There apparently comes a time when all good folk must come to the aid of the Party. Admittedly, not everyone would describe me as good (best to get that in before someone else does, methinks) and it is Liberal Democrat Voice and not the Liberal Democrats who have attracted a desire to assist, but the principle is the same.
The volunteer team who gallantly maintain this organ for the debate of Liberal Democrat ideas are a bit short-staffed this month, and I thought that it might be nice if I lent them a hand. Besides, it makes a pleasant change from candidate selection. So, without further ado, it gives me great pleasure to welcome you to a new week. Today, we bring you news of the following;
- Stephen Tall opines on incumbency and the sophomore effect, and how these will matter next year
- the biggest event of the Liberal Democrat Voice year (and there may be prizes, even if I never win one)
- a call for meaningful constitutional reform to make the United Kingdom a proper Union
- Norman Baker on animal testing
- Nick Clegg on an ‘interesting’ proposal to encourage garden cities
We’ve also received more submissions on the current crisis in Gaza – and trust me, I use that phrase with extreme caution. And, if I can agree a text with an author that isn’t so one-sided either way as to allow meaningful debate, and adds something to what has already been said (bearing in mind the risk of diffusing the debate amongst too many threads on a similar theme), it may yet emerge.
So, have a great day, wherever you are, and do join in the debate if you can find the time, bearing in mind, of course, our comments policy…
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Makerfield: we can breathe again.
Brexit has cut trade in almost every sector of the UK economy
In which my great great grandmother's brother stuffs a ptarmigan
Replacement?
Reform inadvertently lose their majority
David Raw
Alex Macfie
Slamdac
Nonconformistradical
Steve Trevethan
30 Comments
Nothing on Clegg announcing the end of Lib Dem policy on EU immigration?
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/aug/04/nick-clegg-tighter-controls-immigration-new-eu-states
Or are you not in the loop on this one?
@Mark Valladares
“And, if I can agree a text with an author that isn’t so one-sided either way as to allow meaningful debate”
That’s the classic trap that journalists fall in to when discussing almost anything. Presenting two opposing arguments does not make something balanced when one side of the argument has little or no credibility on the basis of evidence and logic. It is precisely how the BBC ended up with egg on its face over MMR. They gave equal coverage to both ‘sides’ despite the fact that one side represented the overwhelming weight of informed scientific opinion and the other side was a maverick conducting dodgy research. The same thing applies to global warming. The same applies to Gaza. Can you imagine in 1939 giving an equal voice to Hitler as well as Chamberlain to make things fair and ‘balanced’? That’s where your (lack of) logic leads you. A good debate is based on evidence and reasoning, not giving everyone the same voice as long as they’re polite. You should be accepting articles on the basis of reasoning, not because they are being nice to everyone by representing all opinions regardless of how baseless those opinions are.
@ g,
We haven’t had a submission yet, and I wouldn’t want to try to cover it myself until I had time to do some research. And, as I’m on my way to work, I don’t see that I going to have time.
@ Steve,
The submission that we have appears to suggest that one side has the right to drive the other into the sea, so I have contacted them in search of clarification. I don’t think that there are many Liberal Democrats in favour of what can only be described as genocide, so your lecture on editorial strategy is perhaps a mite premature.
There are subjects where the extremes of opinion might be within the bounds of reason – I’m not convinced that Israel/Palestine is one of them.
“The submission that we have appears to suggest that one side has the right to drive the other into the sea, so I have contacted them in search of clarification.”
Well, let’s hear what they have to say. If it stands up to reasoning then perhaps those whose sympathies lie elsewhere may moderate their opinions. If it doesn’t stand up to reasoning then the author and those that sympathise with him/her might moderate their opinions when the flaws in their reasoning are pointed out.
Meaningful debate does not arise from not taking sides, it arises from people taking sides and laying out their reasoning so that it can be questioned. Your attempt to distract with the ‘genocide’ thing is unreasonable. Everyone is against genocide, but both sides claim to be under the threat of genocide in the Palestine-Israeli conflict. What matters is that those hypotheses are questioned on the basis of the evidence. By disallowing anyone to claim that one side is attempting genocide you are automatically ruling out that one side might be attempting genocide. So, what if genocide is taking place? You are an accessory to it by denying the right for people to make the case that it is happening.
Steve,
I think that you may have misread my earlier response. The submitted piece appears, on both a first and second reading, to call for genocide against one side by the other, rather than protesting genocide.
I may be wrong, or the author may have expressed themselves badly, so I have consulted them, as I believe a good editor should.
@Mark Valladares
“And, if I can agree a text with an author that isn’t so one-sided either way as to allow meaningful debate”
That’s your original sentence. Following your logic through, you would presumably be happy to accept the article if the author modifies their opinion so that he/she advocates both sides committing genocide for the sake of balance? If the author is genuinely calling for genocide (trusting your interpretation here) then surely the grounds for dismissing the article is not because it is one sided as you originally stated but because it advocates something that is so at odds with the principles of liberalism. So, why did you make the comment about ‘one-sided either way’?
Steve – give Mark some slack and the space to work with the author – as a good editor should. Mark, thanks for the transparency of what is happening re this looming piece, and thanks for being responsible for the website and hopefully the debate. It’s a tricky subject and wise to handle it cautiously and double-check before pushing print or send…
@ Steve,
Oh dear, you really do have a terrible opinion of me, if you think that I would tolerate calling for genocide by either or both sides. It doesn’t seem to leave much scope for discussion if your opening stance is to think the worst of a locum day editor.
Disagree with my stated stance by all means, and I think that I’ve been reasonable in allowing you to publicly challenge a matter of editorial policy, but I do think that your presumption of my views is a mite excessive.
So, given that we don’t agree, and I’m the editor, there doesn’t seem much point in continuing our exchange. But thank you for taking the time to express your view – it is noted.
@Ed Fordham
“Steve – give Mark some slack and the space to work with the author – as a good editor should.”
This really isn’t a trivial matter though and it is one that is very relevant to the conflict in Gaza. I have read numerous comments on these pages that condemn anyone who doesn’t criticise both sides in an even-handed manner. This is a failing of the most basic reasoning and it has profound effects on the outcome of debates as it gives a greater freedom to those who distort the evidence than they deserve. This really matters.
@Mark Valladares
“Oh dear, you really do have a terrible opinion of me, if you think that I would tolerate calling for genocide by either or both sides. ”
Why do you feel the need to personalise this? I haven’t. Why do you feel the need to appeal to emotions?
“if you think that I would tolerate calling for genocide by either or both sides”
I said nothing of the sort. I am attacking the fallacy of ‘balance’, not you, even if you have fallen for it. I don’t question your integrity.
“So, given that we don’t agree, and I’m the editor, there doesn’t seem much point in continuing our exchange. ”
Stonewalling.
@ Steve,
My apologies for not responding sooner – day job interrupts, I’m afraid.
You did say;
“Following your logic through, you would presumably be happy to accept the article if the author modifies their opinion so that he/she advocates both sides committing genocide for the sake of balance?”
which did, to my mind, rather infer that you were suggesting that this would be my view. I was, to be frank, offended by the suggestion. If that was not actually your intention, then I apologise. However, it did seem like a reasonable interpretation of what you were saying.
Your mistake is to assume that I am attempting to seek, or apply, balance. What I am attempting to do is publish an article which will stimulate a debate. It could be pro-Israeli or pro-Palestinian – that isn’t for me to judge. However, when a piece appears to leave little or no space for reasonable debate – and I accept that I am, initially at least, judge and jury on that point – I do feel it appropriate to explore whether the article needs rewriting or is simply not appropriate for publication here. As a courtesy to the author, and out of respect to our readership, I feel that it is a matter better done privately.
Your right to challenge such a stance remains sacrosanct (within the bounds of our comments policy, naturally), as I hope that I have demonstrated by publishing this exchange. However, I do retain the right to challenge a false impression as to my motives if it is expressed on these pages.
“if I can agree a text with an author that isn’t so one-sided either way as to allow meaningful debate”
That was your statement of editorial principle, Mark, and that’s what you should honestly defend or withdraw. To come back subsequently and muddy the water with remarks about genocide is to hide from the challenge.
Your original statement indicates that a “one-sided” text – whatever it is about, it might be the merits of different electoral systems for example, nothing to do with genocide – is inherently unacceptable because it does not “allow meaningful debate”. Well, first of all, that’s faulty logic. An article about the economy might, for example, be written from an extreme dogmatic Marxist standpoint: but no matter, I’m sure we could all debate the article, and might well find it useful to work out exactly what we might make of the arguments.
Secondly and more seriously, it seems to be an excuse for censoring out points of view which you personally think are “one-sided”. It suggests that only wishy-washy “one the one hand on the other hand” articles are acceptable on LDV. Or worse, that articles that are one-sided and not on the “right” side are unacceptable.
Now, perhaps you don’t actually mean to convey the implications which you have conveyed. Perhaps it was only the genocidal stuff which really caused you to object. In that case, I think you need to make it clear that you mis-expressed yourself.
@Mark Valladares
“which did, to my mind, rather infer that you were suggesting that this would be my view.”
Reductio ad absurdum. I was demonstrating how the “let’s give both sides an equal hearing” philosophy could lead to an article that was “balanced” but absurdly illiberal. I really don’t think so little of you to think that you would publish an article that advocates that both sides wipe each other out.
“Your mistake is to assume that I am attempting to seek, or apply, balance. What I am attempting to do is publish an article which will stimulate a debate. It could be pro-Israeli or pro-Palestinian”
I have misunderstood you then, but is that surprising given that you wrote:
“We’ve also received more submissions on the current crisis in Gaza – and trust me, I use that phrase with extreme caution. And, if I can agree a text with an author that isn’t so one-sided either way as to allow meaningful debate”?
A pro-Israeli or a pro-Palestinian article is one-sided either way so therefore would fall foul of that stance, no? I’m pleased to hear that you would accept pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian articles. This is an important and relevant point – Miliband’s statement that gave a greater criticism of Israel than the Palestinians was attacked by Cameron who has been making meaningless ‘balanced’ statements throughout which may superficially appear thoughtful but are nothing more than fence-sitting and are aimed at not upsetting the Israelis more than they are trying to understand and provide a solution to the conflict, in my opinion .
A one-sided opinion piece can perhaps be very much more valuable than a balanced one. It can allow that side to present its arguments and evidence in a clearer and more coherent fashion, so that readers can be better informed about that side, and so that opponents commenting can be clearer in their criticisms.
Perhaps more importantly could be an attempt or duty, by editors, to ensure balance in comments, so that all sides of a debate are represented somewhere in the comments. For instance editors could themselves add comments to achieve this, if the majority of comments turned out to be one-sided.
Richard Dean: The Greeks had a word for it – Polemic. A contentious, but in principle an entirely valid, form of argument.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polemic
If you haven’t seen John Oliver’s US cable news/comedy programme “Last Week Tonight” then I heartily recommend it. Each 30 minute show is focussed on a single subject, and Oliver often chooses topics that he knows will discomfit his audience. There’s a nice description in The Radio Times : http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2014-07-31/laughing-longest-why-last-week-tonight-with-john-oliver-is-a-new-breed-of-political-comedy
Oliver recently talked about how TV news channels feel it necessary to bring “balance” to debates on climate change by having a scientist to represent the consensus view, and a climate change denier to give the opposite view. But as Oliver points out, over 99% of all scientists specializing in climate accept the theory. So if you really want “balance” then you need 99 people presenting the case for, and one person giving the case against.
“Balance” is a tricky thing…
@ David Allen,
Too quick, too suspicious, my friend. You have missed the context, in that I am talking specifically about Gaza in that paragraph. In most other circumstances, a perhaps extreme view is arguable. I find that, with Israel/Palestine, the extremist views at each end are violently offensive, leading to the two extremes shouting at each other and everyone else running for cover.
@ Steve,
Agreed, and I accept that you intended no offence. But there is one-sided and there is offensive, and my role as editor is to work towards publication of the former and not of the latter.
@ Richard,
It can be, but you appear to have overlooked the word ‘so’ I’m the phrase ‘so one-sided’. If someone writes, “I think that X should die”, for example, there isn’t a lot of scope for calm exchange of views. And yes, that’s an extreme example, but a line should be drawn somewhere between utterly neutral and offensively partisan, a line beyond which we would choose not to go. My job as editor is to judge where that line is, for good or ill.
I am slightly bemused by your suggestion that the editorial team should seek to balance the debate. All comments judged to comply with the comments policy (and I acknowledge that such a statement is controversial in itself) are published, so the expectation is that, as far as possible, the debate reflects the comments submitted.
This is the maddest comments thread I have ever read on LDV. People pontificating on something they haven’t read (except Mark who has). Mark was good enough to share what he was reviewing but it is just ridiculous for people to try to edit this site by committee without (except for Mark) sight of the article – particularly on one of the most contentious and sensitive issues known to human kind. Total madness!
It seems to me to be perfectly sane, possible, acceptable, and even valuable to discuss general principles, even without sight of the specific document that led to the discussion being started. In what way might it not be?
No Mark, I haven’t missed the context. You have over-generalised, and made a statement to the effect that you would always be liable to reject one-sided articles. You have now implicitly conceded what I asked you to concede, that it was the specific context and the genocidal intent that caused your rejection. Note that in your original post, you said nothing at all about genocide.
It was not a huge mistake I was asking you to admit to. Nor did I ask for an apology as such. I only said “I think you need to make it clear that you mis-expressed yourself.” Not too much to ask, I feel.
But too much for you. Instead of just admitting a small error and moving on, you call me “too suspicious, my friend”, (which, of course, is a snide form of insult). Meanwhile Paul Walter comes along to harrumph and hyperbolise about total madness. You’re both wound up like coiled springs.
Take a holiday, or better, take a break from the impossible job you are doing, trying to prop up Clegg.
@ Richard,
Oh yes, you can discuss general principles by all means, but they are just that, general, and I have written on this site in the past about some of the principles which are applied by members of the Editorial Team and, for a while, by me in my short-lived role as Readers’ Editor. This is a specific issue, so given that, it is a little strange to find myself under attack on the basis of a series of assumptions in almost complete absence of fact. However, it is interesting to hear the thoughts of some of our regular commenters.
@ David,
The paragraph opened with a reference to Gaza. I didn’t change paragraph, so the contents of that paragraph might be presumed to be of a piece, i.e. one discrete concept. You have chosen to break the paragraph up and place the second part in a context for which it was never intended. Fair enough that you should do so, but that was not the intention, as explained above.
So, you see, I don’t believe that I mis-expressed myself, more that you have misinterpreted what I said. But, if you feel that I have insulted you, I must respect that hurt and apologise accordingly.
However, my day as locum editor is over, so I guess that it matters little that you seem determined to credit me with a stance that I don’t hold – I simply don’t agree with your position, rather than actively opposing it. I presume that an apology is too much to ask for.
This is your locum day editor, signing off…
@Mark
I hope you weren’t referring to my comments as putting you “under attack”. That was not my intention, and nothing I wrote suggests to me that I did that.
@Paul Walter
“This is the maddest comments thread I have ever read on LDV. People pontificating on something they haven’t read”
Er, if you had bothered reading my comments you would realise that I was ‘pontificating’ on something I had read: the statement by Mark Valladares in the article.
If “the volunteer team who gallantly maintain this organ for the debate of Liberal Democrat ideas are a bit short-staffed this month”, then why not ask for volunteers from the people who comment?
For instance, I might be able to assist occasionally. What sort of criteria are used to select day-editors?
Richard,
In fairness, given the current status of your relationship with the team, and your declared intention not to vote Liberal Democrat for a long time to come, it seems unlikely that you could be relied upon to steward the site in a manner sympathetic to supporters of the Party, for whom the site is primarily intended.
You’d probably have to apologise to at least one of the Co-Editors for starters… 😉
That said, here are some of the criteria that would need to be met in order to be considered a credible candidate as part of the Editorial Team;
1. Should be a member of the Liberal Democrats – the site should be sympathetic to the aims and objectives of the Party.
2. Should be someone of whom the existing Editorial Team can trust and place their faith in – collective responsibility, legal and ongoing, applies. They should also be willing to abide by the collectively reached policies of the site.
3. Should have satisfactory levels of literacy – it is an editorial role, after all.
4. Should be prepared to take abuse from outraged commenters whose comment made at 3 a.m. has been held up by the moderating software, sometimes rightly, for possible breach of our comments policy. That doesn’t happen that often, but some people can be quite unpleasant about it.
I hope that this helps anyone who might genuinely be interested in joining the team in the future.
@Mark
Thanks for the info. I don’t have anything to apologize for, It’s the Co-Editor whose apology is pending. I was also wondering whether some form of electoral process might be considered – after all, the site has Liberal and Democrat in its name.
Richard,
Why would a privately owned and operated website have an electoral process by which editorial team members were selected?
@Mark
Indeed. Why would a party have such a process?
Well, I hope your day wasn;t too bad, and that you’ll have another one soon.