VI Consortium - Def...
 
Notifications
Clear all

VI Consortium - Definitely Not an Outlet for Free Speech  

Page 1 / 2
 

vicanuck
(@vicanuck)
Expert
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 2558
November 14, 2014 11:38 am  

Has anyone else noticed when you post an opinion contrary to the VI Consortium's point of view or bias, they block you from making comments on their Facebook page and/or delete your comments from their blog?

The VI Consortium definitely has an agenda and will stop at nothing to promote it.

I used to like reading their posts and was, at first, impressed with their coverage and insights, but now I can see that they don't support free speech, only their agenda.

Thoughts?


Quote
Alana33
(@Alana33)
Expert
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 12288
November 14, 2014 11:45 am  

I don't post there but have read comments both for and against on the various topics.

CruzanIron mentioned he had an issue a few days ago.
Maybe he can clarify his problem posting or having post deleted.


ReplyQuote
STXBob
(@STXBob)
Trusted Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2138
November 14, 2014 11:48 am  

I would guess that most of us have not posted our opinions at VI Consortium, so we have no experience on which to draw. You might want to tell us what happened to you.


ReplyQuote
OldTart
(@the-oldtart)
Expert
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 6523
November 14, 2014 11:54 am  

Several "newspapers" (I use the term loosely) of their ilk have come and gone over the years. Their eventual demise after a short life is usually because they quickly become so egotistically overcome with their self-perceived importance and insight that they not only stop reporting "news" in favor of editorial opinion but squash opinions which differ from their own.

However much you may waiver in your opinion of the Daily News, The Avis and the online Source, they've been around for a long time for good reason - they adhere to basic journalistic standards.


ReplyQuote
vicanuck
(@vicanuck)
Expert
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 2558
November 14, 2014 12:51 pm  

I was blogging in favor of the ABR deal...then I was shut down. My posts were deleted and I can no longer post comments on their Facebook page.

I guess they didn't like my opinion and are obviously totally biased against the refinery reopening.


ReplyQuote
CruzanIron
(@cruzaniron)
Trusted Member
Joined: 7 years ago
Posts: 2477
November 14, 2014 1:14 pm  

My ban was lifted the following day,and my posts were not deleted.


ReplyQuote
vicanuck
(@vicanuck)
Expert
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 2558
November 14, 2014 1:42 pm  

But is that what a "credible" news source does when readers have opinions that differ with their own agenda?

I guess that's normal in the VI...


ReplyQuote
CruzanIron
(@cruzaniron)
Trusted Member
Joined: 7 years ago
Posts: 2477
November 14, 2014 2:31 pm  

To me, the credibility stopped when they did 2 front page stories based on a interviews with a candidate, pictures and all, but gave no other candidates equal and free coverage.


ReplyQuote
STXBob
(@STXBob)
Trusted Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2138
November 14, 2014 2:37 pm  

I see all kinds of differing opinions, flaming, and occasional expletives flying around the comments section at http://viconsortium.com/featured/hovensa-says-it-will-completely-shut-down-refinery-in-mid-december-if-abr-vi-deal-with-govt-fails/ . It's hard to believe they're censoring anything!


ReplyQuote
IslandHops
(@IslandHops)
Trusted Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 929
November 14, 2014 3:03 pm  

My insightful and revealing comments on VI-C were tossed out first time. I never tried posting there again. I've been thrown out of better clubs.

Too bad VI Consortium's bias is showing. They started off as a bit of a breath of fresh air in a cesspool somewhat lacking in investigative journalism (except for T.E's occasional article). I get more insightful news from keeping an eye on this board and that's not saying much. Speaking of news, if you ever can't get hold of the Avis, don't fret, just watch channel 8 news that evening. I swear they just read whatever the paper published that day (which is usually a day behind the daily snooze anyway). It's become almost too painful to watch channel 8 news, even with the incredible high quality 'moving photo' graphics. Do they even own any video equipment that could be used outside the studio? I didn't mean to get off on a rant here but come on. I've seen high school news programs with better video, and substance!


ReplyQuote
longhorn
(@longhorn)
Advanced Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 130
November 14, 2014 3:10 pm  

its more of a blog with no journalistic integrity whatsoever. a few weeks ago the website wrote a glowing article about hummingbird air and the next thing you know, he is running hummingbird advertisements, makes you wonder if others are paying the site for the same thing.

other than that it appears to be a gossip site.


ReplyQuote
ms411
(@ms411)
Expert
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 3554
November 14, 2014 3:27 pm  

And yet each "article" ends with a "bio" saying they are "journalists". They removed a post I made questioning a letter Diase sent. I asked why they didn't post copy of letter and how did she send it. Their article did not offer proof that there was a letter and that it was sent, but only made reference to it.

I don't trust "news" that doesn't quote at least one source that I can verify online, or doesn't provide source info.


ReplyQuote
vicanuck
(@vicanuck)
Expert
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 2558
November 14, 2014 4:57 pm  

Thanks for this...I thought I was the only one being censored.


ReplyQuote
STXBob
(@STXBob)
Trusted Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2138
November 14, 2014 4:59 pm  

I don't trust "news" that doesn't quote at least one source that I can verify online, or doesn't provide source info.

Most news articles at any publication will just tell you who said it or wrote it, or how the author found it out. They usually don't publish supporting notes and letters.


ReplyQuote
rzombo
(@rzombo)
Active Member
Joined: 7 years ago
Posts: 5
November 14, 2014 5:26 pm  

Go back and read their bizarre puff piece about Dr. Titus - pretty much sums up their journalistic chops. The guy who started the consortium is a video game blogger for crying out loud. They also falsely reported during the chucky hansen case that a court entered an order at like midnight on a Saturday.


ReplyQuote
CruzanIron
(@cruzaniron)
Trusted Member
Joined: 7 years ago
Posts: 2477
November 14, 2014 6:07 pm  

Not to mention that the page is to 'busy'. Lots of fancy sliding pictures and stories moving around. Gives me a headache trying to navigate.


ReplyQuote
Alana33
(@Alana33)
Expert
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 12288
November 14, 2014 7:00 pm  

I've noticed from time to time on a source news article, they don't have a comment section. It's rare but it happens.


ReplyQuote
divinggirl
(@divinggirl)
Trusted Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 887
November 15, 2014 9:46 am  

VI Consortium is not a news source - it is a blog that tries to appear as a news source.

I miss "reporters". There aren't any left. Everyone is now a "journalist" - they feel the need to tell us what to think or feel. I want the "who, what, when, where and why" back in news coverage.


ReplyQuote
Alana33
(@Alana33)
Expert
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 12288
November 15, 2014 11:04 am  

I miss the Daily News investigative reporters who really delved into the islands issues and wrote award winning expose's.

The islands certainly have plenty of issues that need to be brought to light.


ReplyQuote
Spartygrad95
(@Spartygrad95)
Trusted Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 1885
November 15, 2014 11:16 am  

I miss the Daily News investigative reporters who really delved into the islands issues and wrote award winning expose's.

The islands certainly have plenty of issues that need to be brought to light.

This is worldwide. The plutocrats take away choice. Consolidating your news into a few of their choices pushing their agenda. Unless I start seeing a rush of pitchfork buying I'll just assume the world is content with the illusion of freedom of choice they are given.


ReplyQuote
STXBob
(@STXBob)
Trusted Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2138
November 15, 2014 1:43 pm  

Social media and blogs are the e-Pitchforks of today. Big news outlets cannot suppress the Internet.


ReplyQuote
Spartygrad95
(@Spartygrad95)
Trusted Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 1885
November 15, 2014 7:00 pm  

Social media and blogs are the e-Pitchforks of today. Big news outlets cannot suppress the Internet.

Yet. Just wait til Ted Cruz gets his way with Net Neutrality..

Money is speech..Corporations are people.
The end


ReplyQuote
Scubadoo
(@Scubadoo)
Trusted Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 2344
November 16, 2014 3:04 pm  

Not to mention that the page is to 'busy'. Lots of fancy sliding pictures and stories moving around. Gives me a headache trying to navigate.

Dito


ReplyQuote
ac_stx
(@ac_stx)
New Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 2
November 17, 2014 5:06 am  

I too was blocked from posting on VI Consortium's website and their FB page. My comments we're delete too! I've written to VI Consortium and they have not replied. I questioned to hear the other side of the story on several articles. There were unanswered questions and missing facts. I also spoke out in favor of the ABR deal.

Does anyone know who owns VI Consortium?


ReplyQuote
MissJustice
(@MissJustice)
Trusted Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 548
November 17, 2014 9:19 am  

MI was blocked by another blogger not by the site. They must have clicked the report button. Contact the site to be released. Keep in mind that the Daily News allows no commentary whatsoever. So not allowing commentary does not disqualify an entity as a news source. Neither they nor the Source are AP members?

I am glad there is another outlet for news. It will force the others to be quicker and step up their games. He did apologize for the early incorrect information about Chucky. But at the same time, none of the three other outlets made even one mention of the fact that there were dueling court orders regarding Chucky. Vi Consortium was the only one that mentioned that deJongh went back to the Supreme Court on behalf of Chucky on August 29 and was denied the same day Wilma Lewis gave her TRO.
For far too long we have dealt with newspapers in Stx and Stt that have been propaganda tools of deJongh. In 2009, neither printed media mention the midnight hearing regarding deJongh's use of government money to enhance his home. They both endorsed his campaign. The Source did too, and did not disclose that one of their editors took a government paid junket with the First Lady to Rwanda.

And none of the traditional outlets have investigated the Hovensa sale or the buyers independently. They simply parrot what government house says.

So we as consumers can sort through all the information and decide what is left out, what is slanted, and what is true. But I am glad consortium is here. It is better to have more opinions and informations than less.

A victory for the citizenry since the media is the fourth branch of government.


ReplyQuote
Page 1 / 2
Close Menu