Who is winning the war of opinion vs. truth

[TexasProgresive]

There have always been expressions of strong opinion on Democratic Underground since its beginning, but there were always champions who upheld the truth no matter how uncomfortable the facts are. This made DU much like the newspapers of my youth. The reporters attempted to be unbiased as possible when writing a story with the age old 5 "Ws" instisted upon by crusty editors:

• Who did that?
• What happened?
• Where did it take place?
• When did it take place?
• Why did that happen?

There was a place for editorializing on the eponymously named editorial page and opposite that page would be the OpEd page where outside voice could express their opinion in columns and letters to the editor. Now it seems that opinion rules the day and facts are left in the dust bin.

Sadly that seems to be the situation at DU with long time members who put real thought in their posts to give the rest of us real value leaving, leaving DU less real, less good, less factual, more unsubstantiated opinions and vileness.

I just read Will Pitt and Kentuck have left DU and I am sorry. At the same time I read this from a novel I am reading. It takes place in Dublin, Ireland pub shortly after the failed 1916 Easter Rising. Britain is coming down hard on the press to follow the government's line. One drunk journalist gives his wisdom out of the bottle:

"Journalism today is about the subordination of truth to myth. People don't want to read the truth. They're afraid it won't agree with their opinions. They want to read myths that conform with their prejudices." 1921 - Morgan Llwelyn 2000 pg 63

I'm approaching 12 years as a member of DU, actually longer, but I lost my original id and password when a hard drive failed.( always backup!!!!). I have seen a lot of changes in that time some good some not so good, but certain members keep it sane. There are fewer and fewer of those intrepid souls left. When DU has devolved into a weak imitation of the U.S. Congress I will sadly leave. Not yet, for I still hope that the "truth will out."

[pipoman]

1. No, this place has always been selective about what "truth"

Can be stated and what must go unsaid...

[TexasProgresive]

2. I still stand that there were some who stood for the truth

and that made it worthwhile.

[pipoman]

4. "stand"... there are thousands of members here

Including a lot who care about and state the truth even when it is uncomfortable and not well received. There are a few who can make this place suck by demanding some truth isn't "democratic" or "liberal" and therefore may not be spoken of. This is the actual anti democratic, anti liberal position yet they tend to harass and berate truth tellers until they are timedout or just leave.

We all know who they are....

[WinkyDink]

3. When the truth comes wrapped in tin-foil or birdcage-liner, it is often resisted here.

[kelliekat44]

5. I agree with most of what you said. But one thing that bothers me is that people seem to not be

able to express their feelings about issues without being slammed for having a different point of view. It is not always about facts. Most people operate out of their feelings even their feelings about facts. Lately, feelings even based on facts. (ex. Bernie is a good candidate because his ideas line up with mine, however I feel he will not be able to win the general election and I am not sure about his positions regarding the Iran agreement of his positions about some social issues.) Express a sentiment like that and one get alerted. Or one can be alerted in trying to explain why some segments of society feel different than others.

Alerts are often ridiculous and sometimes border on denial of free speech.

[TexasProgresive]

6. What you say has the ring of truth.

I am not against people expressing their opinions or feelings. I have only alerted on one post and wanted to claw it back-fortunately the jury was right this time and did not vote to hide. It was a case of misunderstanding what the person posted.

When on juries I never vote to hide unless the poster is attacking the person they are replying to. That's pretty much my rule. I have expressed my opinion that the jury system is a poor way to deal with problem posts. It was much better here when we had moderators who seemed to be fair.

I'm not sure if it is happening but some are saying that there are serial alerters who alert constantly on certain people until they get enough hides to ban them. If that is the case those people should be banned. I would like several things to be added to the jury system - the alert needs to go before a moderator to see if it has merit, any results to hide should be appealed, and finally the jury results need to be forwarded to the poster with the option of deleting the offending post.

I doubt any of that will come to pass because there isn't the will to do it.