Submitted to CBC’s “feedback” page (synopsis: eff yoo, I’m done)

One of the CBC's thousands of
One of the CBC’s thousands of “moderators” ensures nothing offends their website readers’ fragile little minds.

(Maybe when I have the time, I’ll log back in to my account, copy and paste all my rejected comments—ltb)

http://www.icucmoderation.com/

http://viafoura.com/

I’m done with the C.B.C.

I have left literally thousands of comments on hundreds of news stories. I am sick and tired of expecting a fifty – fifty chance of my comments seeing the light of day. I was always diligent about making sure my remarks conformed to your “community guidelines.” I didn’t make slanderous remarks. I didn’t cuss. I stayed on topic. I rarely even used capital letters. Unless of course I was talking about the CBC. In which case, I wrote it as C.B.C.

At first, it was obvious that my comments were being “disabled” for no other reason than they offended the political sensibilities of your censor. And yes, they are censors. Then I looked into Viafoura. And then I.C.U.C. I learned how I.C.U.C., in particular, was in the business of the “management” of their clients’ reputations on-line.

For comments involving mass-shootings, I would ask what medications the shooter might have been on. I would “talk” about S.S.R.I.s. I would refer to the possibility that the shooter may have been using products which are advertised on evening newscasts in the United States. Such comments, or mere references, were always deleted. I guess I.C.U.C. must count pharmaceutical companies amongst their clients.

Comments about Israel? Citizens of Israel? Members of the financial industry? Oh, you bet. Gone. Expressing my disdain for people who behave like Nazis? “Content disabled.”

Complaining about the manipulation of the stock market, or the over-representation of Goldman Sachs alumni in governments around the world were also magnets for “content disabled.”

Using the words “Peter Mansbridge?” Content disabled.

When somebody would respond to a comment making some reference to my wearing a tin-foil hat (isn’t that a violation of your community guidelines right there?) I would point out how many of the things Big Media talks about now were the domain of “conspiracy kooks” only a year ago. Such responses are routinely blocked.

So somebody can use your comments section to call me a tin-foil hat wearer. But I can’t say that maybe it’s time for the CBC to head down to Austin, Texas and interview Alex Jones. Again. Which you did, by the way.

Mentioning that Pamela Wallen and Mike Duffy used to be CBC employees? As did fellow high-flyers Michaelle Jean and Adrienne Clarkson? Zap! You people are such control freaks that I can’t even mention your former colleagues?

So when a story has 500 or 1,000 comments (or more), what is the actual number? And how many of those comments were “disabled” in order to deceive readers into believing something that isn’t true?

Upon further research, I read a Bloomberg News article about Viafoura and how my comments would end up on some laptop computer in any given far-off country. Whether it would be “approved” is at the whim of some college student in Mexico, the Philippines or Israel.

I would not be as upset if every other news outlet operated in the same way. But they don’t. I will concede that the comments section of the Toronto Sun is well suited to their readership. But the fact is the Globe and Mail and National Post have just as many challenges regarding language, libel, bullying, etc, as you do. But they don’t resort to pre-censoring comments. And they still manage to have lively debates and intelligent discourse. As an aside, I used to participate in the Sun’s comments section, but I became confused over whether I was a right-wing lunatic or a left-tard lieberal so I left them.

I’m not going to waste my time on you people any longer. I went into my PCTools setting and set up cbc.ca as a banned website in my house. While perusing Google news, this will prevent any of us from clicking on one of your stories by mistake. We do not have cable, so we’re not funding you. Of course, you still have a direct – albeit diminishing – pipeline into my paycheque. But hopefully that will change soon.

We don’t have cable so you’re not getting my money that way.

When the next round of cuts is announced, you’d better not count on people like me to rally to your support. At this point, the CBC can rot for all I care. If I can’t even leave a comment on your website that questions what medication a dead criminal is on or point out war atrocities in the middle east, you are no better than Fox News.

I have a brain so I don’t believe most of what is reported anyway. And I wasn’t afraid to express such skepticism in your comments section. Every once in a while, such sentiments actually made it past your censors.

I sure am happy Russia Today makes itself available on-line, free of charge. And they have an uncensored comments site.

The question I have to ask as a taxpayer is this: How much money is the C.B.C. spending on censoring its comments section. And how, exactly, do you think that is helping matters any? I mean, it’s not as if such information isn’t readily available elsewhere.

I’ve wasted as much time with you people as I care to. I’m done. I’m out. Good luck on the next round of lay-offs.

Advertisements

One thought on “Submitted to CBC’s “feedback” page (synopsis: eff yoo, I’m done)

  1. I have found the same thing with CBC —its not neutral , it all depends on the beliefs of those moderating the comments if they allow you to post…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s