Welcome to AikiWeb Aikido Information
AikiWeb: The Source for Aikido Information
AikiWeb's principal purpose is to serve the Internet community as a repository and dissemination point for aikido information.

Sections
home
aikido articles
columns

Discussions
forums
aikiblogs

Databases
dojo search
seminars
image gallery
supplies
links directory

Reviews
book reviews
video reviews
dvd reviews
equip. reviews

News
submit
archive

Miscellaneous
newsletter
rss feeds
polls
about

Follow us on



Home > AikiWeb Aikido Forums
Go Back   AikiWeb Aikido Forums > Open Discussions

Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history, humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced features available, you will need to register first. Registration is absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 09-18-2007, 07:12 AM   #76
Taliesin
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 82
Offline
Re: Ah, the liberal BBC

Neil

I think we'd all do better to debate matters with Hunter who, although I disagree with him, does put forward clear arguments in support of his position.

I may not personally find them convincing, but they are are clear, honest arguments - let's leave MS to continue acting the clown.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2007, 07:52 AM   #77
robert weatherall
Dojo: Dynamic Aikido Nocquet
Location: Durham, UK
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 16
United Kingdom
Offline
Re: Ah, the liberal BBC

Robert Weatherall wrote:
AikiWeb: The Source for Aikido Information
AikiWeb's principal purpose is to serve the Internet community as a repository and dissemination point for aikido information

If you want to bitch about the BBC choose a website which has forums on media ethics. I like to read about Aikdio here.

Yes, Robert: to underscore David's post, I think you should probably avoid the "Open Discussion" Section, if you don't want to read about non-Aikido topics here.


My apologies to all. I do tend to avoid the open topic section. Had clicked the link on the right hand side of the page which didn't indicate which section things were in.
My fault.
Sorry.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2007, 04:14 PM   #78
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Re: Ah, the liberal BBC

Quote:
David Chalk wrote: View Post
Neil

I think we'd all do better to debate matters with Hunter who, although I disagree with him, does put forward clear arguments in support of his position.

I may not personally find them convincing, but they are are clear, honest arguments - let's leave MS to continue acting the clown.
You're quite right. Better to leave Mike doing the things he does best (ie, misinform, obfuscate, and slander).

Meanwhile, Kudos to Hunter for laying out his arguments so clearly.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2007, 04:23 PM   #79
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: Ah, the liberal BBC

Quote:
Neil Mick wrote: View Post
Meanwhile, Kudos to Hunter for laying out his arguments so clearly.

Hunter Lonsberry wrote: I tend to think it supports his (Mike's) position.
Aw, thanks Neil and David. I knew I was right.

Regards,

Mike Sigman
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2007, 04:26 PM   #80
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Re: Ah, the liberal BBC

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
I knew I was right.

Regards,

Mike Sigman
You always do (esp considering you mostly aren't). The TRUE test of character will come on the day you finally admit when you are WRONG. We're all still awaiting that proud moment...

PS oh, BTW, Mike: in case your head gets too big...we WEREN'T acknowledging you were right...we were complimenting Hunter on his ability to cogently present your case...an ability you so far have yet to demonstrate.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2007, 04:38 PM   #81
James Davis
 
James Davis's Avatar
Dojo: Ft. Myers School of Aikido
Location: Ft. Myers, FL.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 716
United_States
Offline
Re: Ah, the liberal BBC

Quote:
Robert Weatherall wrote: View Post
My apologies to all. I do tend to avoid the open topic section. Had clicked the link on the right hand side of the page which didn't indicate which section things were in.
My fault.
Sorry.
You're fired. Clear your desk.

"The only difference between Congress and drunken sailors is that drunken sailors spend their own money." -Tom Feeney, representative from Florida
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2007, 05:22 PM   #82
akiy
 
akiy's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 6,003
Offline
Re: Ah, the liberal BBC

Please watch your tone, folks.

-- Jun

Please help support AikiWeb -- become an AikiWeb Contributing Member!
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2007, 10:12 AM   #83
Taliesin
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 82
Offline
Re: Ah, the liberal BBC

Mike

The Fact that Hunter agrees with you. Demonstrates that Hunter agrees with you and nothing else.

It certainly doesn't prove you are right. (unless you mean politically)
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2007, 10:26 AM   #84
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: Ah, the liberal BBC

Quote:
David Chalk wrote: View Post
Mike

The Fact that Hunter agrees with you. Demonstrates that Hunter agrees with you and nothing else.

It certainly doesn't prove you are right. (unless you mean politically)
Y'know, it would probably serve your debate position better if you simply said something like "so what if the BBC is a little-bit leftist in its views" or something, since, as has been noted by numerous sources, few people question that bit of data. The problem is that you're in a quandary: if you admit the BBC is biased, many of your asserted viewpoints become simply opinions, so you'd rather hold with your beliefs as "truth" because what *you* believe is more important than the truth. The other point you're caught on is that if you admit the BBC is biased, you're effectively admitting that you think it is ethically correct to collect money from individuals of all political persuasions in the UK and then use the money to promote essentially a liberal viewpoint. That is dishonest and hypocritical, so you'd rather maintain an obvious facade rather than admit the truth. As I've said numerous times, I'd complain bitterly about any biased representation calling itself a news organization, whether Rightist or Leftist. The "press" is granted extraordinary freedoms to do as it wishes, with the ostensible idea that it will get the full truth and facts out to the public. Any "press" organization that reaches large numbers of people and which deliberately skews the news should be held responsible via some mechanism. With great freedom must come great responsibilities. Unfortunately, I honestly don't think you would agree with my position until some rightist organization took over the news. And that's the difference between you and me.

Regards,

Mike Sigman
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2007, 11:00 AM   #85
Taliesin
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 82
Offline
Re: Ah, the liberal BBC

Oh Dear, O Dear, Oh Dear,

or as we say back home Duw Duw,

has anyone got any dried frog pills?

Hunter

If you are there, please explain your argument to Mike for us will you?

Explain that a right wing accusation that the BBC is biased towards the left - is merely an accusation.

You might want to explain to Mike the difference between accusation and proof.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2007, 11:32 AM   #86
Mark Freeman
Dojo: Dartington
Location: Devon
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,220
United Kingdom
Offline
Re: Ah, the liberal BBC

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
As I've said numerous times, I'd complain bitterly about any biased representation calling itself a news organization, whether Rightist or Leftist.
Mike, if we just stick to TV stations for the moment, which station would you recomend to give a 'completely' unbiased view, and only a complete representation of the true facts? I am interested to know.

regards,

Mark

Last edited by Mark Freeman : 09-21-2007 at 11:43 AM.

Success is having what you want. Happiness is wanting what you have.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2007, 11:54 AM   #87
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: Ah, the liberal BBC

Quote:
Mark Freeman wrote: View Post
Mike, if we just stick to TV stations for the moment, which station would you recomend to give a 'completely' unbiased view, and only a complete representation of the true facts? I am interested to know.
Strawman argument, Mark. I've made no inference or claim that there is such a thing, anymore than there is a perfect politician, perfect wife, etc., etc. My complaint is against extremes and dishonesty... the BBC has been known in the last decade or two for swinging into the extremes in its news and opinion pieces. What you have to strive for is "moderation" and all viewpoints.

When I'm in Europe I'm stunned at how the BBC simply omits many of the actual facts and perspectives on things that are going on in America. I see "panel discussions" filled with anti-Americans who have half the facts and all the hate... and never a show to counterbalance it. It's quite sickening to see this type of coverage.

The UK has become so politically correct that sometimes I laugh out loud at some new policy that is being implemented so as not to offend criminals in jails, etc. But if that's all you're raised on, perhaps you don't even see the bias and tilt. Or you simply block it out because your beliefs are stronger than your reasoning power.

Regards,

Mike Sigman
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2007, 01:51 PM   #88
HL1978
Dojo: Aunkai
Location: Fairfax, VA
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 429
United_States
Offline
Re: Ah, the liberal BBC

The BBC has quite a few reasons to not admit any bias, and to take as many steps as possible to try and prevent bias. I could only wish NPR did the same. I think we can all agree, that in general, the politics of the UK are to the left of the US. Does that political stance effect coverage of the US by the BBC? Is the BBC itself left of those in the UK which pay its fee? The questions raised in their own study seems to support the second.

The BBC like NPR, predominatly shows bias through ommission and story/viewpoint selection. This is more than merely trying to use certain terms to attempt to appear impartial and clearly different than putting news that advocates a certain political agenda on the last page of a newspaper etc. In the case of middle east coverage, not distinguishing between, militant and non-milliant deaths, but instead simply referring to civilian deaths. While technically true (I regularly hear of deaths to Palestinian security forces referred to as that) that militants are in most cases civilian (i.e. not members of the security forces), it does misconstrue Israeli intentions as targeting the general public. The BBC does tend to call Israeli assassinations, "targeted killings" in an attempt to be impartial and not assign a value judgment, but needs to clearly distinguish between unintended damage/deaths of the general public, and those of militants. The BBC's reporting in this case isn't factually inaccurate, but through omission tends to show bias.

In my work, I serve a quasijudical function (I determine the metes and bounds of language, my decisions are appealable to the Supreme Court) and I know it is very difficult to be impartial and not have one's own personal beliefs or one's own background influence one's own arguments/viewpoints. The BBC's editors/journalists etc, according to their own report don't necessarily match the demographics of the public, and it is optimistic thinking to believe that ones own experiences/situation, despite best intent otherwise, don't colour commentary/reporting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OY4umBmJHjg
ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_WEZloX2fQ&mode=related&search=

the above is a video interview of former BBC Journalist Robin Aitken discussing the bias within the BBC. The first part deals with a poster of Bush as Hitler in BBC offices and how no one objects to this within the office. if there is no objection within the office, it is reasonable to construe that the same sort of personal feelings will carry over into news coverage. Sure, he has a new book out, and one could accuse him of trying to promote it, but after 25 years working there, he should have an understanding of the insider culture. One should also note why 41% of their recrutiment advertising budget went was spent at the Guardian in 2004 (the next highest amount went to "the western mail"). Perhaps they have the best journalists or those they wish to recruit predominantly read it, but as indicated by other posters, the british press is quite partisan and wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_guardian) indicates that its audience is left leaning in their voting record.

One should question why the BBC made such an effort to conceal the Balen Report. I'm no conspiracy theorist, but there must be some reason they wish to hide it, which runs counter to any body/government/corporation that accepts public funds. I think we all can admit that transparency is a good thing.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2007, 02:00 PM   #89
HL1978
Dojo: Aunkai
Location: Fairfax, VA
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 429
United_States
Offline
Re: Ah, the liberal BBC

http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs...00/6044090.stm
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2007, 03:41 PM   #90
TAnderson
Location: Arlington, VA
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 25
United_States
Offline
Re: Ah, the liberal BBC

FYI...
Scott Norvell London bureau chief for Fox News
The Wall Street Journal May 20 regarding left-wing bias at the BBC

"Even we at Fox News manage to get some lefties on the air occasionally, and often let them finish their sentences before we club them to death and feed the scraps to Karl Rove and Bill O'Reilly. And those who hate us can take solace in the fact that they aren't subsidizing Bill's bombast; we payers of the BBC license fee don't enjoy that peace of mind.

Fox News is, after all, a private channel and our presenters are quite open about where they stand on particular stories. That's our appeal. People watch us because they know what they are getting. The Beeb's institutionalized leftism would be easier to tolerate if the corporation was a little more honest about it."

Regards,
Tim Anderson
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2007, 04:48 PM   #91
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
"bias" does not = "Liberal" bias

Hello Hunter,

Quote:
Hunter Lonsberry wrote: View Post
The BBC has quite a few reasons to not admit any bias, and to take as many steps as possible to try and prevent bias.
So far, tho: you have yet to show that there is an overt, "Liberal" bias. The study you quoted earlier, in fact, suggests there is too strong an attempt to push for the "Center" ground.

Quote:
I could only wish NPR did the same. I think we can all agree, that in general, the politics of the UK are to the left of the US. Does that political stance effect coverage of the US by the BBC? Is the BBC itself left of those in the UK which pay its fee?
This is the central question.

Quote:
The questions raised in their own study seems to support the second.
Going by your own references to the study (as I cannot get the link to work), again...you have yet to prove this.

Quote:
Hunter L wrote:
It notes that holding a centrist viewpoint is the wrong position for a number of reasons, but it is better instead to provide more coverage of both sides of a given topic, but not necessacrily equal coverage. They also noted that it is not the BBC's role to close down debate. As Mike indicated, the Palestininan/Israeli conflict does not receive equal attention, nor does it often cover the Israeli civilian viewpoint as often as the Palestinian.
A position I hotly contend,,,but I failed to bother debating with Mike
months ago with the expectation of getting any sort of acknowledgement of reality.

Quote:
It notes throughout the report that the BBC is late to the party on a number of issues, does not have experience in a wider variety of viewpoints which certainly reflects (and explicitly admitted by a number of current and former BBC employees within the report) journalists not in touch with public opinion, nor all sides of various stories. The editors quite explicitly say that the audience doesn't feel that all viewpoints are shown. Further that editors should be prepared to fight with program producers to include viewpoints outside the liberal consensus.
None of these "admissions" (again, I wish I could see the document) admit to a "Liberal" bias (Mike's main claim): only being out of touch with their audience.

Quote:
The BBC like NPR, predominatly shows bias through ommission and story/viewpoint selection.
But Hunter: this is true of ALL news media. ALL media have a bias.

Quote:
This is more than merely trying to use certain terms to attempt to appear impartial and clearly different than putting news that advocates a certain political agenda on the last page of a newspaper etc.
You're right...but it's not been shown to be "Liberal."

Quote:
The BBC's reporting in this case isn't factually inaccurate, but through omission tends to show bias.
No, I don't think so. There are good arguments by both pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian pundits that take issue with the BBC's "bias." Neither side is happy with their terms (not calling innocents "martyrs;" whether a "crossfire," is/is not a crossfire, et al).

Quote:
The first part deals with a poster of Bush as Hitler in BBC offices and how no one objects to this within the office. if there is no objection within the office, it is reasonable to construe that the same sort of personal feelings will carry over into news coverage.
Sorry, but this is not "reasonable," at all. Do Republican police officers only enforce the laws that they like? Please. I have yet to see any evidence that political beliefs or voting records are an accurate indice of political bias.

Now, if you were able to show some political involvement on a career-level in some cause or other, or even some high-level connection to a political party, Communists or Name-your-evil-Lefty-group (to take an example: Roger Ailes, president of Fox)

Quote:
wiki wrote:
Roger Eugene Ailes (born May 15, 1940) is the president of Fox News Channel and chairman of the Fox Television Stations Group. He was a media consultant for Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George H. W. Bush, as well as for presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani's first mayoral campaign in 1989.
...well, THEN, I'd say you have a first step in uncovering some sort of bias. But it's a real stretch to show bias from an unobjected office-poster!

Quote:
Sure, he has a new book out, and one could accuse him of trying to promote it, but after 25 years working there, he should have an understanding of the insider culture.
You just shot your own argument in the foot. The guy has an axe to grind.

Have you ever noticed how the most compelling arguments for "Liberal bias" all come from disgruntled writers trying to push a book?

Quote:
One should also note why 41% of their recrutiment advertising budget went was spent at the Guardian in 2004 (the next highest amount went to "the western mail"). Perhaps they have the best journalists
What percentage was the "Western Mail?" If it was something close, like 38%...then I'd say your findings aren't very rigorous...esp since the Western Mail is the (I assume) "Liberally unbiased" main paper of Wales...not exactly a hotbed of ultra-Liberalism.

You also fail to consider another possibility. Perhaps HR/editors at the BBC had ANOTHER reason (owed favors to someone there; wrote to old colleagues at the Guardian; some unique HR recruitment-drive; etc). In short, Hunter: I think you're "reading" (ouch...pun ) too much bias in where they spend the budget.

Quote:
or those they wish to recruit predominantly read it, but as indicated by other posters, the british press is quite partisan and wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_guardian) indicates that its audience is left leaning in their voting record.
Then, this is hardly "biased," is it? For an agency to possess some political bias: it needs to hold views to the Left or the Right of their public.

Quote:
One should question why the BBC made such an effort to conceal the Balen Report. I'm no conspiracy theorist, but there must be some reason they wish to hide it, which runs counter to any body/government/corporation that accepts public funds. I think we all can admit that transparency is a good thing.
Yes, it is. Liberal pundits (Noam Chomsky, etc) have ALSO opined that the Report was withheld because it would reveal the pro-Israel bias. So there you go.

Quote:
TAnderson wrote:
Fox News is, after all, a private channel
Oh yah, that's why I always trust FoxNews...it's because they're a "private channel:" free from political interference ( from everyone, but their owner's).

OUtfoxed
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2007, 07:46 PM   #92
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: "bias" does not = "Liberal" bias

Quote:
Neil Mick wrote: View Post
A position I hotly contend,,,but I failed to bother debating with Mike
months ago with the expectation of getting any sort of acknowledgement of reality.
Neil, you wouldn't recognize
Reality if it introduced itself, showed a valid driver's license, and gave you a business card.

Did I ever tell you about the workshop I did in Pacific Grove where a bunch of "Santa Cruzans" showed up? Remind me sometime. Santa Cruz and "reality" are in different dimensional planes, if you believe the Superstring theory and multi-dimensional analysis.

Regards,

Mike
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2007, 08:42 PM   #93
Mark Gibbons
Location: Seattle, WA
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 177
United_States
Offline
Re: "bias" does not = "Liberal" bias

Quote:
Neil Mick wrote: View Post
.....

Then, this is hardly "biased," is it? For an agency to possess some political bias: it needs to hold views to the Left or the Right of their public.

[/url]
Since, my opinion, people divide up into some horribly complex topology, instead of a line, left and right are really pretty meaningless political concepts. I don't think it makes any difference what the public's views are to decide if an agency is impartial or not and I certainly don't agree with the condition you state above. The definitions I've found for bias make it the opposite of impartial. Which to me implies some reliance on reporting their best guess as to the truth. Not their readers preferred version of the truth. I think the BBC does a very good job at impartial reporting. It sounds like they irritate everyone, which is as good a measurement of impartial as I can imagine.

Mark
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2007, 10:23 PM   #94
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Re: "bias" does not = "Liberal" bias

Quote:
Mark Gibbons wrote: View Post
Since, my opinion, people divide up into some horribly complex topology, instead of a line, left and right are really pretty meaningless political concepts.
In practice and theory, I agree with you. However, the eternal bugaboo of "Liberal media bias" rears its ugly, nonexistant head, again.

Quote:
I don't think it makes any difference what the public's views are to decide if an agency is impartial or not and I certainly don't agree with the condition you state above.
"Impartiality" is a myth. There is no such animal in the media.

Quote:
The definitions I've found for bias make it the opposite of impartial. Which to me implies some reliance on reporting their best guess as to the truth.
But, by this reasoning: many reporters at FoxNews are impartial, because they sincerely believe that they are reporting their best guess of the truth.

Quote:
Not their readers preferred version of the truth.
It's not about the "preferred version." A supposed bias in a media implies that said media outlet has, as an organization, a supposed slant (Left, Right, or Center) that is not in step with the majority of its viewers.

Quote:
the BBC does a very good job at impartial reporting. It sounds like they irritate everyone, which is as good a measurement of impartial as I can imagine.

Mark
I'm just trying to establish some sort of measurement for what constitutes political bias. I think that Hunter is reading a little too much into the report and is construing it to signify that the BBC has a Liberal bias.

I agree with you that the BBC does a pretty good job (altho, as I have said earlier: they tend to tow the "main," government-approved line a bit much...cf, coverage of Haiti).
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2007, 08:03 PM   #95
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: "bias" does not = "Liberal" bias

Quote:
Mark Gibbons wrote: View Post
Since, my opinion, people divide up into some horribly complex topology, instead of a line, left and right are really pretty meaningless political concepts.
"Conservative" tends to mean maintaining traditional approaches with change being viewed under a critical lens. For instance, the reason I often use the example of World War II is because it is a non-recent event but one which is still fresh in memory and history. The "conservative" side wanted to react to a perceived threat with a response (military) which had traditionally proved to be the most effect means to deter/stop aggression. The "liberal" side wanted to negotiate and use diplomacy. The problem is that in history, both diplomacy and physical action have at times proved effect. It becomes a judgement call who is right. In this case, the liberal elements won the toss, but their solution wound up costing worldwide around 50 million lives. The question becomes "who is correct?".

The conservative side tends to cherish hard-work ethics, meritocracy, physical deterrence, and so on. The liberal side prefers a judgemental approach that abjures "tradition". Can you pick which is liberal or conservative? Of course you can. The relativistic idea that no one can spot right or wrong, conservative or liberal, etc., is simply wrong.... it's fairly easy to do. The BBC happens to unfailingly support the "liberal" side of arguments. The idea the no one can judge who is liberal or conservative, or who is right or wrong, or what is a crime and what is not a crime, is another of the vague veilings of traditional judgement... i.e., it's a liberal position.

Regards,

Mike Sigman
  Reply With Quote

Please visit our sponsor:

AikiWeb Sponsored Links - Place your Aikido link here for only $10!



Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"The liberal arts throw it down in Aikido" AikiWeb System AikiWeb System 5 04-27-2007 11:55 AM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:24 AM.



vBulletin Copyright © 2000-2018 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
----------
Copyright 1997-2018 AikiWeb and its Authors, All Rights Reserved.
----------
For questions and comments about this website:
Send E-mail
plainlaid-picaresque outchasing-protistan explicantia-altarage seaford-stellionate