PDA

View Full Version : CBC Censorship



06-06-2009, 09:35 PM
I think the brutal "random" killing of two people by two teenagers on an acerage while going about their daily business is serious news. I see that for some unknown reason, CBC has pulled the plug on comments. Is this to protect the underage killers or for what other reason?

Link http://www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonton/story/2009/06/05/edmonton-victims-remembered.html

Yet another example of our legal system protecting the killers and not wanting society to express our views on how inadequate our judicial system is.

CBC has gone too far, this is Canada, not China or Russia. Perhaps now it is clear that Canada is a dictatorship, your views....

bulliver
06-06-2009, 11:31 PM
I can imagine several scenarios where they might want to pull the comments. What makes you think this is censorship rather than say, respect for the victims? Perhaps the comments were just plain offensive. Perhaps as you alluded to, they were pulled because someone named the defendants. Seems to me CBC could get in a lot of trouble if the names were left for all to read...

Green Grovenor
07-06-2009, 08:29 AM
If readers were leaving comments that identify the suspects, both under 18, the media outlet would be required to remove that information.

However, asserting that the "legal system" is impeding a debate "on how inadequate our judicial system is" does not strike me as an accurate statement. Naming the suspect in this particular case is not a precondition for a debate.

When adolescents allegedly kill senior citizens, the crime is utterly horrible, and sometime rehabilitation is not a realistic goal. The best society can do, in some cases, is isolate killers behind big walls to ensure they never murder again.

But for all the talk in the media about crimes committed by children against adults, I am most sad and angry when I hear about adults hurting kids -- particularly sexual abuse and murder.

Yes, murder is murder, but an adult killing a child descends to another level of evil.

Scarma
07-06-2009, 03:00 PM
I think the brutal "random" killing of two people by two teenagers on an acerage while going about their daily business is serious news. I see that for some unknown reason, CBC has pulled the plug on comments. Is this to protect the underage killers or for what other reason?

Link http://www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonton/story/2009/06/05/edmonton-victims-remembered.html

Yet another example of our legal system protecting the killers and not wanting society to express our views on how inadequate our judicial system is.

CBC has gone too far, this is Canada, not China or Russia. Perhaps now it is clear that Canada is a dictatorship, your views....

Hate to say it, but your accusation is baseless. Here is the fact - one news site is not opening one of their stories up for public comment. You seem to believe that this is because the court system of preventing public discussion on this crime. Guess they should be shutting this site down pretty soon, as well as the letters page of the Journal and probably the Sun, among many other media outlets that are posting public comments regarding this crime.

I don't follow the CBC site as much, but the Edmonton Journal and National Post routinely "disallow" comments on news stories (not opinion pieces) regarding crimes, especially violent ones that end in fatalities. And in any case, these sites have no obligation to allow public comments to be posted, regarding any news story they so choose. It may be called private censorship, but I doubt the government is involved at all. And the fact that the CBC is a crown corporation has nothing to do with it.

North Guy66
07-06-2009, 04:35 PM
A lot of times news sites do not allow comments on sensitive subjects such as abortion or religion (just check how heated the discussions are in C2E when the topic is about the Middle East). It usually degenerates into hatred.

As mentioned above, the media cannot allow the identification of minors (victims or culprits). Also, whether minors are involved or not, if a case is before the courts the media cannot disclose rumours that may jeopardize the investigation or a fair trial.

People should really get a basic understanding on how the media operates before jumping to conspiracy theories.


p.s...If you notice on the CBC Edmonton page, comments are also not allowed on the trail of the Wetaskiwin woman who killed her newborn baby. Is the CBC protecting the baby killer too???

Dusty Bear
08-06-2009, 08:27 AM
Susan, take a deep breath and calm down.

There is no "unknown reason." Under Canadian law, underage offenders cannot be identified (unless a judge otherwise decides to release their names). CBC would be legally liable and could be found in contempt of court if it allowed the names to remain.

Furthermore, there is no "right" to post comments on a media website. News media allow readers to post as a privilege (just like letters to the editor). If a post runs afoul of their commenting rules or the law, don't be surprised if it's removed.

There's no grand conspiracy to silence people here.

raz0469
08-06-2009, 11:00 AM
Yet another example of our legal system protecting the killers and not wanting society to express our views on how inadequate our judicial system is.

CBC has gone too far, this is Canada, not China or Russia. Perhaps now it is clear that Canada is a dictatorship, your views....

I find that people are more receptive to listening to your viewpoint if it's well reasoned, based on logic and presented in a neutral way. Unfortunately none of that applies to your comment. The CBC, for one, has absolutely nothing to do with the "legal system."

And comparing our country to ones that either don't have independent media, or where the independent media is frequently being murdered, is just downright offensive.

In short, my view is that you're completely out to lunch.

What most likely happened is that the kids were identified, or some very heated arguments got started. Personally, given the distasteful result of combining complete anonymity with a giant online soap box, I'm frequently surprised that media outlets and other websites even allow commenting/posting on them.

armin
26-07-2009, 01:49 PM
CBC's censorship is pretty obvious.
They cut alot of people's comments and disallow commenting on certain stories, particlularily the ones they know there'll be alot of fallout.

Dusty Bear, I disagree with you. It's anyones right to post on a public owned website. If it was on a private website such as C2E or Canada.com which is Canwest's portal, then yes, you can be censored.
CBC is public so any type of censorship should only be based on the requirements in their sign up agreement.

David Staples' stories in the journal the last few weeks made me pretty angry at the RCMP for their Mr.Big scam. There's actually a movie called Mr.Big that came out last year that talks about a few of the cases they've used and how it's considered entrapment. When the 2 guys were sentenced, CBC cut out all comments on their website.

Same with a story last week on children living on the streets in Edmonton. No comments allowed. Susan is right. This is a common thing that happens. I don't think it's a grand conspiracy or anything like that, but I do think it's something they should stop doing. Public opinion is very important.

Forums and newsportal message boards are kind of like a virtual public square. When you're being deprived that right to free speech, it's pretty much like being ball-gagged gimp style.

Tiran
26-07-2009, 09:00 PM
Have you actually read the comment section on some of the CBC articles? They can deteriorate into pointless namecalling, personal attacks, dead horse beating, tinfoil hats, and irrelevant postings faster than any other site I have read. And criminal cases, followed by social issues (and the worst, combining the two, issues like youth crime) go down faster than Harper's approval rating on a survey in a gay bar.

Public opinion is very important, but I think the CBC comment sections are a perfect example of this internet law. NSFW depending on your tolerance for the f word. http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19/

armin
26-07-2009, 11:08 PM
Have you actually read the comment section on some of the CBC articles? They can deteriorate into pointless namecalling, personal attacks, dead horse beating, tinfoil hats, and irrelevant postings faster than any other site I have read. And criminal cases, followed by social issues (and the worst, combining the two, issues like youth crime) go down faster than Harper's approval rating on a survey in a gay bar.

Public opinion is very important, but I think the CBC comment sections are a perfect example of this internet law. NSFW depending on your tolerance for the f word. http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19/

Yes, and that's what makes the internet fun.
Besides, that's the point of free speech. People should be allowed to speak their minds, even if it's outlandish.

If someone chose to delete your post because they had a problem with your argument, wouldn't you be upset? You took your time to formulate your response, even digging up a link. It shows you took some time to put together what you wanted to say. Unfortunately a moderator doesn't like penny-arcade so decides to trash it immediately.

You can't say that wouldn't irk you somewhat.

Jimbo
27-07-2009, 07:27 AM
Have you actually read the comment section on some of the CBC articles? They can deteriorate into pointless namecalling, personal attacks, dead horse beating, tinfoil hats, and irrelevant postings faster than any other site I have read. And criminal cases, followed by social issues (and the worst, combining the two, issues like youth crime) go down faster than Harper's approval rating on a survey in a gay bar.

Public opinion is very important, but I think the CBC comment sections are a perfect example of this internet law. NSFW depending on your tolerance for the f word. http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19/

+1

Sometimes it can be quite depressing to read the comments. Truly idiotic responses are to be expected I suppose, but when idiocy is outstripping logic 10 to 1, it's just sad. It's like being witness to the death of reason.

Tiran
27-07-2009, 08:47 AM
Have you actually read the comment section on some of the CBC articles? They can deteriorate into pointless namecalling, personal attacks, dead horse beating, tinfoil hats, and irrelevant postings faster than any other site I have read. And criminal cases, followed by social issues (and the worst, combining the two, issues like youth crime) go down faster than Harper's approval rating on a survey in a gay bar.

Public opinion is very important, but I think the CBC comment sections are a perfect example of this internet law. NSFW depending on your tolerance for the f word. http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19/

Yes, and that's what makes the internet fun.
Besides, that's the point of free speech. People should be allowed to speak their minds, even if it's outlandish.

If someone chose to delete your post because they had a problem with your argument, wouldn't you be upset? You took your time to formulate your response, even digging up a link. It shows you took some time to put together what you wanted to say. Unfortunately a moderator doesn't like penny-arcade so decides to trash it immediately.

You can't say that wouldn't irk you somewhat.

They can speak their mind. But no website is obligated to post/host it. Not even a public broadcaster like CBC. Neither are they obligated to air every piece of trash that comes their way (arguments about the quality/bias of what they produce is not relevant to this discussion.) just like newspapers aren't obligated to publish anything they receive (even if the Alberta gov't would like them to. ;) ok cheap shot, that was almost a 100 years ago.)

And I took time to formulate a response. Most responderes on CBC don't take any time. Most of the responses fall under: Gays are destroying our country, Conservatives are destroying our country, Liberals are evil, Conservatives are evil, Liberals are destroying our country, Ontario/Toronto sucks, Ontario/Toronto is the best, everyone but me is a deranged hick, its all a conspiracy by (choose your bad guy, hippies or big business being the most popular) and maybe 5% rational (only about 3% relevant) responses.

Would it annoy me? Probably a bit. But I am not paying for the service, so what ever. If I really cared I could start my own blog or even forums. The software is out there, cheap or free, and hosting isn't that expensive to start.

armin
27-07-2009, 11:46 AM
Tiran, you do pay for CBC. We all do.
I could start my own blog or forum too but that's not the point.
The point is that particular site is publicly owned and censors completely relevent comments that may or may not be part of public debate.

Even if it's something stupid, if it doesn't break their terms of service, then they shouldn't be blocking it. I don't care what people write. They could be the biggest trolls, but as long as they don't break the basic rules, then there shouldn't be any type of censorship.

You don't know who the moderators are. Maybe one is biased towards one opinion and starts cutting out opinions that they think harm their perspective.
Who watches the watchmen?

Tiran
27-07-2009, 12:11 PM
Yep, we all pay for it. The TV and radio as well. But they are not obligated to broadcast everything called or sent into them, so why is the website? It is not part of their mandate. Although it maybe part of the websites mandate. If it is can you show me where it say it is? Just because you think anyone should be able to post on a publically funded site doesn't mean there are not restrictions and regulations.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I took pulling the plug to mean removing all existing comments and disabling the comment feature for a particular article. I have never seen a comment removed that was not a violation of TOS. I am sure there are people that can claim otherwise, but people claim the same thing here. And I have participated in some rather heated discussions there.

Not allowing comments is not the same as censorship.

raz0469
27-07-2009, 12:31 PM
I was going to say, would it be okay if CBC just didn't allow any commenting at all? Or are they outright required to provide a public forum for any ***** to post their drivel on?

armin
27-07-2009, 01:58 PM
I was going to say, would it be okay if CBC just didn't allow any commenting at all? Or are they outright required to provide a public forum for any ***** to post their drivel on?

No.
They have it set up, so yes they are required to abide to their own rules.
Any ***** can post on there because they provide the venue.
If you're a Canadian, it's your right to do so.

I've been censored on there before so yes, it ticks me off. I've seen it firsthand and read other commenters saying the same thing.

Tiran, how can you say you've never seen a comment removed?
If a comment goes missing a little message says it was removed but the actual comment isn't there. How do you know what the post contained if it's missing?

I'm mostly talking about the comments that never show up. 2nd attempt posting is a common phrase there. The only guidelines are no profanity and no personal attacks. Even the profanity one is a slight issue but I'll let that slip for the sake of the children. If posts are removed because of anything other reasons then one has to wonder if the moderators are being biased or not.

raz0469
27-07-2009, 04:08 PM
No.
They have it set up, so yes they are required to abide to their own rules.
Any ***** can post on there because they provide the venue.
If you're a Canadian, it's your right to do so.

Maybe I wasn't clear, but I was saying that if CBC were to remove commenting altogether from the website (it's only been there for a couple years, if memory serves), would you also consider that an assault on free speech?

In other words, do you think that the CBC is obligated to provide the ability for people to comment on stories?

Tiran
27-07-2009, 05:05 PM
[Sarcasm] I have frequently not had my posts show up on the Journal site. And on C2E. And Canadiangeek. OMG! My right to express my self is being violated!! It is a giant conservative conspiracy, and it is targeting me because I don't like Harper!!! [end sarcasm]

Second attempt doesn't mean censorship, it can mean technical issues. I have had that issue, not just on CBC (even on C2E, imagine that), where I have to retype my whole post again. The horror.

I said I have never seen one that wasn't removed that wasn't TOSsed. In a few cases I read it before it was tossed. In other cases, I am willing to accept the mods desicion since in my experience they are are pretty fair, but I might have a thicker skin than some. I don't comment (or even read the comments ) much at CBC any more because its pretty pointless. When I do it has usually been on more contraversial topics, like anything gay/lesbian. I never saw a comment removed that wasn't a personal attack or promoting (usually with obscene language) hatred (and my bar for that is set a lot lower than many I suspect.)

Besides. Not allowing, or even removing posts from a public that isn't obligated to host them isn't censorship. You have said they are obligated because it is set up, and that it is "your right" but you have not shown that with the TOS. Here is the plain language version is it helps. http://www.cbc.ca/aboutcbc/discover/submissions.html

What is and isn’t acceptable?
1. Please keep your submissions relevant to the topic.
2. Be civil.
3. When you are writing about legal issues, remember that people are innocent until proven guilty (that may mean using words such as "allegedly").
4. Feel free to link internally within the CBC.ca site as many times as you would like. As for external web addresses, we allow three links per post.
Always avoid:
1. Lengthy excerpts from other posts. We want to hear your own opinion.
2. Racist, sexist and offensive language.
3. Personal attacks and defamatory statements.
4. Breaking copyright rules (that includes copying and pasting excerpts from other sites without permission and attribution).
5. Violating someone’s privacy.
6. Threats or suggesting committing a criminal act.
7. Insensitive comments regarding the death or injury of private individuals, especially children.
8. Posting your message in all CAPS (this makes it difficult to read and in online speak is considered yelling).
9. Posting press releases and commercial promotions.
Also:
1. Pornography or sexually explicit content.
2. Anything illegal.
3. Hate speech.
4. Threats, harassment.

And of course "CBC/Radio Canada may refuse to post any Submission to the Web site. CBC/Radio Canada reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to edit or remove any Submission, whether or not the Submission is in violation of the provisions hereof or otherwise objectionable."

I checked the mandate as well.
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, as the national public broadcaster, should provide radio and television services incorporating a wide range of programming that informs, enlightens and entertains.

The programming provided by the Corporation should:
I. be predominantly and distinctively Canadian,
II. reflect Canada and its regions to national and regional audiences, while serving the special needs of those regions,
III. actively contribute to the flow and exchange of cultural expression,
IV. be in English and in French, reflecting the different needs and circumstances of each official language community, including the particular needs and circumstances of English and French linguistic minorities,
V. strive to be of equivalent quality in English and French,
VI. contribute to shared national consciousness and identity,
VII. be made available throughout Canada by the most appropriate and efficient means and as resources become available for the purpose, and
VIII. reflect the multicultural and multiracial nature of Canada.
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/B-9.01//20090727/en?command=search&caller=SI&search_type=all&shorttitle=broadcasting%20act&day=27&month=7&year=2009&search_domain=cs&showall=L&statuteyear=all&lengthannual=50&length=50

Still no mention of an obligation to allow comments. Hell they aren't even obligated to have a website. Pretty sure a Canadians right to post on the CBC site isn’t in the Charter either.

I will worry about it really being censorship when you go missing in the night over something you posted.

armin
27-07-2009, 06:12 PM
^
The obligation is that it's already in the public domain. They built it, it exists, it's ours. If they removed comments now then they'd lose a huge base. I'm pretty sure Harper wouldn't be too upset by that.

The difference between the Journal's site and CBC is that they are within their rights to censor you since it's a private site.

It's funny, that list of terms is rather...contradictory to free speech in this country.
That's more what I'm interested in is how new media will evolve to include public opinion. I've been on the internet for a long time now. These little rules the major outlets push on people isn't going to help them when their stories get put onto Digg where thousands more people can openly criticize, argue, debate, make fun of...all without the Big Brotherish oversight and intervention.

Tiran
27-07-2009, 09:05 PM
Actually it is theirs. Just because they are a Crown Corporation doesn't mean they can't own things, or that they are obligated to make them open. Outside restrictions placed on them by Acts of Gov't that created them, they are no different from other corporations. If they were to fail the material would belong to the gov't as the major share holder, but they are a private corporation. Just like Epcor.

But DIGG doesnt produce the stories. Most of the new media doesn't actually produce a lot of content, at least in terms of news. Especially not that is held to any kind of minimum standard. The that is a seperate new media discussion that is not relevant to this.

armin
27-07-2009, 09:21 PM
^
Actually, New media is completely relevent.
CBC doesn't produce many of their own stories. Neither does the Journal or Sun.
Allied Press and a few other news outlets provide most of the stories and the conglomerates just buy the one article and repost it. They have nothing to do with creating the main content since Allied Press created the actual story.

The whole CRTC issue is about them wanting their cut of the action when they don't actually make anything. It's all funnelled from the same source. I don't know why they compain about Digg and such since every time an article gets linked they see thousands of new hits.

The laws regarding Internet usage haven't been properly formed yet. It's still the wild west.

Tiran
27-07-2009, 10:18 PM
Actually CBC and Canwest and Sun media do have reporters that produce material. The also use AP and CP, which also take stories produced by said outlets.

But who produces the articles is not relevant to a discussion on whether or not CBC is obligated to allow comments on said articles.

Jimbo
27-07-2009, 10:38 PM
I might go to the CBC site for news. I don't need to read the opinions of every kook in Canada. So I usually ignore them. Everything is Stephen Harper's fault. I get it. Even the weather. Especially the weather.

I can ignore "stupid", but it can be disheartening to see just how many dolts there are out there.

Then there's beyond stupid. Some comments I've seen on news sites and blogs are extremely insensitive and hurtful, as if people forget they may be talking about real people at a very vulnerable time, such as during a tragedy. I hope they ban comments in those situations.

Jimbo
27-07-2009, 10:41 PM
^
Actually, New media is completely relevent.
CBC doesn't produce many of their own stories. Neither does the Journal or Sun.
Allied Press and a few other news outlets provide most of the stories and the conglomerates just buy the one article and repost it. They have nothing to do with creating the main content since Allied Press created the actual story.

The whole CRTC issue is about them wanting their cut of the action when they don't actually make anything. It's all funnelled from the same source. I don't know why they compain about Digg and such since every time an article gets linked they see thousands of new hits.

The laws regarding Internet usage haven't been properly formed yet. It's still the wild west.

Allied Press? If you want to debate the relevance and credibility of the media, it might help to get your facts right.

armin
27-07-2009, 11:26 PM
Sorry, Associated Press. Them and the Canadian Press are virtually the same organization since AP owns CP.

I agree CBC is very anti Harper. They're pro liberal and it shows. I think that comes from the outlets being fairly conservative however. As far as negative comments go, it's part of the job.
People are callous and mean, but most of those are reported quickly. If it's justifyable, remove it.

AP is important because of the amount of outlets they cater to. The common technique is to take the press release and depending on how much the editor feels like changing, determines the information that's in the story. Watch this if you want to see some dirt on CP.
http://www.cpac.ca/forms/index.asp?dsp=template&act=view3&pagetype=vod&lang=e&clipID=2317

I agree that's not part of this debate however.

Jimbo
29-07-2009, 01:13 PM
^ We're on the same page regarding The Canadian Press.

And the problems at the CBC go beyond simple bias, from what I've been told. Those who don't adhere to that bias are persona non grata, and usually don't work there for long. But what do I know. I'm from Alberta, and we know how Albertans are generally regarded by the tall foreheads in Toronto CBC.

Tiran
29-07-2009, 01:53 PM
Back to the comments dicussion. This article, not a contentious issue, has generated a huge amount of the kind of garbage comments, fighting and even removal of posts mentioned above. Althought the last few seem to be trying to prove me wrong lol.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/07/28/kory-teneycke.html?ref=rss

armin
29-07-2009, 04:49 PM
^
Agreed Tiran.
But I happen to agree with the poster Brusmit as well. Liberal bias is strong within the CBC moderation ranks and he somewhat proves it. However, the same happens for other media outlets that cater towards the conservative base.

The only difference is that one technically has no say in blocking you, while the other one does. If I want to take cheap shots at Harper or Ignatieff, I don't expect to be censored because some power tripping moderator disagrees with my opinion.

Jimbo, I've heard the same thing about the CBC. But I've also read the same thing about Canwest. Adbusters did a whole feature on it actually. Many journalists and editors either get canned or put into different roles if they dare speak against them.

sundance
05-08-2009, 04:01 PM
As I've stated before I don't disagree with opinions but try to keep it out of the news, try to not report on your biases and report the facts that represent the whole story. I do realize everybody has biases and they will get into the occasional story.

With satellite radio CBC's need for serving remote areas is rapidly decreasing, I'd rather see CBC model themselves more on BBC being more impartial than political.

Canwest at least has one valid factor, they are privately funded if I choose not to listen than by and large my tax dollars aren't supporting them.

North Guy66
17-09-2009, 10:08 AM
Strange that CBC.ca is allowing comments on Rahim Jaffer's arrest but the Globe & Mail is not.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ex-mp-jaffer-facing-drug-dui-charges/article1290361/

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonton/story/2009/09/16/rahim-jaffer-arrest-impaired-cocaine.html

Is this a conspiracy? Does this mean the Globe is protecting a former Conservative MP? Or does it mean the leftist, bleeding heart CBC wants to demonize Jaffer?

Somethings up!

armin
17-09-2009, 02:03 PM
^
I think it's both. CBC catering to the liberals love to allow stories like this while the private consortium of right wing outlets do their best to minimize the angst towards the conservatives. Really, it seems like a well thought out trick to keep people from looking at a middleground option. Whatever happened to integrity in media?

raz0469
17-09-2009, 03:38 PM
Or maybe allowing or disallowing commenting on news stories is fairly arbitrary and it's not surprising that two news outlets have different stances on the same story?

Nah, that's far too simple.

armin
17-09-2009, 03:56 PM
^
You're very right Raz, but that's extremely simplistic.
The internet is not going away, but we have thses silly restrictive rules. Wouldn't it be more sane in the interest of free debate to not censor comments?
It's no wonder media outlets can't compete with sites like digg where articles are posted by people. Even this site allows that, so really, what do we need these outlets for? I think if they want to stay alive, they're going to have to adjust for what people want.

raz0469
17-09-2009, 04:47 PM
That's the lovely thing about the net, there's always someplace to make your voice heard. News organizations are undo zero obligation to provide you with a platform, so you shouldn't expect them to nor accuse them of lacking integrity should they choose not to for particular stories, or at all.

RTA
17-09-2009, 04:58 PM
Exactly, it wasn't that many years ago that the ability to post comments to online news stories was nonexistent. But now we're suddenly entitled to it?