much greater tests of commitment once elected.