Do you think Morrissey-solo has a negative bias?

Do you think Morrissey-solo has a negative bias


  • Total voters
    23

smiler

Junior Member
Do you think Morrissey-solo has a negative bias?

Bearing in mind the many years of on-going dispute with the owner and the views apparently held by a majority of the moderating team, that they no longer like "Morrissey the man" (some still like the music). Do you think this view has filtered into the content of the site, via the presentation of the front page stories (negative comments attached to front page stories), the selection of the front page stories (more negative stories making the front page) and the moderation in the forums (or lack of moderation for certain posters who hold the same or similar views) which ultimately has given the site a negative bias against Morrissey?

Or do you just think its a true reflection of the mood and views of the fans?
 
Last edited:
Do you think Morrissey-solo has a negative bias?

Bearing in mind the many years of on-going dispute with the owner and the views apparently held by a majority of the moderating team, that they no longer like "Morrissey the man" (some still like the music). Do you think this view has filtered into the content of the site, via the presentation of the front page stories (negative comments attached to front page stories), the selection of the front page stories (more negative stories making the front page) and the moderation in the forums (or lack of moderation for certain posters who hold the same or similar views) which ultimately has given the site a negative bias against Morrissey?

Or do you just think its a true reflection of the mood and views of the fans?

The more things change, the more they stay the same.
 
Answer is NO.

Some users already pointed out in other threads that Morrissey attracts people who have rather negative traits.

It is truly sad to see some people are unable to post constructive criticism, only complain things they don't like.
Negativity comes from some users who have double-standard.
 
I like what Anesthesine said somewhere about the headlines sometimes being worded in a biased way. Not always but sometimes. Other than that the forum reflects the average snarky, bitchy, melodramatic Morrissey fan like what Kewpie said.
 
Do you think Morrissey-solo has a negative bias?

Bearing in mind the many years of on-going dispute with the owner and the views apparently held by a majority of the moderating team, that they no longer like "Morrissey the man" (some still like the music). Do you think this view has filtered into the content of the site, via the presentation of the front page stories (negative comments attached to front page stories), the selection of the front page stories (more negative stories making the front page) and the moderation in the forums (or lack of moderation for certain posters who hold the same or similar views) which ultimately has given the site a negative bias against Morrissey?

Or do you just think its a true reflection of the mood and views of the fans?

Morrissey news makes the front page. If it's mostly negative, blame Morrissey. He makes it.
 
Morrissey news makes the front page. If it's mostly negative, blame Morrissey. He makes it.

However it must be said that it is a very different thing to post negative facts about Morrissey than it is to post negative speculation (or fabrication).
 
I need solid examples to work with - can you name some of these headlines (preferably within the recent decade) and how you would change them? I keep asking for examples and rarely get any valid responses.

I like what Anesthesine said somewhere about the headlines sometimes being worded in a biased way. Not always but sometimes. Other than that the forum reflects the average snarky, bitchy, melodramatic Morrissey fan like what Kewpie said.
 
Last edited:
However it must be said that it is a very different thing to post negative facts about Morrissey than it is to post negative speculation (or fabrication).

Give me one example that's less than 10 years old. I'd like to see what you think this negative speculation is.
 
Supposedly these alleged negative headlines are all over the place but no one can give a single example. Strange.

Give me one example that's less than 10 years old. I'd like to see what you think this negative speculation is.
 
i believe in the good intentions of the founder of this site, but most of the comments i've read (on topics i was interested in) were negative or insultive towards morrissey & people related to him or full of hatred and missunderstanding between users - it's obvious we visit very liberally moderated forum.

and it is deliberately liberal. OWNER is satisfied with numerous 'clicks' or 'hits' which give him more PROFIT, he knows this very well and HE APPROVES it, as we can see...

most of the users come to expose/express/bring frustration, despair, obsession or any other kind of illness or disfunction. they came here in first because of steven patrick morrissey.

i understand why morrissey has negative associations, i would if i was on his place - this site is the only one on the whole web with his name in it!

but he is a public person and HE KNOWS that not everyone can like or love him.

WE KNOW VERY WELL BY HIS SONGS WHAT HE THINKS ABOUT THE MANKIND:).

this site only approves his unique attitude!





p.s. no apology
 
Supposedly these alleged negative headlines are all over the place but no one can give a single example. Strange.

Probably because the headlines aren't the real problem they have...it is that opinions other than those bordering on blind devotion are allowed to be published here.
 
Don't know about the negative headlines, davidt .....haven't been a member that long...the problem that I have encountered and find ridiculous, is trolls like Viva Hate. Yesterday you had to shut him up and remove him because you couldn't have a decent conversation. This has happened to me and others and destroys the legitimacy of your site .

The other issue you have with Morrissey is something else....if you really want to be considered a fan and not a stalker, contact him and find our how you can make it better.....after all this site exists for him...right? In fact you state under the section"About" that this site exists because you've been a fan since 1986.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The other issue you have with Morrissey is something else....if you really want to be considered a fan and not a stalker, contact him and find our how you can make it better.....after all this site exists for him...right? In fact you state under the section"About" that this site exists because you've been a fan since 1986.

Morrissey has an issue with David not the other way round as you state. David has banned Morrissey from nothing.

Fans don't contact the celebrities they follow, stalkers do.

This site doesn't exist for Morrissey, it exists for his fans. You're lack of understanding runs deep and shows itself frequently.

ps, why aren't you posting with your full name?
 
Don't know about the negative headlines, davidt .....haven't been a member that long...the problem that I have encountered and find ridiculous, is trolls like Viva Hate. Yesterday you had to shut him up and remove him because you couldn't have a decent conversation. This has happened to me and others and destroys the legitimacy of your site .

The other issue you have with Morrissey is something else....if you really want to be considered a fan and not a stalker, contact him and find our how you can make it better.....after all this site exists for him...right? In fact you state under the section"About" that this site exists because you've been a fan since 1986.

tg;dr
 
davidt.....has in fact contacted Morrissey in the past. Even TMZ asked david if he is a fan and he knows that Morrissey hates it...why doesn't he shut it down. He gave no credible answer.

The site doesn't exist for Morrissey? Interesting.....If there's no Morrissey there's no site. Pretty logical, right? Your lack of understanding runs deeper......

David t. and I are the only ones I've seen posting with a real name......He can make this better...he is the Adminstrator. That's his title...
 
davidt.....has in fact contacted Morrissey in the past. Even TMZ asked david if he is a fan and he knows that Morrissey hates it...why doesn't he shut it down. He gave no credible answer.

The site doesn't exist for Morrissey? Interesting.....If there's no Morrissey there's no site. Pretty logical, right? Your lack of understanding runs deeper......

David t. and I are the only ones I've seen posting with a real name......He can make this better...he is the Adminstrator. That's his title...

As long as brain dead trolls like this joker are allowed to post here it ....this site will seen to have a negative bias.

chewbacca_yell_normal.jpg
why aren't you posting with your real name? why? keene is not a real name. why you do dis? why?
chewbacca_yell_normal.jpg


2ulKBba.gif
 
davidt.....has in fact contacted Morrissey in the past. Even TMZ asked david if he is a fan and he knows that Morrissey hates it...why doesn't he shut it down. He gave no credible answer.

The site doesn't exist for Morrissey? Interesting.....If there's no Morrissey there's no site. Pretty logical, right? Your lack of understanding runs deeper......

David t. and I are the only ones I've seen posting with a real name......He can make this better...he is the Adminstrator. That's his title...

Having contact does not mean David initiated it.

The site may exist because of Morrissey, but not for him. So no, your statement is not logical it's completely illogical. I hope you don't trot this kind of nonsense out in real life.

ps where's that full name of yours?
 
I need solid examples to work with - can you name some of these headlines (preferably within the recent decade) and how you would change them? I keep asking for examples and rarely get any valid responses.

I'm doing this on an iPhone so pardon any autocorrects..

This example addresses consistency which I'm construing as bias. So when this article was created, someone on solo titled the article as a summary of the article mentioning Rogan:

http://www.morrissey-solo.com/conte...g-Morrissey-Autobiography-for-The-Irish-Times

But the actual title from the Irish Times was the slightly happy/positive:

Harry Potter Style Hysteria Predicted For Release Of Morrissey's Autobiography

Okay.

So rather consistently if there's an article titled negatively about Morrissey, you quote the article verbatim so as to say, "See? Other people think he's an ass too." It's subtle, but it's noticeable. Like here:

http://www.morrissey-solo.com/conte...ve-a-secret-‘serious-illness’-all-noise-co-uk

You could've had the headline read Speculation On Morrissey's Health, but opted instead for the more sensational "serious illness" verbiage that the article used.

And sometimes the headlines emphasize things that even after reading the article can be surmised as not reliable reporting of facts.

On this one you capitalized NOT as though the meaningless political-motivated puff piece statement were a statement of fact when it was not even close to true, but it lingered here for casual surfers to conclude Morrissey was not welcome in Oslo:

http://www.morrissey-solo.com/conte...o-Nobel-Artist-celebration-after-KFC-comments

Having said this and browsed through many pages (on an iPhone no less, pardon any errors), you do a great job overall of collecting and reporting all Morrissey news which is commendable and appreciated, at least by me.
 
Back
Top Bottom