The David Norris Campaign Website, free comments or testimonials?

aulhan

I decided to actually go and have a first hand look at the David Norris website after the man himself suggested it on a radio interview to back up his assertions regarding the Magill story.

I got as far as the biography and initially found that the comments on the page were totally disproportionate in their tone and perspective, in fact, every comment was positive.

Not most, all.

The only comment I could see that had even the slightest questioning tone was the final one, which did point out that the comments were all a little too on the cheery side.

A member of his team wrote back with the following response:

Hi Tom, the vast majority of comments are published. Of course we reject some comments, based on objectionable content or language. However, we have rejected comments from both sides of the agreement.

I all fairness this is double-talk. Yes, it's all true, but I would seriously doubt if

we have rejected comments from both sides of the agreement.

means some negative and some positive if there are no negative comments on the page, yet the wording of the response suggests that some element of fairness was at play when clearly it was not.

Are we to assume that the dissenting voice is 'objectionable content'?

There's nothing wrong whatsoever in putting only the comments you like on your site and rejecting all others for whatever reason you have.

It's your site, you have the right to print what you like, but at least let the public know that this is the case and don't present 'testimonials' as open readers 'comments' as this is fundamentally, as the English might say 'not cricket'.

Wompa1

If David Norris doesn't win does that mean the country will be labelled as bigots?

It will be interesting to see

I just posted a comment about the Irish presidency rather than a personal attack. Lets see if it makes the page

banquo

In fairness, the comment-filtering process on a candidate's page 4 months before the election is totally indicative of how they intend to run the country with their impotent legislative powers.

Right?

aulhan

banquo wrote: »

In fairness, the comment-filtering process on a candidate's page 4 months before the election is totally indicative of how they intend to run the country with their impotent legislative powers.

Right?

No it certainly is not.

In fact is is no indication whatsoever of how they plan to carry out any legally empowered activities (which many would argue is very few or virtually none).

It is though an excellent indication of how the opinions the general public in the run up to a Presidential election are seen as being so important as to selectively filter them, even on a bio page.

I seriously doubt anyone would imagine the general comments on Mr. Norris's blog would all be positive.

If it is assumed that the general comments on the site would not be all positive, then this would lead one to conclude that the site is being 'spun' to appear so.

Spin, at any level is by definition obfuscating and non transparent. Something I personally see as being slightly underhand.

Is this important post election, not particularly, but pre-election, with everything to play for it is of vital importance.

I would imagine whoever on Mr. Norris's election team is filtering the comments on the site would also agree with me.

dlofnep

I asked 2 questions on that site over a month ago and still haven't received a response. I doubt I will at this point.

Killer Pigeon

I think Norris has shown himself to be one of the leading advocates of free speech, expression and equal rights in this country's recent history. I really doubt that mere assumptions (not facts) based on the management of his website are going to change what people think of him and what he really stands for.

Storm in a teacup, if you ask me.

aulhan

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

I think Norris has shown himself to be one of the leading advocates of free speech, expression and equal rights in this country's recent history.

Agreed, his record on free speech and equal rights is without question.

Its Mr Norris's other questionable opinions which have been raised in the media recently that I am concerned about, and in all honestly everything I've heard from him regarding these opinions has an air of doublespeak.

The way his Presidential promotional website deals with the opinions of others simply reinforces that view.

IrishPolitik

aulhan wrote: »

I decided to actually go and have a first hand look at the David Norris website after the man himself suggested it on a radio interview to back up his assertions regarding the Magill story.

I got as far as the biography and initially found that the comments on the page were totally disproportionate in their tone and perspective, in fact, every comment was positive.

Not most, all.

The only comment I could see that had even the slightest questioning tone was the final one, which did point out that the comments were all a little too on the cheery side.

A member of his team wrote back with the following response:



I all fairness this is double-talk. Yes, it's all true, but I would seriously doubt if means some negative and some positive if there are no negative comments on the page, yet the wording of the response suggests that some element of fairness was at play when clearly it was not.

Are we to assume that the dissenting voice is 'objectionable content'?

There's nothing wrong whatsoever in putting only the comments you like on your site and rejecting all others for whatever reason you have.

It's your site, you have the right to print what you like, but at least let the public know that this is the case and don't present 'testimonials' as open readers 'comments' as this is fundamentally, as the English might say 'not cricket'.

Persoally I think if you want to express a negative comment about David Norris, his campaign website is the wrong tree to bark up!

I have seen some of the vitriole on that website, and thats all it is. Vitriole!

If you want to speak about how bad Norris is, then save it for another forum, i.e this one.

blahfckingblah

banquo wrote: »

In fairness, the comment-filtering process on a candidate's page 4 months before the election is totally indicative of how they intend to run the country with their impotent legislative powers.

Right?

fine gaels election site had a similar system.

delos

blahfckingblah wrote: »

fine gaels election site had a similar system.

I'd be genuinely surprised to find any campaign website that wasn't set up this way.

expectationlost

a posted a legitimate query on one of there videos and it never appeared, although somebody with a similar query did appear but no response has occurred, the videos really didn't answer the questions fully.

http://www.norrisforpresident.ie/askdavid/ask-david-views-on-1916-and-the-commonwealth

he gone into ridiculous act like a president period, so he can't give his own opinion on things, while not yet being president

IrishPolitik

banquo wrote: »

In fairness, the comment-filtering process on a candidate's page 4 months before the election is totally indicative of how they intend to run the country with their impotent legislative powers.

Right?

Right? No! Wrong!

totally indicative of how they intend to run the country

I think you need to research the role of the president before making assumptions as to how they would so-called run the country!