The ACTA Internet Chapter: Putting Pieces Together
ACTA Guide, Part 1: The Talks To-Date
ACTA Guide, Part 2: The Documents (Official and Leaked)
ACTA Guide, Part 3: Transparency and ACTA Secrecy
Is the CBC Moderating Online Forums to Stifle Criticism? |
| Print | |
|
Sunday December 04, 2005
|
|||||
|
There is controversy brewing over CBC Radio One' s move toward playing more contemporary music in a new afternoon show that critics say sounds very similar to commercial radio. Kate Taylor of the Globe and Mail covers the issue in an article in Saturday' s paper. What Taylor does not cover is an apparent attempt by CBC to reduce criticism of its programming on its online chat forums. A blog reader reports that CBC' s Two New Hours listserv was emerging as a source of discussion among those upset with the new programming choices. Submissions that routinely appeared (see discussion earlier this month) on the site are now vetted, with critical postings never seeing the light of day. In support of its filtering approach, CBC has changed its terms of use for the site. An FAQ says it all: Old FAQ "6. Is this a moderated list? No. This list is unmoderated. Postings are not screened before being distributed. Postings are received by all members of the list, so discretion is needed. Consider your postings as published material." New FAQ "6. Is this a moderated list? Yes, this list is moderated by the Two New Hours producers. Any submissions that are off topic will not be posted. The purpose of this list is to promote discussion of Two New Hours and new concert music." CBC is of course free to make its own programming decisions and to choose how it wants to run its online discussion forums. However, shutting down online debate seems to run completely counter to the CBC' s promise as a publicly-funded open source of Canadian content and discussion. If it hopes to develop a large online community of interest, it should reconsider this recent move by recognizing that facilitating both supportive and critical views is a sign of strength, not weakness. Comments (2)
hugh
said:
|
|||||
|
http://dosemagazine.blogsome.com I have not see CBC committed to anything like: "a publicly-funded open source of Canadian content" ... particularly not the open source part, cf their legal restrictions around their RSS feeds. further, if you look at CBC's stated priorites & strat direction, there's little to give hope to those of us in the digital world: http://www.cbc.radio-canada.ca/about/priorities.shtml [CBC's] strategic directions are built around the following key thrusts: High-quality, Distinctive Canadian Programming 1. Ensure distinctive programming of the highest quality 2. Recognise the importance of regional reflection and of the changing face of Canada 3. Ensure the sustainability of CBC/Radio-Canadas Canadian schedules Efficiency 4. Demonstrate that CBC/Radio-Canada is a well-managed company and generate cash flow to re-invest in programming Priorities and Strategic Directions 5. Strengthen CBC/Radio-CanadaҒs commitment to all its employees to those who create and those who support them Strategic Partnerships 6. Position CBC/Radio-Canada to enhance its ability to fulfil its mandate through selective alliances and partnerships Collaboration 7. Reinforce the capacity of CBC/Radio-Canada to work as one integrated company Strong Stakeholder Relations 8. Enhance/strengthen CBC/Radio-Canadaגs stakeholder relationships hugh http://dosemagazine.blogsome.com |
|
... I can tell you that Radio Canada "moderates" (as in censors) its online forums very effectively by requiring approval before posting a message, never publishing messages making the show look bad. I complained to the ombudsman, only to have him forward my letter to the chief censor, Isabel Lapointe, who essentially sent me to hell. How much money does each Canadian pay for CBC/SRC? aranjuez1998-at-hotmail-dot-com |
Subscribe to this comment's feed
