Julie Miville-Dechêne, Ombudsman,
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
Subject: Implementation of the biased "netiquette" on the control of new comments at the bottom of the CBC. AC
Occasionally while browsing the site of the new Radio-Canada.ca I read the footnotes the "comments" that each user can leave. Sometimes it says things stunning, anti-American conspiracy theories, anti-racism Canadian English, Anglophobia, dubious explanations of crime, this can sometimes push yourself to intervene to make another point of view, correct facts, or just show his indignation.
So I created an account on the website of Radio-Canada.ca, "Jammer", recorded a few months ago with only a dozen which interventions have been published since May of this year. I must say that I avoid usually go to comments so it is often distressing , except that late last night, I made two exceptions that were demonstrations of a rather disturbing phenomenon from my point of view among employees of Radio-Canada, which is do not know the name but have the power to control opinions under the guise of "netiquette". By checking this "netiquette" fairly restrictive, rigorous, which lends to many interpretations, I realize that its application varies greatly in the range of interpretation that the policy position / ideology that is issued by the member.
Last night (Sunday night November 28 to November 29), I sent two interventions. Other times, I used to copy and paste my intervention in a "Notepad" in Windows to keep a copy in case my response would be published as if it would be modified to compare ... But yesterday I did not. I trust you would not find a reason in the "netiquette" to prevent publication of my comments.
New # 1
http://www.radio-canada.ca/nouvelles/Economie/2010/11/24/016-xmcanada-sirius-fusion.shtml
A member comes to the bottom of the news and wondered why people pay for a service that is free elsewhere.
My response provides an explanation:
can pay because we do not like conventional radio regulated in Canada with 65% of French music in the French-language stations, quotas imposed by a judge as I worthy of totalitarian nationalism.
Since it is late, I check the next day in the afternoon (Monday, 29 September) to see if my response is indeed released ... Surprise, it's not. I therefore conclude that I can not challenge a measure of the state, even with rational arguments and placed in correct French. So I can not challenge the idea of "protecting" a language and restrict the choice to listeners ... So I can not answer the question arose the other user. This is not the right answer according to the censor paid by my taxes Radio-Canada. So there are good and bad opinions, direct violation of my freedom of expression under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which breach is not justified by any abuse from me, rudeness, or other behavior not -acceptable.
New # 2
http://www.radio-canada.ca/nouvelles/International/2010/11/28/007-wikileaks-new-york-times-monde.shtml
There I knew it would be difficult given some editorial positions at Radio-Canada. My speech focused on questioning the validity of disclosures of secret diplomacy of our Western governments. Especially this time, any user can reveal the cards that our governments have in hand, the analysis and thoughts of our diplomats, governments directly thugs who cause us trouble.
I said that "any idiot" could now with a computer, "intervene in peace or war between countries" and that this situation was very unfortunate. course, my position contrasts with those that dominate in the comments of users and Radio-Canada.ca that they are "allowed" by the moderators Radio-Canada.ca.
Again, I have issued no rudeness or direct insult other users . The term "idiot" seems possible to describe people like me, people of Quebec, the regional people, people who vote Conservative, people who want a car rather than public transit, people who believe that democracy and market economy are what is best to serve humanity. Described as "idiot", the act of publishing information that highlight such requests to the United States by Saudi Arabia to attack Iran, without analyzing the impact and relevance ... it does not go for the "moderator" Radio-Canada.ca.
I think it's possible to check what is accepted or rejected by the moderators ... it is normally stored somewhere. Myself I moderate comments on my blog and posts I find offensive is held.
I could cite other examples, I could keep copies of my speeches refused. I could try it and you build a case. You could also send my complaint to the boss censors called "moderators" ... But I fear it will be useless because nothing will change. I'm convancu well as employees of Radio-Canada today are clearly selected according to endorse the editorial policy of the CBC, a state within a state , a Crown corporation that serves the interests of private companies such as Gesca / Power Corporation. Needless to remind you that while it "welcomed" the publication of diplomatic notes on Wikileaks, Radio-Canada is a Crown corporation opaque worthy of North Korea, which goes to court to prevent publication of infiormations how are spent billions of taxpayer dollars whether in talk shows or in the expense accounts of senior executives golden. Ironic ...
In my opinion, he should not have much space for comments on Radio-Canada.ca, because in fact there is often more room for the news itself. These comments are not serious, the research, the rigor of a new completed by an information professional. These comments are not needed in the current role of Radio-Canada, in the absence of a neutral sort based on strict rules as simple as possible.
Thank you in advance for your attention.
0 comments:
Post a Comment