5 ms·

Yet more leftist political spin from the Guardian hits the HN front page. For a bit of balance, here's the equivalent story from a rightwing (aka taxpayer) pers

by cbeach 11y ago

Yet more leftist political spin from the Guardian hits the HN front page. For a bit of balance, here's the equivalent story from a rightwing (aka taxpayer) perspective: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/12143479/Charities-to-be-banned-from-using-public-funds-to-lobby-ministers.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/12143479/Charities-...

dTal 11y ago
That Telegraph article is so full of spin I'm surprised bits aren't flying off. In one corner we have a Cambridge zoologist, the head of the Science Media Centre, policy and communications director at the Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy, Sir Martin Rees the astronomer royal, and director of the Campaign for Science and Engineering. All either scientists or highly reputable scientific institutions. In the other corner we have "a right of centre thinkank[sic]", the Cabinet Office minister, someone from the thinktank again, an MP, and "Gina Miller, the founder of the True and Fair Foundation"; the last time The Telegraph represented her in print was so libelous they were forced to retract some of it (http://www.civilsociety.co.uk/finance/news/content/21277/daily_telegraph_admits_flaws_in_charitable_spending_report_by_publishing_clarification http://www.civilsociety.co.uk/finance/news/content/21277/dai...). Finally there's this bit: "That followed the death of Olive Cooke, 92, one of Britain's longest serving poppy sellers, who took her own life after receiving repeated requests for money from charities." Wow, really? Let's click that link, read some more about this poor old lady who was badgered to death by charities: "An inquest later found that she had taken her own life, disclosing that she suffered from depression and had breast cancer... The report makes clear that the charity tactics were not responsible for her death..." I see. Didn't stop them from spinning an entire article out of that premise though, did it? Thanks for posting this link. It has reinforced my conviction that 1) this really is a deliberate attack and 2) the Telegraph is basically a Tory mouthpiece. Oh, and I didn't downvote you, but I wouldn't be surprised if those downvotes came from people taking offense at the suggestion that only right-wingers pay taxes.
- DanBC 11y ago
  Suicide is complex and it's wrong for people who didn't know her to speculate on what caused her death by suicide. But we should probably remember that her death has caused considerable changes in the way that charities are allowed to communicate with people who've donated to them in the past, with debate in parliament and extra guidance from ICO. Inquests are definitely a sub-optimal way to get information about a person's last days.
dang 11y ago
You're absolutely welcome to present alternate substantive sources on the same topic. That's a great thing to do on HN. But please don't present them with ideological vitriol. When you do that you make thoughtful discussion much less likely, and that is a toxic effect here. Political flamewars, which is what we'll get, have no place on HN.

by cbeach 11y ago

dTal 11y ago

That Telegraph article is so full of spin I'm surprised bits aren't flying off. In one corner we have a Cambridge zoologist, the head of the Science Media Centre, policy and communications director at the Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy, Sir Martin Rees the astronomer royal, and director of the Campaign for Science and Engineering. All either scientists or highly reputable scientific institutions. In the other corner we have "a right of centre thinkank[sic]", the Cabinet Office minister, someone from the thinktank again, an MP, and "Gina Miller, the founder of the True and Fair Foundation"; the last time The Telegraph represented her in print was so libelous they were forced to retract some of it (http://www.civilsociety.co.uk/finance/news/content/21277/daily_telegraph_admits_flaws_in_charitable_spending_report_by_publishing_clarification http://www.civilsociety.co.uk/finance/news/content/21277/dai...). Finally there's this bit: "That followed the death of Olive Cooke, 92, one of Britain's longest serving poppy sellers, who took her own life after receiving repeated requests for money from charities." Wow, really? Let's click that link, read some more about this poor old lady who was badgered to death by charities: "An inquest later found that she had taken her own life, disclosing that she suffered from depression and had breast cancer... The report makes clear that the charity tactics were not responsible for her death..." I see. Didn't stop them from spinning an entire article out of that premise though, did it? Thanks for posting this link. It has reinforced my conviction that 1) this really is a deliberate attack and 2) the Telegraph is basically a Tory mouthpiece. Oh, and I didn't downvote you, but I wouldn't be surprised if those downvotes came from people taking offense at the suggestion that only right-wingers pay taxes.

DanBC 11y ago
Suicide is complex and it's wrong for people who didn't know her to speculate on what caused her death by suicide. But we should probably remember that her death has caused considerable changes in the way that charities are allowed to communicate with people who've donated to them in the past, with debate in parliament and extra guidance from ICO. Inquests are definitely a sub-optimal way to get information about a person's last days.

dang 11y ago

You're absolutely welcome to present alternate substantive sources on the same topic. That's a great thing to do on HN. But please don't present them with ideological vitriol. When you do that you make thoughtful discussion much less likely, and that is a toxic effect here. Political flamewars, which is what we'll get, have no place on HN.