Does anyone else here write, or try to write comments on CBC's website?
If you do, have you ever faced censorship for no good reason?
I've been censored for no good reason many times now and I wonder
if there is any recourse to this?
There doesn't seem to be any.
Thoughts?
CBC News Dept is one of the biggest con Jobs ever perpetuated on Canadian society
Canadians think because it is the CBC that they don't have a political agenda
The CBC news Dept has one overriding mission in life and that is to promote the liberal party of Canada
who knew!
... The CBC news Dept has one overriding mission in life and that is to promote the liberal party of Canada who knew!
This goes far beyond their Liberal party bent.
I will show you my latest post that was censored.
It was screened and accepted by the first moderator. It lasted for approximately 30 minutes and garnered 7 likes before a second moderator decided to censor it.
This is the link to the article and my comment follows.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/goodale-security-terrorism-1.4146267
"I would like to see the CBC give the same coverage and compassion
when terrorism strikes a Muslim nation and innocent lives are taken.
Like what happened in Kabul last week.
One headline just isn't good enough. More stories please, like what's happening now with the London attack!"
I have had this experience ferquently. I made many complaints and received terrible answers.
This is not about supporting the Liberals. In fact some of the oddest things are the comments that go through that are clearly very rightwing racist and sexist rants. Those who object to or try to correct them will get censored. I see anti immigrant posts frequently but any rational response is censored.
I understand that the CBC contracts this out. when pushed they claim not to have a big enough budget to be accountable.
The ombudsperson's office says they ahve no jurisdiction. Racist comments cannot be fought if you do not have a person who is of the target group who is aggrieved.
There are no standards followed and the ones published do not explain the actions. Some censors have a very decided Conservative or right wing slant.
Well, this isn't exactly on topic, but I don't want to start a new thread just for this item, so close enough. I just read a blog post, which pointed me to an article in The National Post. In a reversal of expected form, it seems that the Post is pointing out a case in which the CBC is about to give a nice boost to white supremacists in Canada.
CBC’s science show The Nature of Things is set to air a documentary that purports to prove the first humans in the New World came across the ocean from Europe and not, as most scientists think, via a land bridge from Asia.
A geneticist of ancient humans calls it “extremely irresponsible” to promote this theory, not just because it is widely rejected and unsupported by evidence, but also because it is a favourite piece of propaganda among white supremacists, who use it to argue Europeans colonized North America before Native Americans, and therefore have the original claim to the land.
A geneticist of ancient humans calls it “extremely irresponsible” to promote this theory, not just because it is widely rejected and unsupported by evidence, but also because it is a favourite piece of propaganda among white supremacists
The first part of that is informed by science, and scientific process ("because it is widely rejected and unsupported by evidence").
The second part ("because it is a favourite piece of propaganda among white supremacists") really shouldn't be part of what makes or breaks science.
And then this ("who use it to argue Europeans colonized North America before Native Americans, and therefore have the original claim to the land.") just makes no sense at all. The far more established theory is that Asians from what is now Siberia crossed over into North America via the Bering land bridge. Did white supremacists previously agree that therefore Asians -- later, Russians!!! -- have the original claim to the land?? Why would it be somehow different if the first arrivals were from part of Spain and France? Whether it was "Asians" or "Europeans", it surely happened well before there was a geopolitical "Asia" or "Europe".
ed'd to add: and perhaps most important: neither theory really changes who the Indigenous peoples of the Americas are. They're not Asians, and they're not Spanish.
I'm interested to see how they handle this. When approaching science controversy in a doc, you can hold a weak theory to a critical light. We don't know at this point whether the doc will say "This is the truth" or "this is a theory, and there are better theories out there". Until you actually see the doc, you can't say it's wrong in its assessment of the material.
I did one on a medical treatment that was controversial and has since been disproven. On the face of it, I'm sure some people - especially in the medical community - we pretty salty we were looking at it at all. But in the end, the doc was really more about who should dictate allocation of research funding - popular opinion or medical opinion. Further, how medical researchers need to listen, to some degree, to their patients. We never endorsed the treatment one way or the other because the science wasn't complete.
So tl:dr -- I'd watch the film before judging it.
I have had this experience ferquently. I made many complaints and received terrible answers.
This is not about supporting the Liberals. In fact some of the oddest things are the comments that go through that are clearly very rightwing racist and sexist rants. Those who object to or try to correct them will get censored. I see anti immigrant posts frequently but any rational response is censored.
I understand that the CBC contracts this out. when pushed they claim not to have a big enough budget to be accountable.
The ombudsperson's office says they ahve no jurisdiction. Racist comments cannot be fought if you do not have a person who is of the target group who is aggrieved.
There are no standards followed and the ones published do not explain the actions. Some censors have a very decided Conservative or right wing slant.
I agree completely. This isn't a Liberal conspiracy. Reading the CBC comment section (which I long stopped doing) makes me think there's a blatant conservative slant.
I don't know if it's the CBC itself or their moderators. But whose in charge of hiring moderators? The CBC.
It's state TV. It's supposed to be politically neutral. It isn't. If it were CTV or the National Post,etc.. I would accept their slant with a huge puddle of puke in my mouth. They are private outlets as far as I know.
I think everyone here should write the CBC obudsman and point out the shitty job their comment moderators are doing.
So tl:dr -- I'd watch the film before judging it.
You can watch it online at CBC.ca. I haven't yet, but I expect I probably will.
Both CBC and Freeland know most Canucklheads won't cross-check, verify or notice the censoring, dissembling and lies in this story...
Canada, US Looking For Diplomatic End To North Korea Crisis At Vancouver Summit
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/north-korea-summit-vancouver-1.4488338
"...There is skepticism about what can be achieved at this summit, given the players that will not be at the table. Neither China nor Russia will attend. 'We've invited both of them to the meeting, and if they choose at the last minute to come, we would be grateful to see them there,' Freeland said. 'We're also looking forward after the meeting to Briefing both China and Russia about our conclusions and bringing them into the conversation,' she added..."
US, Canada Host World Summit on N Korea...But Russia and China Will Only Be Briefed On Results
"There are 18 countries in the 'Vancouver group' besides the US and Canada, including Denmark, Greece, Norway ,New Zealand and others. The two major players - China and Russia - who are the immediate neighbors of North Korea and are definitely not keen at the prospect of a nuclear conflict on their borders, were not invited to the gathering for some reason...
The meeting, without the major mediators in the North Korean crisis 'will only create divisions within the international community and harm joint efforts to appropriately resolve the Korean peninsula nuclear issue' said China's Foreign Ministry spokesman..."
So tl:dr -- I'd watch the film before judging it.You can watch it online at CBC.ca. I haven't yet, but I expect I probably will.
Thanks for the link. I did watch it, and wasn't favourably impressed. First, this is clearly fringe science, and the narration said as much several times. However, I would estimate that less than 5 minutes was spent actually discussing the scientific evidence. The bulk of the show consisted of dramatic re-enactments of what the producers imagine this europe to north america migration might have looked like at the time. The second most time was spent portraying the 2 scientists who are behind the hypothesis as bold iconoclasts, opposing the stodgy old scientific establishment.
As to the actual evidence for this conjecture, I could only find 2 items. First, some small number of flint blades, of a particular shape and method of fabrication were apparently found on a beach in Chesapeake Bay. Their placement in the layers of sediment would seem to indicate an origin somewhere around 20,000 years ago. These artifacts are very similar to those crafted in europe by a group known as Solutreans.
The other is the finding of a specific genetic marker that seems to originate in europe in several teeth of native americans from Ontario who lived before the european invasion. No detail at all was given about the argument here, except that the majority of geneticists seem to find it unconvincing.
The story also followed the progress of an actual, rigorous archaeological dig at or near the site where the stone artifacts were found. They had hoped to locate stronger evidence of humans being present 20,000 years ago, such as more stone artifacts, bones of animals butchered by humans, and fire pits. The only things they actually found were a few small pieces of charcoal, which were carbon dated to about the right time, but could have come from natural fires, rather than human caused.
At the very end, one of the heroes of the piece was shown, on the last day of the dig, walking along the beach with another lovely stone artifact, very similar to the others shown earlier, but fashioned from the local white stone. As far as I recall, no mention was made of where it had been discovered, but it was clearly not in the formal dig area.
Generally speaking, I found the show not bad as entertainment, but quite poor as science reporting. If it will in fact be used as propaganda by white supremacists, then I think it is unfortunate that it was made.
If it will in fact be used as propaganda by white supremacists, then I think it is unfortunate that it was made.
Well, if it's the thin soup you say it is then it won't be particularly good propaganda, either. Sure, white supremacists might "Whoop whoop" over it, but they were convinced of their righteousness long ago.
And I do still wonder what the white supremacists would even have to crow about. A primitive people from Spain -- surely neither blonde nor blue-eyed -- arrived before the primitive people from Siberia, who were also surely neither blonde nor blue eyed? Therefore... what?
There's also that hypothesis that pre-contact South America was settled by Pacific Islanders who came over on boats. It seems like some people just seem to find the Bering Strait theory so boring and in need of jazzing up with fanciful migrations.
I do agree that the thoughts and actions of white supremacists don't really depend on how much popularization is allocated to a particular crank theory. They might include the theory in their revolving-door repertoire of justifications for what they believe, but even without the theory, they'll just latch onto something else.
Even the "Creation Science" crowd now admit that dinosaur footprints weren't found alongside human footprints in wherever that was. Hasn't led to the death of Creation Science.
