Two Questions

[davywavy]

There's always a temptation for me to editorialise on my LJ. Often I'm the soul of discretion, presenting facts unblemished by my own opinions, with neither slant nor spin. That's not to say it's easy for me to do so.
There are certain philosophical/political ideas with which I disagree for what I consider to be perfectly good reasons and what I have to realise is that the people who agree with those idea do so for what to them appear to be good reasons also.
So, in order to try and understand the thinking of others, I'm going to ask two questions of my lefty chums. I might not agree with your answers and I'm sure that my comments section will quickly degenerate into mudslinging as usual. However, I'm asking the questions because they're points which seem to be articles of faith to many, but the arguments presented in favour to me have never made any sense. It may be that I'm just missing something, so I'll give it a go.

1) What is wrong with streaming children according to educational ability?
2) What is wrong with requiring people to work in order to receive state benefits?

Comments

Re: Just the facts

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

It's lovely that that Guardian is happy to congratulate itself on super ethical and environmental policies, but I don't see that as altering the basic assertion that the Guardian has an editorial agenda which is just as blinkered as the rabid organs of the right. In fact, the Guardian's circulation of 394,913 indicates it is less representative of the opinions of the population than the Daily Mail (2,391,011) and thus we should pay it's opinions exactly 16% of the note we do of the Mail.
Just the facts indeed.
Oddly, that article was inspired by the Professional Association of Teachers union - hardly a group of people known for their right-wing views.

Re: Just the facts

[colin-boyle.livejournal.com]

I see you haven't responded to point 1. Do you agree with this then?

2 - There is no such thing as "Professional Association of Teachers union". It is not referenced in the article either. So my original contention still stands.

3 - If you don't understand how an independent audit of performance works, then that's your problem. It doesn't detract from the value of conducting one, particularly when it is performed against a clear set of editorial values. It is striking that no other media outlet in the UK seems confident enough to have their conduct independently evaluated.

Finally, since it is not relevant to any of the points I made, why do you even bring up relative circulations? How does it relate to the original topics? Please clarify. Oh, and while you're at it, the Guardian has the largest readership of any UK newspaper once you include the web.

Re: Just the facts

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

1) That's an unobjectionable statement; in the same way that you haven't disagreed with my contention that the Guardian has an editorial bias which they pursue. They might independantly audit, but they're still biased.

2) Well, there's an organisation called the 'Professional Association of Teachers', and they're a union (both referenced in the article). Thus my referring to the 'Professional Association of Teachers' as a 'union' (small u) is perfectly fair, I'd say. Of course, if the Daily Mail has mislead me in this I wouldn't be in the least surprised.

3) The Guardian even acknowledge their bias (The values of the Scott Trust) on the page you refer to - they're values, and they conform to them, and that's what the audit proves. The Daily Mail also conforms to its editorial values. As does any other paper. They aren't audited to prove that, but I trust the Daily Mail to be blinkered and opinionated in the same way I trust the Guardian to be. And trust is what it's all about, really, isn't it?

4) The Guardian made a very smart move when they launched their website, which was to be the only newpaper to offer complete and free content without registration; this helped them develop a very wide, loyal readership. Most of the other papers have subsequently followed suit, but the Guardian very smartly stole a march on the market.

5) I'm quoting circulations to illustrate the idea that it's possible to quote statistics to prove anything you like; the Guardian quotes statistics to show selection is unfair on a potential 7% of people; I quote the Mail to refute the Guardian and back that up with a use of statistics which seem to support my point but in fact is, as I've accused others of doing, blinkered and prejudiced. It was kinda irony, but I should have realised by now that irony doesn't work online.

Re: Just the facts

[colin-boyle.livejournal.com]

1 - I'm glad we've agreed on something! I'll deal with your contention about the Guardian in the correct topic, no. 3.

2 - I am afraid you are not reading the article closely enough. The article quotes a school's "Parent Teacher Association", something entirely different from any so-called "Professional Association of Teachers". So again, my original contention still stands.

3 - The Guardian has a reader's editor, acting as an "independent internal ombudsman of the Guardian". Name me a media outlet with an equivalent role with at least as much power and independence.
I think the clear division is whether the news and the facts used in comments sections are free from bias. Values are always subjective, but being objective and having integrity are values that the Guardian tries to uphold.

4 - I agree. But the international market has stuck with them, even as other options have become available.

5 - This relates back to (1). The writer accurately, objectively and fairly, with stated assumptions, used statistics to explore how a phenomenon (exams) work. This is the correct use of statistics (and I say that as a professional who writes objective business cases using Treasury methodology).

You just quoted a random statistic for no reason I can see other than to obfuscate the debate.

Re: Just the facts

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

2) Having read and re-read the article, I can't see any mention of a PTA. The Professional Association of Teachers, the organisation mentioned, is fourth teaching union in the UK with 35,000 members. The article references the 2005 annual conference of the Professional Association of Teachers calling for a reintroduction of selection at 11. Are we reading the same article? You can find their website here: www.pat.org.uk. I can't see where you got PTA from - can you cut and paste the quote if I'm missing something? The line I'm working from is: The PAT, which has a policy of not going on strike, is the smallest and traditionally the most moderate of the four main teaching unions in England. PTA?
3) Having read through the Guardian mission statement, I can't find any mention of the word 'objectivity'; I can find reference to 'journalism in the liberal tradition', which is a statement of political intent, whether you back any specific party or not. They audit themselves to ensure they stick to it. I'm having our magazine audited at the moment (today, as it happens) to ensure we stick to our stated terms of control; those terms of control are not objective, they're defined by us to meet our editorial and business objectives.
The only person to use the word 'unbiased' in relation to the editorial content - that I can find - is one of their readers. And you'd expect that of a supporter of anything, really.
Name me a media outlet with an equivalent role with at least as much power and independence.
The BBC? Private Eye? The Economist? Al-Jazeera?
4) First to market is a powerful advantage, even when others offer better service later.
5) No, I quoted a statistic to send up the Guardian; like I say, irony is a difficult trick to work online without nonverbal cues.