E-mail Scott
Scott's Links
About the Author
Opinion Archives
Social Media:
Facebook
Twitter
Tumblr
Google Plus
YouTube
Flickr
PhotoBucket
Monthly Archives:

January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
April 2010
May 2010
June 2010
July 2010
August 2010
September 2010
October 2010
November 2010
December 2010
January 2011
February 2011
March 2011
April 2011
May 2011
June 2011
July 2011
August 2011
September 2011
October 2011
November 2011
December 2011
January 2012
February 2012
March 2012
April 2012
May 2012
June 2012
July 2012
August 2012
September 2012
October 2012
November 2012
December 2012
January 2013
February 2013
March 2013
April 2013
May 2013
June 2013
July 2013
August 2013
September 2013
October 2013
November 2013
December 2013
January 2014
February 2014
March 2014
April 2014
May 2014
June 2014
July 2014
August 2014
September 2014
October 2014
November 2014
December 2014
January 2015
February 2015
March 2015
April 2015
May 2015
June 2015
July 2015
August 2015
September 2015
October 2015
November 2015
December 2015
January 2016
February 2016
March 2016
April 2016
May 2016
June 2016
July 2016
August 2016
September 2016
October 2016
November 2016
December 2016
January 2017
February 2017
March 2017
April 2017
May 2017

Powered by Blogger
Subscribe via RSS

Monday, December 7, 2015

Flagrant and obvious lies from the Herald-Times

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:00 AM (#)

The Herald-Times is obviously free to set whatever rules they want for their story comments. If they want to implement a new rule, that is their prerogative - but they should be honest about new rules, instead of lying about them. All I am asking for is a little honesty and integrity, but these qualities are severely lacking at 1900 South Walnut.

Last week, I posted a link to the Center for BioEthical Reform's website in the comments for a letter that supported abortion rights. My comment was deleted, so I asked why it was deleted and if there was a new rule against posting a link to CBR. A Herald-Times employee, instead of being honest and saying that the H-T has decided to disallow these links from this point forward, flagrantly lied and said links to CBR have always been against HTO comments policy.

This is simply laughable. I pointed out that I have posted a link to CBR in nine different comment threads, with hyperlinks to the threads and screenshots of my posts. Up until last Friday, this has never been a problem. But here is the kicker - I have included links to CBR's website in a letter to the editor and in a guest editorial. Are the "standards" for HTO comments different from the standards for the print edition? If so, that is more than a little silly.

The pictures of the results of abortion are relevant factual information for the discussion about the morality of the procedure and debates over whether abortion should be legal. The pictures are shocking and offensive (as they should be) but they are also informative in understanding exactly what the abortion procedure does.

The Herald-Times sent me an incredibly dishonest response, petulantly claiming that HTO "rules have not changed," because the Herald-Times has always prohibited "offensive" content. But as I pointed out above, this is simply not true, at least as it concerns links to the abortion photographs Center for BioEthical Reform's website. Remember, that URL has been published in the print edition of the newspaper.

But the prohibition on "offensive" content basically means that the Herald-Times will make up rules on a whim. By prohibiting "offensive" content, the Herald-Times can decide that literally anything can be against the comment guidelines, and the exact same comment can be against the rules or within the rules on a day-to-day basis, depending on the whims of the moderators. This is because "offensive" is an extremely subjective standard, and the Herald-Times cannot expect its users to know what is or is not "offensive" to the moderators on any given day. If we cannot know the rules we cannot know what we may or may not post.

Furthermore, there is a great deal of content in mainstream news coverage that can be deemed legitimately offensive. The famous Newsweek cover of the firefighter holding the dead baby after the Oklahoma City bombing is one example, and the Herald-Times own coverage of the Michael Plumadore trial is another one. (The article describes how Plumadore beat a little girl to death and hacked up her corpse.) But those things should be offensive, because they are accurate reporting on horrific crimes. If the "standard" is that "offensive" content is prohibited, the Herald-Times own news coverage was a violation of HTO comment policy.

This is the new rule. I will not post the link again. While I disagree with the rule, it is the Herald-Times' forum and the Herald-Times decides what is and is not allowed. But let's make no mistake about it: This absolutely is a new rule, and we all know it. This rule was never in place before December 4.

I find it extremely disappointing that the Herald-Times answered my questions in such a dishonest manner. The link has clearly not been against the rules in the past, as I have demonstrated by pointing out the comments that were never a problem in the past plus content (including my guest column) that has been published in the print edition. I wish the Herald-Times would just be honest and say they have decided that the link to AbortionNo.org is no longer allowed as of December 4. All I am asking for is a little show of integrity.

(0 Comments)

Note: All posts must be approved by the blog owner before they are visible on the blog.

Comments:

Post a Comment


Below are the rules for commenting on ConservaTibbs.com.

  1. A reasonable level of civility is expected. While it is expected that controversial political and social issues may generate heated debate, there are common-sense limits of civility that will be enforced.

  2. This blog is a family-friendly site. Therefore no cursing, profanity, vulgarity, obscenity, etc. will be allowed. This is a zero-tolerance rule and will result in automatic deletion of the offending post.

  3. Anonymity has greatly coarsened discourse on the Internet, so pseudonyms are discouraged but not forbidden. That said, any direct criticism of a person by name cannot be done anonymously. If you criticize someone, you have to subject yourself to the same level of scrutiny or the comment will be deleted.

  4. Please keep your comments relevant to the topic of the post.

  5. All moderation decisions are final. I may post an explanation or I may not, depending on the situation. If you have a question or a concern about a moderation decision, e-mail me privately rather than posting in the comments.

Thank you for your cooperation.