Earlier this week, we wrote about the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement Act. Shockingly, we are writing about the Nanavut Territory in Canada again.
When going through my Facebook feed today, the CBC wished the people of Canada: Happy Nunavut Day!!! Which is nice. In the comments section, though, the CBC had a short blurb that they weren't accepting comments on News Stories while evaluating whether they would continue to allow comments on their content in the future. I clicked on the link and this is what I read:
Here's the key paragraph: "As a responsible public broadcaster, we must weigh the balance of our mandate to inform, entertain and enlighten the people of Canada against the harm from comments to our audience, staff, and story subjects. We must also scrutinize the value of spending resources (financial and staff workload) on moderating comments on third-party social media platforms."
So Facebook moderates their own platform, but from what I can tell, they are fairly loosey-goosey with what they allow and don't allow. Facebook often depends on users to report their poorly behaving peers.
The CBC is claiming that they need their own moderator, on top of the Facebook moderator. I believe that. If you look closely at the comments section at large corporate news agencies, you can tell that some content is being removed or hidden. I have also noticed that some news agencies won't share their own slanted or controversial stories to Facebook.
But here's the ruse. The CBC would like to share more stories to Facebook so they get free promotion of their product where lots of people congregate online. Yet they don't like getting negative feedback from the unwashed masses.
The CBC doesn't have to use Facebook at all. They can deactivate their account and sue squatters who claim to be CBC News on the site. It's really that simple. They don't have to spend money on a corporate Facebook monitor. The CBC could pull its presence from all social media and would still exist.
Many outlets throughout North America scrapped their own comments sections and outsourced them to places like Facebook and Twitter. Now places like the CBC just want to you read their stories and they just don't care what you think. They want to use social media, but don't like it when social media bites back. They are about moving a specific agenda, and then trying to get you to frequent their advertisers. Period.
The CBC's new philosophy is 'sit down and shut up.'
Why should I give a crap about a left-leaning Canadian TV network? If the CBC model works, look for left-leaning American News networks like NBC and CNN to follow their "No Comment" model within the year.
Addendum: 10 hours later.....
So I went back to a news story on the CBC and saw they had a Comments Section, just like I did yesterday. When I clicked on it nothing happened, just like yesterday. I assumed that it was disabled. Then I finished the said news story and saw, under a litany of ads, a Comments Section. Uh-oh, looks like I screwed up.
I went to the Comments Section and you just can't make a comment, you have to register, or use your Facebook Registration. I started to register with the CBC, just to see the process, and the CBC requires your real name and real e-mail to confirm your real name. All of which are legitimate requests.
But then I stopped. A reporter can report a story using anonymous sources. When is okay to hide behind a pseudonym and when do you have to put your name on it. I admit I messed up my research, but the Facebook questions remain accurate.
Then I started to think about: What's the difference between a reporter, Edward Snowden, and a citizen journalist?
Farther and farther down the rabbit hole.....