We humble day editors are given a surprising amount of leeway by Caron, and readers will note that I’ve taken the opportunity to think about moderation and content. It’s been… interesting, and from the perspective of a returning member of the editorial team, it’s given me a useful steer in terms of how I might proceed in the months ahead.
So, let’s outline how I’m going to respond.
Firstly, we stopped polling you, partly because it’s all a bit complex technically. And funnily enough, given the radical change in the nature of the Party over the past two years – there are a lot more of us, we’re generally younger and openly pro-European and there are fewer of us holding public office – it might be useful for everyone to get a sense of what the Party feels. I’ve asked Stephen Tall, who used to do this sort of thing, for some advice. Watch this space.
Commissioning articles is time consuming, but you’d like more articles on Party campaigns and opportunities to discuss Party policy. So, I’ll try to work on asking people to write about campaigns, national, regional and local, to explain what they’re doing, so that you can do it too if you want to. Many of you will be running in council elections in May, and if you haven’t done this before, you might appreciate some ideas from people who have either done it before, or are finding new ways to do it.
Moderation is a never-ending bone of contention. There are those of you who think that we’re too restrictive, and others who think that we’re too laissez faire. That might suggest that we’ve got the balance about right, but I tend to the view that a really good debate allows people to be passionate without being unpleasant. I’ll try to find a way to encourage maximum participation as we go, which may involve having the odd ‘quiet word’. But do me a favour and just take a deep breath before you rush to print, so to speak. Are you sure that you are treating others as you would want to be treated?
There will be controversial issues. Bear in mind that all of us are Liberal Democrats and we tend to want to portray the Party in a positive light in our writing. That may clash with the openness that some of you seek, even if we may privately sympathise with some critical stances towards the Party and its leadership. I will not, however, shut down debate just because I disagree with an expressed view. I may edit it, if possible, to make it sufficiently respectful of common courtesy, but dissent is not in itself a reason for rejection.
Finally, thank you to everyone who has contributed over the past few weeks. I may not have picked up on your particular preference or request here – there simply isn’t enough space – but it hasn’t gone unnoticed. Bear with me…
* Mark Valladares is the Monday Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice. He still retains a sense of humour…
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Tastes change ~
Nine in ten paying more than necessary in Vehicle Excise Duty
A radical agenda but can Burnham deliver?
Reg Calvert and his boarding school of rock
A shocking abuse of the legal system where the rich try to bully the weak and poor into submission
Steve Trevethan
David Evans
Jack Meredith
GWYN WILLIAMS
Graham Evans
17 Comments
Thankyou. You haven’t picked up on my specific request (yet), but I don’t mind that. These re sensible, straightforward ideas about which you seem to have a clear plan … and will make a good offering better and more responsive.
Matt
Thanks for all the work The Team put in.
Can I ask other commentors to go for brevity ? If I see a comment thats more than 5 lines I usually pass it by.
I appreciate the difficult job moderators on the site have.
All I would ask is that if the desire is to “to want to portray the Party in a positive light in our writing” there will be an obvious temptation not to allow what might be informative or factual but critical comments about; policy, practice or individuals.
If those comments are fair or simply the truth, I would ask that they be allowed on the site, rather than edited out just because they do not show the party in that desired positive light.
I have been concerned in the past that the desire to be positive about the party on the site has been one of the problems which has resulted in our inability to accept and correct problems in the past. I hope this will not be the case in the future.
Thank you for that considered response, Mark. Of course, for there to be reporting of Party campaigning, there needs to actually be party campaigning.
John: while I’m happy to see critical comment of policy and or practise, it’s the criticism of individuals which has the most tendency to pour petrol on a conflagration and cause hurt and recriminations, even if it is completely true, valid and justified.
I personally try to refrain from it for those reasons (I don’t always succeed, but I try).
Mark: thank you, I appreciate that this is not an easy line to walk and you are doing it with grace and sensitivity (and, frankly, a lack of swearing) that I couldn’t even begin to dream of managing.
Jenni – I appreciate what you say, and like you I do appreciate the difficult line moderators have to walk, but sometimes when, say, a senior Lib-Dem does something that does not show the party in a positive light and it has already appeared in the media, the moderators must be tempted to say that we would be better to keep it quiet on LDV, but this just allows that action to continue unquestioned or it will look like it has been brushed under the carpet.
I think it is not the naming of the person, but the inflammatory comments which follow which then need to be moderated – as was the case in the Rennard debate on LDV.
To give a more recent example. The allowances that Nick Clegg claims as former Deputy Prime Minister were published recently (£114,982) which is significantly more than an MPs salary. This award was given despite the concerns of the director general of the propriety and ethics committee at the Cabinet Office.
I think this shows the party in a very bad light and makes life for our MPs difficult if they are asked about why a former MP can claim more than the salary of an elected MP. I think it actually helps us put our house in order if we discuss subjects like this on LDV, however if moderators deem that this discussion will, or might, not show the party in a positive light, this comment might then not be published at all and there will then be no discussion on this site, while the same subject is being discussed on other less friendly sites.
If we are to rebuild the party and the trust from the public, we must not be so frightened of tackling issues that are at the heart of why people have drifted away from voting for us in such great numbers, and if restoring that trust includes discussing difficult issues, we should not shy away from it, or people will simply discuss those same issues elsewhere, without the wider supportive audience LDV has.
Mark – You are right to keep comments respectful and also to allow disagreement with and debate about party policy, direction or process.
Paul Barker – I agree about the desirability of comments being concise. Winston Churchill once apologised for sending a long letter saying he did not have time to write a short one.
Thank you Mark, Caron, Kirsten and the rest of the team for your great work on LDV. Unfortunately, I missed your survey. As a contributor of quarterly articles (on average), amongst some many good comments, I notice there appear to be some commentators who appear to be trying to divert attention from the thrust and topic of the original article. I too respect others with different views and appreciate moderation is time consuming, but it is unfortunate that discussions can sometimes be hijacked.
It is not true that all the people who take part in commenting here are Liberal Democrats. There are a number of persistent political trolls who put forward illiberal and non-LD views without revealing that they are political opponents. Not helpful in my view.
Tony,
Perhaps I didn’t make myself clear, for which I apologise. What I was attempting to say was that all of the editorial team are Liberal Democrats, but you allow me an opportunity to make a valuable point…
Gentle reader, bear in mind that, unless the commenter’s name is highlighted in orange with the little ‘Libby bird”, they aren’t necessarily a Liberal Democrat. So, to avoid confusion, if you are a member, register with us to obtain the mark of authenticity. Mind you, the noble Lord, Lord Greaves probably doesn’t need that…
It would be encouraging if the principles of moderation were better explained. I have just had a short comment praising the speech of Lord Newby, which I was glad to read, put in moderation for no apparent reason. An equally supportive comment of mine last week was also moderated – for half an hour, then allowed. What could have been the reason for that? I thought you had eased off on the personal scrutiny of comments, which for a short time seemed to take the vivacity out of the site’s contributions, but if a comment has no loaded word which might catch some automatic check (whIch automatic checks it would be good to know of ) one is left wondering – perhaps the editor was simply on a break?
If you are still diligently reading, I would be glad if you would follow up another comment of mine, which was to suggest that editors would perform an excellent extra service if they could occasionally approach appropriate party leaders when there has been a substantive discussion on an important topic (such as possible EU reform) to draw their attention to and invite a comment on the thread. It might make the often interesting and useful comment threads on here more useful to the party.
Katharine,
On the question of moderation, it is important to consider whether a word you have used might, in a different context, be inappropriate. Moderation software, by its very nature, cannot detect nuance, and whilst we would like to ease the burden of moderation on both our readers and ourselves, bitter experience demonstrates that, without some restrictions, the comments tend to deteriorate over time.
And, whilst it might be helpful to the generally well-meaning to give a clearer steer on moderation, that knowledge could also be used by the less well-intentioned to circumvent the moderation software. And that will become problematic pretty quickly.
On your second point, whilst we’re all quite active in our various parts of the Party, I for one don’t have the sort of relationship with the ‘great and good’ that would allow me to get them to respond to articles in LDV – they’re mostly simply too busy for that. Sometimes, they drop by of their own accord, but that’s more by chance than by design. It’s a nice thought though…
Thank you for replying, Mark, though you don’t actually answer. To know key words of which the nuance might be misunderstood would have begun to explain, as would acknowledging perhaps that you are still personally monitoring, so that yes you do have to have a break now and then which might cause a slight delay. As for the second point, I just thought your extra vigilance (knowing that in general you editors yourselves will be too busy to follow the comment threads) might allow you now sometimes to think, hey, it would be good for a party spokesperson to be aware of this discussion, maybe I”ll drop them a line. Anyway, points raised, I won’t be adding an email!
Tony Greaves 30th Jan ’18 – 8:16pm…………..There are a number of persistent political trolls who put forward illiberal and non-LD views without revealing that they are political opponents. Not helpful in my view………..
What is unhelpful about non-LD views? I’m sure it’s far preferable to address such views head on than to pretend they don’t exist..
@ expats,
I don’t think that Tony is suggesting that non-LD views are unhelpful per se, more that there is a risk in assuming that all of the views stated here represent Liberal Democrat thought.
And, of course, he has a point. Our opponents do trawl this site for ammunition.
Perhaps we should offer supporters of all parties and none their own ‘colour code’ which might clarify the matter?…
@Katharine Pindar “It would be encouraging if the principles of moderation were better explained.”
I think I have just had a comment elsewhere held in limbo because of a quote from the preamble which refers to discrimination based upon a three-letter word beginning with ‘s’ rather than “gender”. Sensible precaution I suppose, but a bit of a shame!
Mark Valladares 31st Jan ’18 – 9:41am…..@ expats,I don’t think that Tony is suggesting that non-LD views are unhelpful per se, more that there is a risk in assuming that all of the views stated here represent Liberal Democrat thought……………….And, of course, he has a point. Our opponents do trawl this site for ammunition………………..Perhaps we should offer supporters of all parties and none their own ‘colour code’ which might clarify the matter?………….
Mark..
Para.1 What is “Liberal Democratic thought”…My opinions are certainly not those of many others..
Para2. Of course they do; as do we.It’s called getting information..
Para.3 I’ll put upa logo featuring a ‘Skull and Crossbones’…
O