Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Sky News Site & Suppression of Comments

Page 1 of 1 [ 6 posts ] 

Previous topic | Next topic

JanuaryMan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jan 2012
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,359

07 Jul 2012, 9:57 am

Hi,

A lot of us check out the Murdoch Mindtrick Mainstream Media site that is Sky News.
A lot of us are also aware of the censorship of reader's and panel comments that goes on there, good and bad.

After the new site design...they've stepped it up a notch. They've now made it so that certain stories CANNOT be discussed (especially important ones relating to finance and politics) whereas some dafter topics can.

Even more interesting just before this, they started vetting comments big time and for a few months even got rid of the commenting system entirely during the election period. I don't think it is all entirely down to irresponsible use. Note that a lot of stupid and ignorant commenters are allowed to run their mouths daily even now. It seems they want to farm stupid posts to increase the notion that certain pro or anti arguments are "ill informed" or stupid to further the agendas of Murdoch's empire & Co. It's strawman political tactics at its finest now.

I could rant on and on, but would someone else like to share their views on all this?



Last edited by JanuaryMan on 07 Jul 2012, 7:45 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Joker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

07 Jul 2012, 3:04 pm

I'm not sur I think a couple of news' websites in America does this.



Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

07 Jul 2012, 4:38 pm

it still isnt censorship


_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.


JanuaryMan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jan 2012
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,359

07 Jul 2012, 6:14 pm

Oodain wrote:
it still isnt censorship


Can't you READ? Even if it isn't, that is not what is being discussed here.
Let me quote the OP:

Quote:
Lastly, it has come to my attention I might have been a little extreme with the term censorship though take this quote and feel free to discuss the boundaries and definition of censorship elsewhere, please:


I even said it MYSELF that it might not be the appropriate word. Please, don't be a smartass.
Get back to the topic, or go back to other threads.



Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

07 Jul 2012, 7:27 pm

JanuaryMan wrote:
Oodain wrote:
it still isnt censorship


Can't you READ? Even if it isn't, that is not what is being discussed here.
Let me quote the OP:

Quote:
Lastly, it has come to my attention I might have been a little extreme with the term censorship though take this quote and feel free to discuss the boundaries and definition of censorship elsewhere, please:


I even said it MYSELF that it might not be the appropriate word. Please, don't be a smartass.
Get back to the topic, or go back to other threads.


i wasnt bein a smartass,(look at what i bolded) but this is a new thread right?
ruveyns comments are gone, so you had every oppertunity to correct your title mistake.


_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.


JanuaryMan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jan 2012
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,359

07 Jul 2012, 7:38 pm

Oodain wrote:
i wasnt bein a smartass,(look at what i bolded) but this is a new thread right?
ruveyns comments are gone, so you had every oppertunity to correct your title mistake.


So let me get this straight, you knew why they were removed (with good reason) then you decided to "fill in" for him?
I amended the OP, and it is clear you deliberately ignored it. How is that NOT being a smartass? Defending yourself for the sake of defending yourself is poor form, man.

Moving on, the TITLE of the OP is now amended. So adults of the board, feel free to share your comments.