Discussion in 'Brixton' started by editor, Jan 23, 2018.
Thanks for clearing that up!
Can only be a good thing if they are out and about more.
Not good at all:
Lambeth is the worst borough in central London for action on air pollution, according to Mayor’s report
LibDems having a go Lib Dems call for inquiry as Lambeth Council denies EU citizens right to vote
Is there anything other than a lib dem press release in that article?
Nope. Sometimes I haven't got the resources to rewrite something when I think the story is important to the community, regardless of what party it's coming from. I wanted to get the story out and had no time for it.
But if you'd like to write a piece with more insights rather than just criticise, you go right for it.
Are we not allowed to criticise stories in the media when you've written them or something? The Lambeth Labour stopping EU citizens from voting lib dem angle in this article is ridiculous. I don't have to volunteer to do a re-write to be able to point that out.
You could chop the last paragraph giving the email address for the limp dems without losing anything worth reading
Or in the case when editor hasn't written them
Good call. I've also added a note saying why it's a cut and paste job too.
Then add a comment on the article. Add something positive. Be helpful.
Did you know about this story before? I didn't and I felt that it was more important to let people know what was going on.
I didn't know the story before, no - but nor is it really clear from the Lib Dem press release you've C&P'd how much of a story it is - three people, one the partner of a prominent lib dem activist, got some documents in the post late. No other information, nothing from the council, no corroboration, and a bizarre conspiracy angle cooked up by Lambeth lib dems.
Seeing as you have so much time to criticise, why not dedicate some time to digging up some more on this story? Be only to happy to run it.
And if only 3 people didn't get their voting forms in time, isn't that of any concern?
I'm not going to rewrite your articles for you, no. And I think 'don't just repeat lib dem press releases without looking into the story a bit' is a reasonable criticism to make isn't it?
I haven't asked you to rewrite anything. I did ask if you'd be interested in contributing something positive or useful, but you've made it clear you just want to keep on criticising.
I would love to be able to spend hours researching the story to see who else may have been affected, but when you have just about zero resources, sometimes just republishing an interesting story can prove beneficial to the local community, if only to spark a conversation or to flag up what may (or may not) be a more widespread problem.
You've just sparked a conversation about credulously repeating any old bollocks a political party sends you in the run up to an election. You might not like it, but it's not true that it isn't useful - you've already edited the piece as a result of it.
That was thanks to Pickman's model, not you. But thanks for the endless negativity. Really helpful. Give yourself a pat on the back.
I'm not sure how to be positive about it tbh - I don't anyone should publish press releases from political parties without checking the story out first.
This could be a political scandal, or it could be three Lib Dem activists getting their post late because of some issue at the royal mail, or it could even be made up altogether. You don't know which though, because you haven't checked it out.
My constructive suggestion to anyone writing news stories is - if they wish to retain a reputation for fair and well sourced stories - to stand them up before publishing, especially if the major or only source is a political party in the run up to an election.
Ah great. Yet more criticism from the armchair critic but no actual productive action or effort. Thanks, once again.
I'm fully aware of the shortcomings of the piece, and I've tried to explain why I still ran it. If you spent your time running a non profit community website, perhaps you'd understand the necessary limitations and the compromises that sometimes have to be made.
You clearly don't, so please keep your statements of the ruddy obvious to yourself from now on because they're really not very helpful. However, the offer still stands if you'd like to contribute something to the site.
But you only seemed to become aware of the shortcomings of the article and explained why you ran it when I asked about it here? In the meantime the article is being used as a campaign tool by Lib Dems - fine if you're ok with your not-for-profit community website being used by political parties for free campaign materials. I'd have thought in the long run that'd damage what you're hoping to achieve as a community website though, if you can be seen as partisan for one party or the other.
No. I was fully aware it was a Lib Dem press release because, err, they sent it to me as a press release. And the headline made it clear that it was from the Lib Dem. But as I have patiently explained several times, I felt that it was more important to let people know what was going on given the urgency of the content.
Thanks for your insight, no doubt hewn from your vast experience of running similar community websites. However, I have supreme confidence that no one is going to think that we're in the pocket of the LibDems given that we rarely mention them at all.
Can confirm that unlikely anyone thinks Buzz is a Lib Dem front
Anyway, you can follow the debate on Twitter where Lambeth Labour have been replying to the Lib Dem PPC for Vauxhall. Several Greens have also discussed it, think Oval's Michael Keene having said he's also met people with the same issue.
I'm glad I ran the article as it's sparked a few reader comments and been read over a thousand times, so it clearly was of interest.
It was being pushed heavily by a number of lib dem accounts on twitter yesterday, I'm not surprised it got a lot of hits.
Give it a rest, FFS. There's been plenty of dicussion on FB as a result of the post, and it's got fuck all to do with the Lib Dems (of which there are very few around Brixton).
I'm sure it could be an important story, but you've allowed the Lib Dems to frame it in way which supposes some conspiracy between the Labour Party and Lambeth electoral services to disenfrancise likely Lib Dem voters. Do you think that's actually true, or do you think it's more likely that someone fucked up while trying to organise a non-standard election that no-one knew was going to happen at all until a few weeks ago? If it's not true (clue: it isn't) then how responsible is it to frame your article in those terms?
It got the discussion started, was read by over a thousand people and notified quite a few people of a potential voting problem that might affect them directly.
I hadn't the time or resources to rewrite it (much as I would have loved to), you can't be fucking bothered to anything but whine, so no, I'm not going to apologise for posting it up. It served its purpose far greater than if I'd done absolutely nothing, which appears to be your sole practical alternative.
If you care so much, DO SOMETHING.
It's notified people of a potential voting problem that might affect them directly, while allowing one of the parties to blame one of the other parties they may choose (or not choose) to vote for for the problem - when they're most likely blameless. Can't you see the issue here?
The fact a thousand people have read the article - which Lambeth Labour are calling 'very misleading' - isn't the defence you think it is tbh.
Despite all your whining and criticism on this thread (how many posts now?), I note you still can't be fucking arsed to do anything remotely positive, despite several invitations to something.
Oh, and my heart bleeds for Lambeth Labour, an organisation who are famous for lies and twisting the truth.
Separate names with a comma.