h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Why should Hague move on? £50,000 a year, for a part time job giving him plenty of time to go off and make some real money. And then he can go back to some of the world's nicest countryside around Richmond and open a few school fayres just for relaxation. Life of Riley or what.....

jwf, you're right. I meant it more as a rule of political science, not a law prohibiting candidates again. I meant it must be an extreme uphill battle for candidates to make a comeback after losing once or twice. I guess it's still possible, but I don't think Gore could get enough of a sympathy vote next time to even win the nomination.

I think Gore used up the sympathy vote to get nominated the first time. Oh, you mean sympathy because he lost.. I thought you meant the people who knew him or heard him speak.

Miaow! Catty remarks or what?

But I'm sure the Democrats won't find it too hard to think of a more charismatic candidate!

I still can't believe the Republicans couldn't find anyone better than Bush. And I still think Christine Todd Whitman could wrap up a nomination nicely, acquit herself competently, and become the first female president of the U.S. (Assuming there are no local New Jersey scandals that I'm unaware of?) Not that I would like to see that happen, but I can imagine a bunch of republicans pat themselves on the back for electing a woman, when nothing on the Republican agenda would be helpful to most women.

All this talk of American politics makes me wonder -- could a website in the States have gotten away with this? "Sorry, everybody, but we can't have any intense discussion of the U.S. Presidential election until after it's over."

I suppose it's comparing apples to oranges, since the Public Broadcasting Corporation in the U.S. is much less powerful, a totally different entity compared to the BBC.

But I invite anyone who has ever survived discussions on political threads of Delphi message boards to imagine that website moving all political discussion to only one thread, or "hiding" discussions on the day of the election.

To be fair to the Beeb, Subcom., they had little choice. UK broadcasting regulations require the broadcast media not to say anything that could influence the electors whilst polling is going on. One of the time-honoured rituals of a UK General Election is waiting for Big Ben to chime 10pm, at which point polling stops and the broadcasters are allowed to tell us all the results of their exit polls.
The BBC is in a very different position to the main US broadcasters by virtue of being publicly funded - a fact that makes the right wing over here perpetually suspicious of it. It's often accused of bias, so it has to make sure the charges can't stick. I've heard the dear old Beeb referred to as "the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation" at Conservative Party conferences! I mean, a powerful media network that isn't owned and tightly controlled by very rich men, or heavily influenced by advertisers - whatever next?!?
It was a bit awkward having to tie myself in verbal knots to be neutral whilst writing my "h2g2 Post" current affairs column, and I would have been annoyed if I'd had nowhere at all where I could discuss the election with my h2g2 friends. But (apart from on polling day) there was always the "Life, The Universe and the Election" message board to go to. Considering all the circumstances, I don't think the BBC did badly at all.

The question of course, is whether h2g2 can be counted as 'broadcast' media as the legislation has it. I'm not sure if there have been any specific rulings on websites yet. Anyone know?
Of course, the Beeb are absolutely paranoid about bias, as the government of the day has so much power over them (not direct editorial control, but they effectively control the funding levels and the legislation which governs broadcasters).
Now if h2g2 had been taken over by one of the big newspaper groups, I suspect we could have been as biased as them. (Now there's a thought. H2g2 could have been taken over by Rupert Murdoch. Maybe the Beeb ain't so bad after all.)

h2g2 owned by R****t M*****h?

(Feeis and faints at the very thought).

Would a R****t M*****k owner H2G2 have moderators who removed your posts if you didn't include enough gratuitous sexual comments?

Z

Probably. And also if you used long words, or weren't politically biased enough!

And you can imagine what would be on page A3...

"UK broadcasting regulations require the broadcast media not to say anything that could influence the electors whilst polling is going on."

h2g2 researchers are not broadcast media. No one would confuse us with members of the broadcast media. The best way to refute h2g2's claims that the special rules for the UK General Election were necessary is to remind people that "The majority of content on h2g2 is generated by h2g2's Researchers, who are members of the public. The views expressed are theirs and unless specifically stated are not those of the BBC."

This message is written at the bottom of every single guide entry, conversation thread, journal entry, personal space, maybe even the Help pages.

If I tried to claim that I was a representative of the BBC, that my opinion reflected every political analyst at BBC, and that we were all voting for Alexei Sayles (or even if I pursued this fraud in a serious way), any scam posted on h2g2 would be undermined by that disclaimer. No post by anyone on h2g2 would be believed to represent the views of the BBC.

The problem with the restrictions on political discussion is that there was no imminent danger at all. A critic or politician would have to be an idiot to see political endorsements by researchers on h2g2 as representing BBC.

I respect the UK's rules about limiting broadcasters from discussing the election while polls are open (especially in light of Florida). But I don't think anyone would confuse "Twophlag Gargleblap" or "bloke231 wearing pink nipplerings and alligator kneeboots join my party A666" with members of the broadcast media. (Sorry, Twophlag. No offense, just using your unique name. My apologies if you're really a broadcaster.)

What's the difference between two people standing on a street corner talking about who they voted for and who they think will win, compared with two average researchers on h2g2 having the same conversation via h2g2 forum? The difference is that BBC still absurdly thinks our conversations are something they broadcast.

As for the "damage" that resulted by these rules, I don't think the UK General Election rules were as bad for this community as the restrictions against using other languages. But I worry what topic might be next. Most people aren't worried about a slippery slope developing, but I can imagine if the BBC wanted to show the Olympics, but maybe they didn't want people to discuss results before they were posted? Or if they got confused again about our views representing the BBC, and decided that no one could discuss the Olympics because it might look bad for the BBC? I don't know what might be next, but this was a nasty precedent. I'm still shocked that people would let politics of all things be censored as a topic.

Oh well. Sorry to go on again. I don't want to start any flamewars anymore. Even when you win, you don't really win.

Subcom I think you're being a bit harsh on the BBC. The UK legislation around media reporting and general elections is incredibly strict. But I would rather have the debate here restricted for a few weeks, than have TV stations pumping out propaganda and adverts for one party/candidate or another.

The Towers didn't have long between becoming part of the BBC and the start of the election campaign to work out exactly where h2g2 sat with regard to legislation. Having us as part of the Beeb is a whole new thing for which the law probably wasn't designed. Therefore with the uncertainty and the time constraints the Towers decided to restrict debate - and I personally think they did OK.

We now have plenty of time to look at the good and bad points of the decision, and to change laws if need be, and I fully expect that the situation here will be different when the next general election rolls around in 2005 or 2006.

Can I also point out that when it comes to the dangers of the BBC publishing (in any media) comments that might affect the outcome of a General Election, nobody - *nobody* - gives a hoot about our disclaimer. It's there to try to set expectations, not to head off lawsuits and so on. Disclaimers are not a defence, and it's a mistake to think that they are - especially in the arena of elections and the BBC.

Subcom, you pin lots of your arguments on that disclaimer supposedly making it all right for us to publish things. In reality, it makes not a blind bit of difference, so it's probably best to stop assuming that it does.

(Yes, I wish it got us off the hook too. But it simply doesn't. )

Yes, I've been wondering about the disclaimer for a long time. And there are other parts of it that seem contradicted by other policies. If the part about BBC not being responsible for the content of any external sites referenced were realistic, then we could be allowed to post URLs anywhere and it wouldn't reflect poorly on the BBC.

The next question has to be -- why have disclaimers at all if they carry so little weight? They're eyesores, and the substance of what they say is completely overridden by major segments of the House Rules.

It's not that I pin all my arguments on those. It's that I don't understand why the site seems to say one thing in the disclaimers (basically "anything these wacky researchers do to offend you is their fault, so don't hold it against Aunt Beeb"), while the House Rules make the disclaimers meaningless.

I guess it's like putting one dam on a river, and then a smaller dam further down the river in case the big one ruptures. Oh well.

Disclaimers are still useful because they do cover our backs for *some* legal issues... but it's important to realise that there are two different things the BBC wants to protect against.

1. Legal issues, like publishing plagiarised work, defamatory statements and so on - the kinds of things that could see the BBC end up in court. (Incidentally these are also the kinds of things that we've *always* removed on h2g2, just not using moderation.)

2. Expectation issues, such as publishing things that put the licence fee at risk, or that create negative publicity if the UK newspapers get their hands on it.

The disclaimer is useful in protecting us against some (but by no means all!) of the potential pitfalls of type 1. Type 2 pitfalls, though, are nothing to do with the law, they're simply a case of the BBC wanting to protect its brand. So... we will keep the disclaimers because legally they are still worth having, though they aren't the 100% protection that some assume they are. And they're not related to things like URL policies, or 'no masturbation entries' - they're purely BBC brand protection.

And, to be even more blunt about it, arguing against type 1 rules on h2g2 will not really get you anywhere (and this includes the disclaimer). However, arguing against type 2 rules is absolutely fine... though then you're not arguing with the law, but with BBC Editorial Policy, which is no mean task.

Yes, Well, That excuses it all then.... ......

*typing while slowly filling the drowning pool*

Saw last night on TV pictures of a letter written, by one Brian Jones in 1963, to the BBC asking for a change of policy.
The writer proposed that auntie beeb consider broadcasting new musical works by a band he had just joined called the Rolling Stones.
He asserted in a clear, polite and enthusiastic way that this new band did excellent cover versions of many black American musicians and that the British public would enjoy hearing them.
The BBC's official response (according to the American PBS network) was "..uhm, no thanks, TOO black".
The drowning pool notwithstanding, it does, in retrospect, give hope that some policies do eventually change.
peace
~jwf~

One thing that has always puzzled me (and that I have mentioned before in another forum) is this:

As I understand it, the reason for not allowing images from outside links is that an innocent picture might subsequently be changed to something unacceptable at the outside source. But surely the same potential risk applies to links to outside sites, which are allowed - as long as they're not in forums, of course!
I'm certainly not advocating a ban on outside links - that'd make h2g2 a dreadfully sterile environment, and ruin all my pages! But there seems to be a lack of consistency there.

Actually, the main worry about off-site pictures is one of copyright - if we allowed them then we would be classed as a publisher of those pictures, and would be chargeable or open to lawsuits if we didn't have permission to publish those pictures ourselves. As the BBC has large archives and is pretty hot on protecting *its* copyright when others rip off BBC pictures, it's important that the BBC doesn't be too hypocritical.

The 'nice picture of a bunny turns to hardcore porn' argument is another issue, but the main worry was that offsite images can easily cause copyright headaches. So, when we allow uploading of pictures, we will simply slot in a picture moderation system too, so that at least we get to look at all pictures that get uploaded, ans employ people who can try their best at checking for potential copyright problems.

It's a bleedin' minefield, eh!