Image for TT:  A site dominated by a small band of narrow minded loony lefty mates

The editor has cut half of my comment #54 (again), a comment that contained no name calling and some observations which I’d reckon most contributors to this site would absolutely relate to, whilst over on another thread we have Rusty L calling Mr Tomkins (who has also been on the wrong end of the censor) a “self righteous pompous git”.

But that is only one of many example of the bizarre and brazen bias I see here at work here on TT.

Whilst I depart from the Tomkins, Woody’s and wybournes in their politics I absolutely sympathise with them in their frustrations with the incredibly skewed and bias nature of Mr Tuffins editing.

The other day the Ed. cut a line out of one of my comments where I merely said ... “says a lot about your political agenda here my friend”.
I kid you not. Read it again.

That was all I said.

But this is not the first time.

If anyone wants a look at the full comment and other benign comments like it that the TT ED. has inexplicably cut, email me and I will forward them on so you can see for yourself.

It’s almost unbelievable that even in the most biased media an editor would cut a comment like that.

I emailed a mate a copy of the full unedited comment before submitting because I just knew that because of the person the comment was directed at, it was highly unlikely that Mr. Tuffin wouldn’t cut it.

I knew this based on his previous efforts.

And of course Mr Tuffin delivered.

The benign line cut was part of a comment I made to another of the editor’s stable of anti-everything writers.

That’s the problem here. It’s who you say it to.

This is when you know you the faceless and silent TT Ed is going to SILENCE YOU.

Yet these same people that Tuffin protects from criticism can be found smearing, defaming, making nasty inferences, unsubstantiated and baseless accusations and describing other groups and people as whores and all sorts of other nasty names.

The Examiner has got nothing on this website and if I could be bothered and I thought that Media Watch gave a stuff about a site that has been reduced to a tired and inconsequential clearinghouse for loony lefties I would put something together for them because the Tasmanian Times is without doubt the most blatantly and deliberately biased media in all of Tasmania.

I have written on and for this site for about 7 years and I have been on record - on this site and in the public domain, championing it and defending it and Lindsay Tuffin to the hilt.

Time and time again I have leapt in to defend this site and Lindsay Tuffin against others including Greg Barns who I now think was absolutely correct in his criticisms and summation of this site and also justified in taking legal action against it ( HERE ).

(I remember what was said about Barns, does anyone else?)

I noticed that Lindsay continues to wear the Barns lawsuit like a badge of honour.

However in his speech published a week or two back ( HERE ) Lindsay failed to mention why Barns took the legal action.

Why don’t you tell the punters what was said/inferred about Barns that drove him you sue Lindsay?*

Indeed there is now way that Mr.Tuffin would publish the same comment which inspired the Barns legal action if it were submitted today and directed at one of his pet writers.

In that same article Lindsay Tuffin also bragged about notables including Saul Eslake who have previously patronised this site, yet Lindsay was quiet on why we don’t hear from Saul anymore. Because he was howled of the site by one or two of TT’s abusive loony left team.

He was disrespected and abused.

Isn’t that right Lindsay?

Like a whole host of other fine writers over the years. Scroll through the comments section today and look at what this site has been reduced to today.

A site dominated by a small band of narrow minded loony lefty mates whose politics are a weird hybrid of social insularism/Hansonism and vigilante environmentalism.

I’ve got news for those of you who think the marginalisation of writers and contributors only happens down at the Examiner and doesn’t happen here on TT? 

Try asking the same hard question of the Tasmanian Times its regular feature writers that the site and its writers ask of Gunns, government and others.

I did and boy how the editor’s attitude changed.

Up until that point when my article were flowing for Lindsay, articles and analysis scathing of the Examiner and other media, I never, ever had any problems with the censor.

Tats when the TT ed. started silencing me, censoring me and fiddling with my comments as it were

Doing everything TT brags to the rest of the Tasmanian media pack that it stands against.

When I started to ask the same hard questions of Lindsay and TT’s incredibly myopic & oft times nasty and oppressive team of vigilante writers all of sudden the censors hand appeared in a big way.

So if I ever hear Lindsay Tuffin in a public forum bragging about how editorially fearless and superior the Tasmanian Times is, how it ‘publishing without fear or favour’, I won’t be there slapping him on the back anymore, rather I will be sure to stand up and tell the audience the other side of the story.

The story of TT’s rampant unprofessionalism and how the affable Lindsay Tuffin at times blatantly abuses editorial power and at other times subtly uses editorial control to silence, shame, embarrass and marginalise certain voices and opinion.

I have seen too much of TT over too many years and enough evidence to swallow the idea that the Tasmanian Times is the saviour and vanguard of ethical and unbiased media in Tasmania.

The lesson on TT is the same if you want to get on other small time, lightly patronised, provincial media. Don’t rock the boat.

If you want robust political argy bargy make sure you direct your energies comments at correspondents who are labelled pro-logging/forestry.
The right. Eric Abetz, John Gay etc. You can say anything you like about them and others.

If you want frustration and censorship try the same approach with Tuffins “better tasmanian times” cricket team of far left nasties who demand more free speech and more democracy for them and their mates, whilst also demanding the freedom to threaten, cow and manipulate the editor (privately) and any effective critics so they so they can enjoy an opposition free political and ideological forum.

That is the vision of some on this site.

Whoever thinks the right is the only side of politics capable of oppression and hate is seriously out of touch with reality.

If this comment even makes it to print I suspect the editor will publish it in such a way as to cast himself as a martyr and the victim of a savage attack. I also fully expect a solid few days and few hundred words of vitriol and hyperbole from Tuffin’s faithful disciples.

To me that’s still worth telling the truth about the real Tasmanian Times, not the mythical one that Lindsay Tuffin wants the world to believe in.

*A flippant comment by a reader. The writ is still lodged in the Supreme Court of Tasmania.

A Note on The Code of Conduct: The Code was introduced a little more than a year ago after years of prompting by informed readers and writers urging more editing of abusive, ad-hominem attacks by readers and writers on one another. There also were requests that anonymity be banned. I resisted these requests for years; because one of the reasons for starting the site in 2002, while still a senior journalist with Mercury, was the belief that the opinions of ordinary people were too often suppressed or edited out of existence by Heritage Media. I also believed that in a poisoned Public Sphere, anonymity, sadly, was necessary. I much favoured a free-for-all Agora with the odd stone thrown; while also believing that attacks on others revealed more about the author of those attacks, than the target.

However The Code - which is still being refined - came in to play in an attempt to limit an increasing propensity to anonymously play the man, not the ball. Perhaps I had assumed too much about the goodwill towards each other, of readers. Public figures, however, especially pollies, remain as a double-standard: they are fairer game ...

The moderating of comments is an immensely, time-consuming, sometimes onerous task in which errors of judgment are made. And because this is a one-and-a-half man band, time is very limited and sometimes moderation is rushed to enable article preparation and editing to take place. Moderation is an inexact science, still being refined. Most commenters are edited at one time or another; irrespective of their political or societal stance with the hopeful aim of steering threads to the issue; not the person. There are no favourites. But perception is in the eye of the beholder.

TT does have, however, have an unashamedly left-wing leaning bleeding-heart emphasis; as I said at the MWF, TT is part-journalism, part Agit-Prop, part social networking.

For that, we do not apologise. Lindsay Tuffin

*Criticisms of the site are welcomed. If you dish it out, you have to take it. It also helps TT to refine and grow.

Over the years, TT has published as much criticism of the site or the editor as is made (this is one area the Code does not apply).

For example:

Thomas Rignoli: TT: Crackpot clearinghouse or forum of ideas?
Greg Barns: Mud and smear
Greg Barns: Stodgy, complacent, myopic

There are others, but the Search Engine has failed me …