ESMB is now closed to new registrations. Please go to www.exscn2.net and register there.

 

Has Tony Ortega always harshly censored dissenting opinion?

Discussion in 'New Member Introductions' started by Phil Rogers, Sep 12, 2019 at 5:56 PM.

View Users: View Users
  1. Phil Rogers

    Phil Rogers Patron

    I have been posting on Tony Ortega's Underground Bunker blog recently. Today I made a comment that was unpopular. A few of them. Tony's response was to BAN ME from commenting on his blog. Is it normal for a journalist to ban dissenting opinion on their blog? Do journalists run blogs? Is Tony a journalist or a blogger?

    Review my comments below and let me know if you think these warrant being banned. None of these comments were to Tony specifically, they were responses to other commentators.

    First comment
    Overheard in the Freezone” looks like a way to ridicule people who believe in Scientology in contrast with focusing on the abuses of Scientology.
    To each their own, and Scientology beliefs are certainly silly. But every now and then you make a post decrying the mainstream media’s lack of interest in picking up your stories. I believe the fact that you regularly ridicule Scientology and Scientologists for nothing more than what they believe in addition to occasionally covering abuses, like other journalists do, is why the mainstream media doesn’t pick up your stuff.
    Straight-down-the-line journalism doesn’t ridicule, it reports. Maybe you have dug your own hole here.

    Second comment
    I’m sorry to rain on your ideological parade. Criticizing the abuses and deceptive practices of Scientology is legitimate journalism. Ridiculing and insulting Scientologists for what they believe goes beyond journalism. Ridiculing people who leave the church of Scientology and still believe parts of it goes even beyond that. I’m not saying it’s immoral to write about Scientology this way. I’m saying it’s not journalism. When Tony makes posts complaining that the mainstream media doesn’t pay attention to him I question why he doesn’t understand why. If a mainline journalist started a segment about “silly things I heard a Baptist say this week” (or any belief-group at all) they would be fired immediately. No media outlets want to be associated with that kind of bigoted writing.

    Third comment
    The basis of abuse is the contradictory doctrines and silly practices? So then you are saying there is abuse in the independent field similar to within the church of Scientology?
    Tony could create a segment about crazy things said in the church of Scientology but he chose to make the segment about the Freezone.
    This shows Tony isn’t just interested in calling out abuses in the church of Scientology. He is equally interested in ridiculing anyone who believes in Scientology even outside of the church where such abuses don’t exist.
    Tony is just ridiculing people for what they believe. When it comes to a subject that has to do with spirituality and immortality any lazy bigoted person could create a blog doing the exact same thing to Christians or Jews or Muslims or any other religious group. You think it’s OK to do it to Scientologists because you think what they believe is uniquely silly. That’s what makes it bigoted. Do you think Christianity or Judaism or Islam are more believable than Scientology? That’s just silly. They are all equally silly. But would you support a blog that treated Christianity or Judaism the way Tony has chosen to treat independent Scientology? Again, you don’t care because you don’t like Scientologists.
    This is what separates Tony from journalists who write about the subject. The journalists who write about Scientology might think Scientology is just a bunch of silly kooks but they wouldn’t write about it that way because they are journalists.

    Fourth comment
    I agree with you. I think Faith is silly. To me the local pastor or even Jesus is just another guru. But I think we all know Tony would be eviscerated if he did a segment about silly things Christians or Jews say. People around here put up with it because people around here don’t like Scientologists. The fact that there are a lot of abuses within the church of Scientology provides a legitimate reason to criticize, and then those who simply don’t like Scientologists piggyback on top of that to ridicule even independent Scientologists, where no such abuses exist. Unfortunately this blog and the comments section is a melting pot of those who object to abuse, and those who just like to be bigoted against people for what they believe.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Like Like x 1
    • List
  2. He-man

    He-man Hero extraordinary


    His house. His rules.

    A blog is not a forum.

    A journalist has every right to moderate his or her blog any way he chooses to. It does not necessarily reflect on his journalistic principles.

    This is, in essence imported drama.
     
    • Like Like x 5
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • List
  3. Phil Rogers

    Phil Rogers Patron

    Imported drama maybe. Show me something on this forum that isn't imported drama. I find it troubling that a person can call themselves a journalist and dedicate space to just ridiculing individual indy Scientologists who aren't hurting anyone and the moment someone calls it out as bigoted behavior the person is blocked. If has the freedom to do that over there and I have the freedom to call him out on the bad behavior over here. You're not going to report me are you??
     
  4. He-man

    He-man Hero extraordinary

    Why do I have to show you something here that isn't important drama? Can you not read? Go read Beas story or something. Cone back once you've read five threads and then we can do business.

    Journalists have the same right to moderate commentary fields same as any private entrepreneurs.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
    • List
  5. strativarius

    strativarius Inveterate gnashnab & snoutband

    I think it's fair to say that I've been quite condemnatory about some scientologists and their beliefs, but that's because those I've attacked (for want of better word) have had the benefit of the internet and the many thousands of articles on websites all around the world to learn what Hubbard and the CofS is really all about and yet, for whatever reason, still believe (like Commander Birdsong and others) that the sun shines out of his backside. Back in the sixties we weren't aware that Hubbard's 'degrees' were bogus degrees from bogus universities or that the tales of his war record and his early life 'travelling through Asia studying the locals' were fabricated, but things are different now.

    How many Clears are there? None. How many OT's are there? None. I'm sorry, but if you still believe, given the information available these days, you deserve to be ridiculed.
     
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2019 at 6:49 PM
    • Winner Winner x 3
    • Like Like x 1
    • Love Love x 1
    • List
  6. Phil Rogers

    Phil Rogers Patron

    Sure they do, but if they are censoring opinions just because they disagree with them, as opposed to the opinions being inflammatory or hate speech, then they aren't really journalists. A journalist supports free speech and does not censor those who disagree. He's just a blogger with thin skin.
     
    • LOL LOL x 2
    • Like Like x 1
    • List
  7. Phil Rogers

    Phil Rogers Patron

    I agree with you, but the one doing the ridiculing isn't a journalist if that's what they're doing. They are just an opinion blogger. And that's fine. As long as that's what you call yourself and you don't pretend to be a journalist and cry when the mainstream media ignores your stories.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
    • List
  8. He-man

    He-man Hero extraordinary

    How rude Strat! Ima guess ima gonna HAVE to report you too this time for unimported drama.
     
  9. He-man

    He-man Hero extraordinary

    Your MU is on free speech.
    He never imposed on your right to speak freely.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 2
    • Love Love x 1
    • List
  10. Phil Rogers

    Phil Rogers Patron

    I'm not really saying he imposed on my free speech. I'm saying real journalists don't go in for censorship of dissenting opinion.
     
  11. He-man

    He-man Hero extraordinary

    I somehow doubt that is the definition of a "real journalist"
     
  12. Dulloldfart

    Dulloldfart Squirrel Extraordinaire

    Real journalists do their own original research, not simply copy/paste press releases. I can't be bothered to look up official definitions. Isn't moderating comments more the hat of an editor/publisher (which he also does)?

    Paul
     
  13. Phil Rogers

    Phil Rogers Patron

    Maybe, but the point is that a JOURNALIST and a NEWS ORGANIZATION does not censor comments or opinions just because they disagree with them. Censoring hate speech? Maybe. Censoring dissenting opinions? Hell no.
     
  14. He-man

    He-man Hero extraordinary

    No.

    Moderating a commentary field pertaining to ones publishing space does not conflict with being a journalist.

    The discussion whether Tony is a "real journalist" doesn't really concern me, since it is imported drama.

    Want to make a thread on the matter? Do it, but it shouldn't be on the basis that Tony has banned one individual from his commentary field, in my opinion. It should be based on his journalistic craftsmanship.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
    • List
  15. Phil Rogers

    Phil Rogers Patron

    Actually the discussion was about whether Tony has always censored dissenting opinion so harshly. It was my follow-up statement that a real journalist would not go in for censorship of dissenting opinion.
     
  16. He-man

    He-man Hero extraordinary

    That happens on a daily basis, with or without caps.

    This is still imported drama pertaining to your ban. Why are you not taking this up with yer wan instead of having a whinge and a cry about it here?
     
  17. He-man

    He-man Hero extraordinary

    The discussion was about you being emotional over your ban.

    Imported drama. Google it, understand why it's considered bollicking.
     
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2019 at 7:09 PM
  18. Phil Rogers

    Phil Rogers Patron

    No, real news organizations don't delete dissenting opinions on a daily basis. Bloggers do.
     
  19. He-man

    He-man Hero extraordinary

    Oh if I had a penny for every person moaning over "real" this or that on the internet I'd be richer then Bill Gates by now.

    You base this on your personal opinion, not facts.

    Educate yourself and get over it man. If you still feel upset over the ordeal of getting banned, take it up with the moderator(s) who caused you this hardship or go to the man himself.
     
  20. TheOriginalBigBlue

    TheOriginalBigBlue Gold Meritorious Patron

    I get a kick out of Scientologists who try to equate Scientology with other religions when Scientologists believe that other religions are dramatizations of ancient past life alien implants.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • LOL LOL x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List