Is it a trend or is it being initiated by HP? Just curious.
I think a lot of people who were once active in HP forums, are no longer active on this platform.
Yep, I do believe it has been happening for a long time now. However, I'm now beginning to think the deceleration is becoming even more so. Maybe we are gradually being herded to the Maven forum platform.
Yes, a lot of the forum stuff is repetitive when you have been here for years. When is pay day? How can I improve my hubber score? and the endless quotes all get pretty tedious, at least for me.
The forums used to be super vibrant years back, although much of the advice from other hubbers could be pretty crappy and the arguments often rancorous. The truth is I suspect that the people doing well just get on with it and don't come to the forums that much. It's only when when there's a massive crash that they come out of the woodwork.
More and more I am saying less and less. Still active though.
I've noticed that, too. I thought maybe it was just the holidays and people are too busy right now to post. I hope we don't lose the forums because I have found them to be very helpful over the years.
It's a little discouraging to help someone and not get a thank you or even any response in return.
A proportion of the "help passing QAP" requests are just people going through the motions after a rejection. Writing a response when the person never comes back is an interest killer.
To me it is even worse when you spend the time reading and commenting on their article and they come back and argue with you. I rarely do this anymore. I do not know how Bev manages to continue to be so helpful to so many people.
You stuck in there longer than I could and Bev amazes me, haha.
It's amusing when they argue. And rewarding when they work on their articles and get them approved.
Some though... you know, women as chattels - ugh.
I am sure Hubbers go through the forum and look and read without posting. My posts here are generating comments from those I have not seen on the forums. With that, I don't think to post on the forums influences impressions and CPMs.
The switch to Maven had a big effect. For reasons I don't understand, people were suddenly much less forthright. There is no evidence of a great spider at the heart of that organisation, eager to gobble up anyone who complains too much.
I personally don't really login in as much. I used to check in multiple times a day before, just been busy.
Could you email me? I have a few questions. Thanks.
If there was a purpose or reason to visit and comment on the Forum, people would take the time.
I never posted that much anyway but these days when I check there is not usually anything interesting or new.
You can actually here time in this forum. So we should all be grateful that it is kind.
Profile: "agence web fournissant de nombreux services, construction de site web, classement, design, marketing"
Won't work here, buster.
Obvious spammer is obvious.
...or should I say "spammer évident est évident"?
There are always new people coming on that need advise. And some that have been here only a couple years still need advise, Such people need the more experienced hubbers to hang around
For me, Will's screenshot is the last piece of the puzzle.
It is a fact HP has been making subtle, and not-so-subtle, inhibitory changes to the forums for awhile now. I've now come to the belief the objective is eventual elimination of the HP forums altogether. One of these mornings we are going to wake up to an announcement from HP of exactly that.
Nothing sinister about it, just business.
(This prediction made November 25, 2019, 7:00 pm PST.)
To be honest, I reckon it is the dwindling number of writers. Plus absurd anxiety about speaking up.
If traffic surged, this place would be buzzin' (as old people think young people say).
On the other hand, it is obvious that you, as an individual, care deeply about the forums, and I am sure others do, too. So there is hope.
Also, it would be very poor practice to have a crowd-sourced website without a forum.
Worse still, I would have to join twitter or some such such nonsense if the rug was pulled.
Twitter I'd rather have us set up a hub where we can talk through the comments if that were to happen.
I also have a second prediction. After all, if one accepts the premise of the forums being extinguished, then there must be a reason. I'll work up the energy to post the second prediction at a later time (am still in the process of waking up this Tuesday morning). It's what some would consider a barn burner, but in actuality is not a threat to our income.
Randy would love to host that... the lonely rebel on a hill with a tattered flag, a dwindling band of loyal allies and savage enemies lurking unseen in the surrounding mist.
So scrolling down a few minutes ago brought me to an oldie but a goodie. Will Apse yearning for the Bubblews threads to be elsewhere, and the ensuing comments about how good, and then how crappy that site was. I can hardly believe that 6 years have passed since that debacle.
Interestingly, many folks were complaining about the lack of activity and interest in the Forums then. Many of those have indeed moved on - Mark Ewbie most notably. I re-enjoyed Thomas Swan's interview with Arvind Dixit and fondly recalled Dr. Mark's old BB post - Everytime I Read Someone Praising Arvind It Makes Me Want to Puke. That was some easy money for a short while - then so much fury...good times.
The old forums were part of a genuine crowd sourcing operation. In other words, anyone could publish anything. Hence a lively and entertaining rabble in the forums.
QAP and eds mean only pros and semi pros remain. As the lady with the violent name points out, that makes us rather dull.
Sorry for 3 posts in a row.
The topical forums are anywhere from as dead as these. There's a lot of Trump stuff all the time.
Back in the day the topical forums were all-Jesus, all the time. Now it's all-Trump, all the time. I'm not sure which is worse.
There's the occasional religious thread too. Not specifically Jesus.
Ok, here's my second prediction. It may seem like a big deal to some, but it really isn't.
HubPages will discontinue publishing articles on the hubpages . com domain. It is a duplication of resources and Maven is big on getting rid of that sort of thing. Our Maven Channels (what we used to call "niche sites") will remain alive, well, and prosperous. It is only the hubpages . com domain platform that is going the way of the dodo bird.
This is why Maven/HP is inducing a slow, natural death to the forums. This is actually nice of Maven and HP. They could have just announced an extermination of the forums at any time, but they apparently have decided to wait until the forums are already pretty much dead anyway before initiating that action.
I'll probably get some flack for these predictions, but I've worked in a lot of corporate environments in my time. HubPages is part of a corporation now, so I think the inevitable will follow; especially since I'm seeing all the signs I've learned to recognize over the years regarding these kinds of situations.
I don't see any evidence that Maven is interfering in these forums in a harmful way so please tell me what you are seeing.
One thing I do see is Samantha working hard to improve the forums by trying to introduce new features. She has had a muted response. I have tried to be supportive, but "supportive" is not one of talents. Should probably give up, lol.
Anyway, please tell us what makes you think the forums are under threat, besides the shortage of new threads.
Yup, I've seen the opposite, she has been trying to revive it and you were the only one that replied to a thread at the time I saw it.
I promise that Maven isn't up to anything! We want to see the forums flourish. But aside from my announcements and whatnot, it's up to you guys to post and collaborate!
Thanks for verifying that Samantha. I'm getting tired of going to FB all the time for social interaction. I've decided to hang out here for a little while other writers, so it's good to know the forums (fora?) will be continuing.
I miss the old days, circa 2012. The forums were hopping. To be honest, I check in and out for stats and to see what's shaking in the forums. Usually not much anymore.
A quick search on the death of forums reveals that forums are dead. lol One reason given is over organization, stifling inter-discipline interaction. What am I saying?
I felt in the moment that MaM was stifling the forums back when Squidoo came on board. She spanked those who went off topic, and I suspect she enlisted staff to spank us as well and keep us on topic. Ultimately that killed the fun and humor and made for deadly serious discussions led by resentful new comers. Too much goodie two shoes which led to Beth and PS being banned for long periods of time or eternity.
Given that the Squidoo onboarding coincided with another algo hit, many joined in jumping off-board. Writer Fox, Relache and Marissa had strong opinions, often in conflict, which drove discussions. Now we are indeed boring.
Thank God Sue Adams went viral and we can each share in a glimmer of hope for the future.
Occasionally such threads turn into unintentional comedy gold, though. So there's that.
Part of the appeal of the forums were the arguments, whining, boasting, good and bad advice, and people threatening to leave for good (they always came back at least once, some of them are still here, I believe!)...
I think it's all got more serious nowadays, as you have to be fairly serious to jump through all the hoops to get onto the niches etc. The forums can seem almost frivolous in comparison.
I also think that the internet generally has lost its "Wild West" feel over time. There was a period when it was dangerous and scammy, but there was also a feeling of "anything is possible". That's diminished and to some extent, HP reflects the wider changes.
Of course, Maven is the big story now, I'm sure that there are big changes afoot - HP is maybe kind of old news in that sense...
Read all about it! Read all about it!
https://news.google.com/search?q=maven% … id=US%3Aen
Oh dear... I guess I can't rely on HP to be my extra pension when the time comes
Why? All I am reading is some New Yorker fake news opinion piece. They state "So why does Maven seem determined to kill it?" but give no evidence that Maven is trying to kill it. Make it more efficient, perhaps. Kill it, no. That just seems the ramblings of a journalist that thinks that no magazine should ever be reduced in size. EVER.
I guess the New Yorker and their ilk just prefers the magazines go out of business.
The way I perceive it, Sports Illustrated were in a bad situation, as their advertising revenue model was failing, as has been happening with many traditional publications. Maven acquired it on the cheap and are trying out a new ad revenue system, and using more freelance writers (like HP does). It either works out or it doesn't.
As for HP being a pension. I am philosophical. If all this doesn't work out (and I hope it does, of course), I do feel I have at least learnt a bunch of skills for writing and earning in the modern world.
I'm not a business expert. But I do think the internet world has changed considerably since the early days of start ups and small companies. HP had a uncertain future as a tiny fish in a big sea. With Maven, you've got a slightly bigger fish in a big sea!
Whether it's realistic or "fatalistic" to go with the flow is obviously subjective. I seriously don't think objecting in the forums will have much impact at this stage, there's obviously a big plan afoot. HP was always promoted as a "community", a word that is so vague in its modern meaning, that hubbers tend to read into it what they want. Don't get me wrong, I like the forums, because you interact with other writers, and HP gets feedback, and sometimes you learn stuff, especially when you are starting out.
Last year, I had my biggest incomes from HP Ads ever (though Amazon revenue continued its sad decline) so I'm prepared to give some slack and see what happens. It may work out, it may be a disaster. We'll find out. But it's important to remember that there are risks in not changing, as Sports Illustrated and many other publications have found out.
On the face of it, it is just another case of dumbing down. And someone filling their boots with treasure as a result.
But writers often exaggerate when they see the axe approaching, lol.
Anyone got to the bikini clad girls yet?
Samantha, Thank you for chiming in and setting things straight. We set the pace because forums are a community. Happy Thanksgiving!!
Of course! I'm always glad to see new threads popping up.
Aren't you guys off today? Happy Thanksgiving
I was reading an article yesterday suggesting that companies will only prosper going forward if they can demonstrate a sense of social responsibility and usefulness. Maven might find that hard.
On the other hand, it has provided a safe harbor for us (so far). It also seems to have gotten the HP founders out of debt. No bad thing.
I still can't work out what has spooked PDS. I reckon there is something specific that he just won't share.
BBC article on the perils of capitalism run riot:
Yeah, I read an article just like that back in the late 60s.
Also, Maven should also fire anyone who is over 30 years old.Same philosophy.
What exactly do you disapprove of in that article? Or the one you read 60 years ago?
Well, the BBC is not renowned for a balanced view these days
Mind you, Simon Jack... well he quite liked capitalism once upon a time, probably before the Beeb indoctrinated him.
"Before entering journalism, Jack worked for a decade as a corporate and investment banker in London, New York and Bermuda."
Hmmm, you might like to read the article. No one is anti-capitalist. The Prof reckons business can be powerful tool that solves the worlds problems, the BBC reporter alludes to the realities of actually running a business, in a pretty sympathetic way.
Anyway, I was simply trying to get Dr Mark to say something meaningful.
He says everything that professional writers produce is fake news, you suggest the BBC is leftwing and therefore not worth reading.
I am more in favour of seeing what the writers have to say, what evidence they present to support their contentions and what (if anything) can be learned.
This isn't something that is going to happen in the future, it's already happening. There are so many companies out there that are now trying to go "green". Many of them in manipulative ways just to make it seem like they are doing good things.
Also, this isn't something new, but with the rise of social media, the extent of such boycotts is increasing. The Nestle boycott is quite famous for instance and it began in 1977 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestl%C3%A9_boycott
People, especially the younger generation are more likely to buy a product from a company that also does its part in (for the sake of this example) maintaining the environment. This of course majorly plays a role only when two products are similarly priced. If there's a stark difference, some will still buy from the "better" company while others will go for the cheaper option and if something is not a necessity there are others who would have bought had the better company produced it, but would not bother if only the other one does or if the better company has an expensive product while the other sells it a lot cheaper.
There are groups forming lists and working on stuff that lists companies that are ethical, etc. I have seen an increase in interest in such lists on Reddit over the past few months.
I just did some Googling and I found these two websites that seem to offer something on these lines: https://www.ethicalconsumer.org/ and https://thegoodshoppingguide.com/ and there are apps that do a much better job at this. I forgot the name, but there's an app where you can scan an item's barcode and find out where it comes from, who worked to get it there and the kind of wages paid to the people who helped generate that product.
This is not in line with the article you linked, but it is related to what your conclusion was: companies will only prosper if they work on their social responsibilities.
I think your last line is not the real situation in most of the world. You might say "companies will only prosper among the green western Europeans if they work on their social responsibilities."
The rest of the world is more concerned about price. The daily wage around here is about $12.50. When someone makes twelve dollars a day, and often less, do you really think they are worried about social responsibilities when they are shopping to feed their family?
I spoke about that in my comment too. Not just western Europe, back in India too in the cities quite a few people watched what they bought.
Yes, I thought your comment was good, as usual. It was the last line that I did not agree with.
India, like Brazil, has many economic levels so I do not mean to generalize. Down in the southern part of my country the people are wealthier and are able to care about things like social justice. In the northeast though things are tougher and price is what matters to most people.
I reckon these things are important, but what most helps is legislation that makes it harder for unethical businesses to survive and easier for virtuous ones.
Not that legislation always works out, lol.
In the case of Maven, the first time it catches the national headlines, it is portrayed as dismembering the still living (ie still profitable) body of Sports Illustrated, for the sake of making a quick buck.
In an alternate universe, Maven would have acquired Sports Illustrated, and kept it pure and profitable. Our alternate selves would have something to be proud of. Alternate Maven would have a flagship publication that insulated it against bad press and restrictive legislation.
I believe that in business you are considered to be doing well, if your revenue and profits are heading steadily upwards, even if you are deep in debt and (not yet) making a profit.
Sports Illustrated was the opposite situation. It had declining revenue and profits and was perceived by the business world as doomed, even though they were still just about staying in the black after a lot of cutbacks. The chances of that slim profit continuing seemed very low, as far as I'm aware.
The question of how the web-based economy works is difficult. I do for sure feel sympathy for the writers employed at SI who were working regular hours, receiving a decent regular wage, and receiving benefits such as healthcare insurance, pensions, etc. The replacement model seems to increase insecurity for writers in many cases. Some people do like the freedom of this type of model though. I like it myself in the case of HP. It would be nice to have more security and have benefits, but I wouldn't appreciate going to an office everyday with constant deadlines and doing a 40 hour week. I like working from wherever and whenever I want. All sorts of work fields are going the same way: Uber drivers, Air BnB, etc. I have a bunch of income streams, HP being one, but none offer the reliability of traditional full time job. I'm not sure what the solution is, people need some stability and security, but it seems the traditional way of doing things is moribund in many areas of life. Answers need to be found, but I am pretty sure that the answer is not to just go back to the old ways. The internet has transformed the game.
Below is a link to a positive take, Will, as you seem convinced that the news is entirely negative. (I can't vouch either way for the reliability of the source though - maybe it's too good to be true, though the New Yorker opinion piece seemed unreasonably negative in its tone).
Sports Illustrated and Maven Score Quickly
Thanks for that link. Interesting article. I think that saying the other is "unreasonably negative" is right on the mark.
I am glad someone decided to mount a defense of Maven which did not involve the "it is all fakenews" line.
Bear in mind though, that link is to a press release from Maven.
Way down the bottom:
Greg Witter, firstname.lastname@example.org"
Also, as UK types we not able to judge the emotional impact of transforming SI into a fanzine.
The legit press seem to believe that SI is a national treasure.
I have nothing against outsourcing, per se, by the way. I have a friend who works for a US company that buys up recently outdated software and sells it at rock bottom prices into the countries like Poland, Malaysia and India. Apart from the owners, I don't think any of the staff are US based.
I can't see anything wrong with that. The software was first rate a couple of years ago and perfectly good now. Poorer countries get fully supported use at a good price.
My friend also earns 3000 dollars a month in Thailand, which is more than the local airline pilots are paid.
Generally speaking though, tech companies like Uber have a very hard time justifying themselves as socially useful. Which means at some point there will a reckoning.
A national treasure? Seriously? Like LOOK, LIFE, and the Saturday Evening Post, right?
Those swimsuit issues sure provoked some deep and thoughtful conversations, almost as important as those about why the latest NBA star was wearing a knee brace at his last game.
By the way, Will, a company does not need to be socially useful to be useful. My godaughter can call up an Uber on her cell phone and avoid waiting for a bus and maybe being sexually assaulted, robbed, and even killed. That is a pretty useful thing to her.
So why do you think there will be a reckoning for a company like that?
I did ask if anyone had got to the bikini clad girls, yet, in an earlier post, lol. At the same time, the US national press see SI as a journal that digs into the facts.
As to Uber: https://news.google.com/search?q=uber%2 … id=GB%3Aen
This headline caught my eye: "London Could Ban Uber; Women and Climate Change". What have women done, now?
I have no idea or personal knowledge about the corruption in the London taxi cab business, but if it is anything like New York the drivers pay a fortune for their right to drive a cab and of course will be willing to bribe the government to ban uber.
Also, it does not matter in a city that is full of taxi cabs. Uber does matter in a place like where Pamela lives, where a young woman cannot get a taxi and hanging out at the bus stop at night is like an invitation to the theives and rapists.
https://news.google.com/search?q=uber%2 … id=GB%3Aen
Anyway tired of Uber, lol.
This thread has offered moderate criticism of Maven and no spiders have emerged to gobble anyone up.
Isn't that wonderful?
Giganomics = a variety of gigs to make a living. I like that concept too - and universal healthcare, instead of relying on employers to provide semi affordable healthcare, is the ultimate ticket. Why should employers be burdened with finding a new insurance plan every year, because the introductory rate just went up 30% st the end of the year. Insurance has been playing that game since my first job in the 1980s.
So what does anyone think of Andrew Yang's $1000.00 a month scheme. I am in; to smooth over the rough bits lol
Paying everyone not to work? You are the first normal person I have heard saying this is a good thing. According to my calculations, even if not everyone is eligible, it is going to cost the US about 2 trillion a year. The entire US military costs less than 700 billion, even with all the people it employs when hiring soldiers and building all of its weapons.
So even if you scrapped it, and scrapped a lot of other stuff, the US will be in more debt.
Of course according to one South African hubber "It is the government. They can just print more money." Sure, and in a few months your $1000 a month will be worth a few dollars.
Here in GA, Coca Cola is a king, and the world's largest producer of plastic bottles. They give to Keep America beautiful environmental funds on the one hand, and use the removal of that funding, as an under the table cudgel, to suppress bottle laws.
Bottle laws would require deposits be paid on the plastic containers, and refunds are given when the bottles are returned. Bottle laws only exist in 11 states, because Coke and a few others stymie them. They are very effective in lowering pollution and getting refreshment bottles returned, without being mixed in with detergent bottles, making them less expensive to recycle.
So they are giving to environmental clean up groups, which falls into your manipulative category. It remains to be seen if they will take the financial hit required with bottle laws, as they have to collect and recycle those bottles, and they would be charged by the municipalities to recycle those products. To date they have kept these shenanigans under the table, to the detriment of all.
I can imagine that the folks at Coca-Cola and Nestlé are less than worried about these social justice campaigns.
Truth in Advertising:
"Coca-Cola: Polluting the World´s Oceans, Two Liters at a Time"
"Nestlé: Selling Sugar Water to Ignorant People and Celebrating the 42nd Anniversary of the Boycott"
It seems like you are making up facts here. I said "All I am reading is some New Yorker fake news opinion piece" and in m;your comment you said that I stated that all professional writers produce fake news.
No, not all. The New Yorker, however, has mastered it.
"I still can't work out what has spooked PDS. I reckon there is something specific that he just won't share."
Nope, just the opposite. No single event caused either of my predictions, just a long list of things observed over time.
Meanwhile, I have perpetrated a discrete Hubber Group at https://maven.io/mavens/_conversations . It's located under the Community tab. The title and short comment indicate it's just for us Hubbers. I figure it might be useful for us someday.
You are still being shy about airing your concerns or reporting your observations.
If people won't make some kind of statement it is very hard to allay concerns. Or move things on.
Are you suggesting Maven should promote corporate responsibility, or just that capitalism at large offers hope for the future?
I read the article, and it made me smile - UK is more capitalism centric than USA. LOL. Only if you consider that CEO's figure as high up as shareholders, given that CEOs are also shareholders, incentivised by stock options and stock price benchmarks. They have to use a Dutch company to give an example of a responsible brand, that ultimately capitulated to an American hostile takeover, and fed the greedy shareholders their due.
The author must not have heard about our pharma industry, which has raised the price of drugs like insulin 600%, with all patents expired and blah blah. Americans pay 2-100 times what our companies sell their drugs for in the rest of the world. Tell me about predatory capitalism in the UK, where the government is taking care of such niceties as healthcare.
The author would do better to explain how responsibility would benefit the shareholder, since they own all of the cards in the USA. Nothing will be nationalized in this country, we are currently trying to privatise the Veterans Administration and prison systems, in spite of all evidence to the contrary; outcomes are worse when corporate profits eclipse healthcare and incarceration outcomes.
The forums certainly have livened up around here since my original post.
Now if Maven/HP could somehow get AdSense to grant an exemption (they've done it before) and allow ads here, that would tip the scales enough to cause me to withdraw my prediction.
Stirring the somnolent masses ain't always easy. So well done for that, lol.
My problem is that I reckon I only have a couple of million words left in me. Might need those for moaning about life, the universe and everything.
"My problem is that I reckon I only have a couple of million words left in me. Might need those for moaning about life, the universe and everything."
Been there. Done that. For me it's now about philosophy, curiosity, resignation, acceptance.
I didn't mean it to be! Kind of the opposite, more of a kindred spirit kind of thing.
Meanwhile, am waiting for January to do my update frenzy; both HP and website. We are talking 100+ articles, going to be a very busy month for me.
I am helping my wife set up a bricks and mortar business. Interesting times. A significant portion of my energy has returned.
Also, big plus: many new things to moan about, lol.
I hope your brick and mortar business isn't subjected to the same bureaucracy nightmares there as ours here.
Speaking of moaning; I just discovered that one of my website articles is a misaligned, totally disastrous, absolute mess when displayed on mobile. No waiting until January for that one. Am cleaning up that fiasco as we speak. Jeez, I hope Google hasn't already permanently put that article on their S List.
HEY, FOLKS. ALWAYS CHECK HOW YOUR ARTICLES LOOK ON MOBILE!!! Just thought I'd share that.
Just going back a little: "Uber had 6,000 US sexual assault reports in two years"
I knew that seriously under-regulated Uber was bad, but not that bad.
Maybe rename the service to "Trawma".
I read the article. Half the time it was the passenger that was assaulted, half the time it was the driver that was assaulted. What a world.
Still with the BBC links to Uber? I thought you were bored of this coversation.
Just for your edification, taking an Uber is like having a gun. If you take an Uber, and do not get sexually assaulted when waiting in a dark place for a bus, you do not report to the police that you were not sexually assaulted.
If you have a gun, and your house does not get robbed because the neighborhood crack junkies know you have a gun, you do not report to the police that you were not robbed.
Maybe you should think of a clever name to brand the BBC and CNN.
Are you saying that the BBC article is false or unfair or that the report from Uber is false or unfair?
This is a direct link to the report published by Uber:
https://www.uber-assets.com/image/uploa … cle_inline
I read your comment several times but genuinely could not make sense of it. What have crack dealers got do with this issue?
Edit (after some thought): It might be that you are saying that in crime-ridden countries, it is better to take a risk with an unvetted Uber driver than it is to trust public transport (if available) or walking home. That would at be a defensible position. But it opens up a thousand other questions.
One thing for sure, Uber is not going to solve your social problems, Neither are guns.
Yes, the media does skew things. Do I know that particular article is skewed. No. I just find it better to distrust all of them until I know otherwise.
Uber is not a solution. It is a good alternative though.
No, guns are not going to solve our problems. That is what you should be telling all of the police there in Thailand, since as we all know they do not carry guns and trust in the goodwill of their neighbors.
I tend to quote the BBC because, as a UK broadcaster, it is bound by law to produce fair and balanced reporting (newspapers are merely expected to follow journalistic principles).
Sky, ITV etc are also reliable for the same reason but the BBC, as a national institution, is in the full glare of public scrutiny all the time. If they get their facts wrong, the outrage is immediate and heads will roll.
Another plus is that online BBC articles separate fact presentation from reporter commentary in a way that anyone can follow.
Interestingly, many reckon they have gone too far in striving for balance.
So, in the climate debate they are accused of giving too much time to climate skeptics who rarely have any solid evidence to back up their assertions.
That's hilarious, Will. It's like you have made some accurate observations and then turned them inside out.
"Jeremy Paxman argues that the Corporation's correspondents "travel the globe to tell the audience of the dangers of climate change while leaving a vapour trail which will make the problem even worse". Paxman further argues that the 'BBC's coverage of the issue abandoned the pretence of impartiality long ago'."
My mother reads the Daily Mail. I have to ask if you do.
Does she, and do you?
I ain't your mother, boy
Wanting to believe something about someone is no reason to make an unfounded assumption.
Take a step back and think about it. Do you class anyone who disagrees with BBC broadcasting policies as a Daily Mail reader? Because if you do, you prove my point regarding its bias.
So are we talking The Telegraph? There are two main sources of the accusation that the BBC is biased to the left. The Mail and the Telegraph.
If I can understand where you are coming from, I will be able to write shorter posts.
Better still, if you can provide an example of a biased page...
Anyway, drinking time has arrived so I am away... Probably for several hours. lol.
Last time I looked, the Telegraph is behind a paywall. Neither did I say the BBC is biased to the left. I only linked to the very substantial Wiki article that lists all the accusations of bias - and from what I read, it came from all sides.
I added the Jeremy Paxman quote because he worked for the Beeb for decades and, if anyone knows how they operate, he should.
One thing I find fascinating about the BBC is their propensity for self-flagellation. Newswatch, in particular, being very keen on it.
As I say, you might want to take a step back and consider your judgements before making assumptions.
Exactly, left and right criticize the BBC just about equally. Scottish nationalists hate it because the BBC did not support them during indyref. This is what you would expect for an organization in the spotlight trying to tread a centrist line.
As to why I asked if you were Mail reader...
In a previous thread, you sited Christopher Booker as an authority on the EU. I decided not get involved at the time, because I knew we were straying into difficult territory.
Booker was a genuine eccentric, these are some of the things he believed:
Second hand smoke does not cause cancer.
Asbestos is not hazardous because it has the same chemical formula as talc.
Darwin was wrong (he wrote a book on the subject carefully rebutting Darwin's contentions and it made him a lot of money)
Booker was not a chemist, biologist or epidemiologist. The "facts" that he used were mostly invented.
He was a prime example of someone who creates fake news (in its original meaning).
I used to read the Telegraph in the UK when I was feeling at a low ebb. It is relentlessly upbeat, with none of that grim reality the Guardian likes to revel in (the environment, the slaughter of innocents, corruption etc etc). But after a reading a few Christopher Booker articles, I realized I was going to have to leave Wonderland.
And what I find interesting is how you so much wanted to categorise me by what newspaper I read. Even to the point of "If you read this then you must be that." It's as if you like to assess intelligence level by preferred news source.
I'm not a climate change sceptic, by the way, I just think that humans are arrogant if they think they can change a natural cycle. We should focus on cleaning up the mess we've made. Hope that helps with your categorisation.
I'm not that judgmental, lol. But in the UK, newspapers really functions as emotional home worlds for their readers.
This means that if you know what someone habitually reads you have a good idea of their mindset.
There is nothing wrong with having a mindset. As long as it does not involve attempting to undermine the difficult task of truth gathering.
The "fake news", "no one can be trusted", "they are all the liars", "they are all corrupt" juggernaut has the potential to crush all of us. Well, all of us except the people who set it in motion.
Honestly. And there is nothing wrong with group affiliations. In fact, individuals cut off from group affiliations are empty and meaningless creatures.
As to the Daily Mail, I'm entirely grateful for its existence. There is a fringe of readers that could easily spin off into the world of EDL or other fanatical far right organisations.
The Mail keeps them safely orientated to the Conservative Party which, most of the time, is respectably democratic.
If US liberals could see the social value of Fox News, it might help heal a few divides. Trump is not making that easy currently, but he is weird aberration that will pass, I hope, lol.
"As to the Daily Mail, I'm entirely grateful for its existence. There is a fringe of readers that could easily spin off into the world of EDL or other fanatical far right organisations."
So by that reasoning, the Guardian, together with Polly, Owen and Paul Mason, stop people spinning off to Momentum and the fanatical far left? Hmm...
Edit: I think you'd find, if you polled some far-right or far left fanatics, that they can barely read at all.
But I'm glad the Daily Mail has prevented your mum from joining EDL.
There is no point trying to upset me. I just become more fascinated by what is happening.
When people get really, really angry, it is often because you are pushing them close to apprehending a truth that they are not yet prepared to deal with.
Or their is a secret shame (usually not so shameful once spoken) lurking somewhere.
Or their lives have had gone as they would have liked and someone has to pay for it.
None of those things are my responsibility. And of course, If I were talking to a Daily Mail reader, I would be rendering a service by allowing them to vent some of the rage they always carry with them.
p.s. I once spent a week buying my mother The Telegraph in the hope she could lighten up a little. Didn't work. It wasn't the politics that mattered.
She needed targets for her outrage (scroungers, foreigners, council tenants, "snowflakes", often simply people who had been more fortunate than her).
The Mail delivers. And keeps the rest of us all a bit safer.
I am a very happy person and this thread has been very entertaining, so don't think for one second I'm on the verge of some angry explosion. I'm simply enquiring if your Daily Mail logic also applies to Guardian readers? You know, for balance
I don't do outrage, apart from when people mistreat animals, children or the vulnerable.
So fake news should be believed by all? Oh, right, no need to read skeptically and think about what is being reported. It must be true because that is what the journalists and government are saying.
Do you really believe that thinking critically is going to crush you?
"Do you really believe that thinking critically is going to crush you?"
This is an example of thinking critically:
Who wrote this article?
What evidence do they present?
Is the evidence verifiable?
This is an example of slipping into rage and despair: "it is all fake news"
I know I can't persuade you. The emotion is too alluring
Of course you also read "authentic" news from such straightforward sources like Mother Jones, MSNBC, and the Huffington Post, right? We all KNOW that news is not skewed.
If you learn how to read mainstream news, you can pick up useful and reliable info, whatever kind of spin they put on it. Populist newspapers are harder and require more attention, you might have to read how a subject is treated by multiple outlets.
The important thing is not to give up and assume everyone is lying. If a writer has been trained as professional journalist they will present evidence that can be checked.
If that sounds like too much work, it is best not to worry about the news at all.
Why is it that you people refuse to read something that does not support your views yet want the rest of us to read your Huffington Post? I realize it would be a lot of work for you to get up off of your couch and find something to read besides the BBC, but you might realize that you have improved your mind.
If you are unwilling to learn, it is best that you stick to MSNBC and they can encourage whatever mistaken views you already have.
What are you recommending for fair and balanced news reading?
Any media outlet that follows journalistic legal and ethical standards. That mostly means newspapers.
It definitely does not mean cable news.
The best one I have found so far is Reuters. I may not like what they say (more often than not) but at least they are not providing fake news and doing those stunts like CNN.
This is the link I use for my Brazilian news. https://www.reuters.com/news/archive/br … ageSize=10 Our president is about as smart as Trump and every week comes out with something stupid. The national news does not carry it.
You just made my point -- newspapers versus cable news including Fox, CNN and MSNBC.
Too many people don't understand the difference. Newspapers and cable news are apples and oranges.
Yes, I think you are right but there are some sources that report the facts, but then also skew them to the left or right by adding their own opinion. That source that Will thinks so highly of is one of them.
I do not think there is anything wrong with their facts, just the way they present them.
I honestly don't think there is one fully trustworthy source of news. You have to read/watch lots and then form your own opinion.
Yes, you are right, but we are limited by time in how many things can be read in a day. I do not have much time to read things biased to the ways in which I believe, nor do I want to waste my time reading things heavily skewed in the other direction.
Biased, I know. I blame it all on my dogs!
I am having personal issues related to not knowing what to write for HubPages right now. I mostly log in, check my daily views, skim the forums, and that is it. Fact is I got a few of my own writing projects going and I am heavily focused on that.
But I do want to write a few more things for HubPages. I am grateful for the feedback I have received and the chance able to start my own online writing here. I still value what I wrote as a good portfolio.
The "fake news" thing is so important. It leads to so much division and despair. When people start believing that it is impossible to know what is true and what is not, our cultures are dissolving.
The phrase was first used to describe news that was simply made up. The wild conspiracy theories promoted as news by sites like Infowars, things like "Sandy Hook was staged", "Hilary runs a pedophile ring out of pizza restaurant" were fact-free but widely taken as gospel by readers.
Unfortunately, malign populist politicos quickly moved to use the fake news label as a way of cutting supporters off from real news that cast said politicos in a poor light.
So, instead of responding to real issues and addressing them, populist leaders can simply refuse to accept scrutiny.
The deliberate undermining of our ability to understand the world and engage in fact-based debate is incredibly damaging not just to politics but to people's mental health.
The number of forum threads around here may be considerably less, but the number of short, pointless, gibberish "articles" emanating from the Indian sub-continent has definitely increased.
Seriously, how the hell is the site being flooded with so much of this crap all of a sudden? Did someone leave a back door open?
by Lionrhod 5 years ago
There are a lot of us who haven't been feeling safe on the forums. They've felt stalked, harassed and browbeaten.Sadly, some folks go with the letter of the law, but not the spirit of it in their posts.For an excellent post on why we need Forum Moderators, check out what Makingamark says here...
by rebekahELLE 6 years ago
Whenever I open the forums, I see countless threads by the same people, many of them unanswered or with only a couple of comments. I would love to see a limit on how many threads the same person can open daily. I often have to go to page 2 or 3 to see what else people are...
by Sa Toya 9 years ago
what do yo think...lately it's all changed a bit..then again could just be me.
by Will Apse 6 years ago
It is hard to see that Bubblews threads have a place in the Hubpages section of the forums.Could another place be found for them?
by Carolee Samuda 8 years ago
I am thinking that if a hubber has left HP for whatever reason then there should be a shudown of that hubbers forums, questions and comments. Why have a forum running that the hubber initiated. If the forum was started by someone else and the just posted a thread, that's okay. But if the initiated...
by Kate Swanson 8 years ago
Recently we've had several cases where Hubbers have been able to work together to get plagiarizing sites taken down. Those threads are very important but it's all too easy for Hubbers not to notice them. If we had a forum dedicated to that subject, we'd all be aware of the need to keep an eye...
Copyright © 2020 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|