Is Matija Babić an endangered species?

I’m looking for some clarification regarding Charles Fox10's warning on this thread:

The discussion touches upon M. Babić (largely in a negative light), yet these comments aren't any more aggressive or disrespectful than the myriad of other scathing critiques directed at public figures on this forum—be they politicians, journalists, or celebrities. They don't deviate in the slightest from the standard way people vent their frustrations or opinions about public figures here!

By what logic does this suddenly transform into an "personal vendetta" against a journalist!?! 🙄

Under what specific criteria are the 10,000 existing negative (and frankly, far more vitriolic) comments targeting various public figures considered perfectly acceptable ways to express an opinion, while this—which is arguably less intense—is suddenly flagged as problematic, a "personal vendetta," and subject to a moderator's warning????

Forgive me, but this seems to have nothing to do with objective moderation. This feels like textbook censorship , poorly justified at that. (I can only assume it is motivated by the moderator's personal relationship with the individual being criticized. I truly see no other explanation for such a move...🤷
Unless, of course, there is some unspoken agreement among site owners to provide mutual "protection" for colleagues across different media outlets...🤔)

redhawk76 said:I'm curious about the reasoning behind Charles Fox10's warning on this thread:
I haven't seen anything that points to any actual corruption yet. It feels like we're just spinning our wheels. I suppose we'll have to wait and see if anyone actually digs into this.

The thread keeps bringing up M. Babić, mostly to drag him, but... The comments aren't even particularly sharp or rude. Aside from all the other negative comments and targeted criticisms aimed at specific people on this forum—politicians, journalists, public figures... They aren't doing anything out of the ordinary here. It’s just the standard way people vent their frustrations about public figures.

What's all this sudden commotion about? Settling some old scores. With an investigative journalist.!?! 🙄

What exactly is the metric used here? How are ten thousand existing negative—and frankly, quite vitriolic—comments directed at specific public figures considered perfectly acceptable ways to express an opinion, yet somehow less so when they target Matija Babić? Suddenly everything becomes an issue. An "unpersonal attack," apparently. Now I’m expecting a moderator warning.

My apologies. This isn't about objective moderation. It’s just typical... Censorship.Poorly explained. (I assume—motivated.) The moderator's personal connections. Regarding the controversial figure. I can't think of any other explanation for why they'd act that way.🤷
Aside from whatever decision the forum makes regarding standing together to "protect" our colleagues and founders on other sites...🤔)

I have no personal connection to that journalist, nor have I received any instructions regarding his protection. Just want to avoid any confusion.

The thread is closed, specifically for the reasons I laid out in my last post. Look, you don't have to agree with that journalist, but starting a whole new discussion just to tear him down isn't right—especially given the pile of rather uncivil posts already cluttering up that other active thread.

And just which of his little pieces of political investigative journalism actually earned him a spot in this PDF?

Just a quick heads-up.

Those massive threads spanning over 20 pages? They’re a total mess, impossible to read, and honestly, I think they just ruin the forum (with a few exceptions, I guess).

I don't get why there's this weird trend in politics to cram everything into these mega-threads. Like, anything even remotely touching on Josipović gets shoved into his specific thread, even when it doesn't really fit one single topic.
It’s pretty funny how they try to do this only for Josipović and a few of his buddies, while everyone else can have their own separate discussions.
As for Matija Babić, I don't see why he'd be considered some mindless puppet. The guy has voiced his opinions plenty of times, uses his own site to push political views, and writes articles claiming a Chinese man walked for 15 minutes on the moon 😂 to show off what he knows...

I don't see an issue; he's a public figure, super political, and basically just plays along with our political games.

Look, those big group threads are fine for certain things, but mostly it feels like a way to "hide the trash in a pile." It's interesting how Jadranka Kosor doesn't get a hiding spot like that, or someone like seks, or any other politician—it's always just our dear Ivo zvati pravda.
I'm not saying we should hide seks's mess, I'm saying we should expose everyone's mess. Just so there's no misunderstanding. 😉 (In my book, seks only gets to have the final word. 🙂)

Charles Fox10 said:The topic is officially closed, strictly for the reasons I laid out in my previous comment. Look, everyone is entitled to their own opinion regarding that journalist—you can agree with him or you can disagree—but that’s where the discussion ends. Opening a thread solely to provide a platform for repetitive criticism isn't exactly the height of fair play.

The topic at hand is Investigative journalism., Not Matija Babić.Based on that, The point of this discussion isn't to provide an open platform for anyone looking to just vent or take cheap shots at him. Even the opening post about him is nothing more than a mere introduction....nor are there any of the subsequent posts regarding him.
Babić only comes into the conversation later on, but I don't find it particularly surprising that the subsequent posts focus so heavily on him; it’s quite common for a discussion here to evolve this way. In almost any thread, you'll see participants eventually zero in on a specific individual or phenomenon that fits within the broader scope of the topic, unfolding through a series of more detailed, concentrated posts.

To me, that explanation falls completely short of the mark, but I suppose when you're dealing with the powers that be, you eventually learn to just accept that the establishment is the establishment. ☕

It simply isn't right, especially considering the sheer volume of rather indecent posts directed at that particular journalist within a thread that was, at that very moment, incredibly active.

So, what happens now? Are we just supposed to grant him total immunity and pretend he doesn't exist whenever a different topic comes up? 🙄
This is the first time I've ever heard that being used as a justification, and frankly, the actual precedent established here on this forum completely contradicts it.

dustypuma5 said:While those broad topics work fine for certain things, they often serve as little more than a way to "bury the truth under a mountain of noise." It’s curious how Jadranka Kosor isn't afforded such a convenient hiding spot—much like how someone like Seks, or perhaps any other politician, isn't given one—leaving us instead with our dear old Ivo Josipović.
I am certainly not advocating for covering up Seks's mistakes; rather, I am in favor of exposing everyone's. I wouldn't want anyone to misinterpret my position. 😉 (In my view, Seks should only be permitted to state his final wishes. 🙂)

Precisely.
And it goes deeper than that. Consider how the thread regarding the former president is positively (or at least "neutrally") titled: "Ivo Josipović - President of the United States" (even though more than half the posts are quite critical of him!). Meanwhile, the collective thread for Jadranka Kosor carries a "negative" headline: "J.K. - Queen of Lies!" (despite containing posts that actually support her). If this is meant to be an all-encompassing topic for everything concerning her, why isn't it simply titled "J.K. - Former Prime Minister"?

It seems we are seeing some minor "cleverness" and manipulation from the moderators and admins—tactics they likely know aren't going unnoticed by the community—but perhaps their impulses outweigh the need for the very impartiality and correctness we expect...😉
Once again: "power is power," and if anyone is searching for absolute integrity on this forum, they might be better served looking elsewhere... 🤷

redhawk76 said:The topic title is Investigative journalism, not Matija Babić. Therefore, this thread wasn't opened just to take shots at him, nor was the opening post about him, nor were the subsequent posts...
Matija Babić is only mentioned later on. It’s hardly unusual for a thread to evolve so that several following posts focus on a specific individual or phenomenon that falls under the general subject matter...

A rather unsatisfying explanation, but "the administration is the administration..." ☕

So he's off-limits on every other thread then?!? 🙄
Never heard that used as a justification before. The actual practice on this forum completely contradicts that logic.

Technically, Investigative journalism had a few scattered entries, but once the thread regarding the violation of Ivo Sanader's family rights opened and that journalist was being discussed there, this closed thread suddenly started focusing on the exact same issue at the same time. Is one of them spammy trolling, or are they both?? One got locked, the other stayed open, and nothing much changed.

Generally, moderators don't change titles unless it's minor stuff—like changing "Protest organized in San Francisco" to "Protest organized in San Francisco." Since we all know some of these complaints have merit, we'll try to reorganize things soon and see how it goes.