The costs of trans visibility

Rachel Maddow is a centrist. She's a corporatist war hawk ffs.

Depends how you define things of course. On war in particular, she is legit to the right of most of America. On corporatism kind of stuff, she might be slightly left of average for America, which is way right of most of Europe. She's only "left" on culture war issues like her haircut.

Thats right, editorial independence as written into the law. Absolutely nothing like your pure conspiracy theory that the government would or even could shut down a story on trans rights exists. Absolute embarrassing nonsense.

You’re also very wrong on the claim about bias, but that is less bad than the conspiracy theory.

Tha is a lot of vitriol from a guy because you don't put any stock in his opinion based solely on his "I was a reporter, let me tell you how government funded news organizations really operate despite the law" antidotal evidence.

This is the network that at the beckoning of Justin Trudeau published false stories about Danielle Smith running for Premier of the province of Alberta to support the NDP . Once they were proven false after the election no apology just quietly deleting the stories

Of course you love the CBC as they promote the false narrative on the carbon tax

Ya buddy, you can be mad about any particular piece of reporting (although you do a bad job at describing what is happening), but none of that gets you one iota closer to the ridiculous conspiracy theory that "the government will shut down" a story they don't like. In truth, it is literally the law that the CBC is editorially independent and they can't do this and there is zero evidence they have done it.

your failure to recognize that you are standing upon an even more absurd hill in the belief that the CBC is impossible to influence makes you a real clown here

in absolute terms, you're both wrong, but he's much closer to reality than you are

Are you guys continuing the discussion that started when lozen whined that the CBC would never publish a story that they had already published?

Did the CBC disrespectfully publish that story on Easter or something?

I didn't claim the CBC is "impossible to influence". They aren't going to turn into Pravda. But absolutely nothing like lozen's conspiracy theory of how that could influence a specific story has any basis in reality. It's pure nonsense.

kinda but that's more uke's straw man argument

they are mostly debating the level of influence on the CBC, which uke idiotically claims is zero

problem is you've said repeatedly that they are not influenced and wholly independent - perhaps you should focus less on the outrage of what others wrote and more on what you are literally typing yourself mmmkay

CBC published it? Radio Canada did in french ? I am sure that will reach the masses in Canada

to further illustrate this point

there is a reality where what lozen believes could be case happens actually happens - it only takes a single bad actor and could be as benign as voicing displeasure of it when the upcoming coverage is casually mentioned at a social setting to someone actually getting wind of it and deciding to make a phone call

while unlikely and there's no evidence of it, it is possible

compared to the impossible fantasy of uke's that there is no possible iteration in any version of the multiverse in which CBC acts with zero outside influence - lozen is the reasonable here

while I think both sides are wrong here, lozen is operating in a world that could physically exist (with very few physical barriers preventing it) whereas uke is dealing with idealistic fantasy land

No, I reported a legal fact:

I didn't say there was exactly zero "self-censorship" or that your vague mechanism has some level of soft influence, but in reality there is absolutely nothing within a country mile of the kind of influence described by lozen and you haven't provided a single example illustrating well anything. That's pure conspiracy theory.

For people who actually read the CBC regularly - like me, as I do multiple Canadian news organizations - the main political bias that is a constant frustration is how they always are so hyper focused on being NON-partisan. They too often become stenographers for ALL the parties, with an article that quotes a mouthpiece for the conservatives and for the liberals like as opposed to taking strong stands themselves.

Neither "Corporatist" (though I'm not sure exactly what you mean by that) nor "war hawk" really go into determining how far left or right someone is in the modern day US.
There have always been hawks and non-interventionalists in both major parties (or at least for the last 100 years).

That is incidentally exactly what the corporatist warhawks would like you to believe.

I am saying that there is zero evidence your imagined hypothetical is actually happening. Sure, at some super vague level it is theoretically possible it could happen and all the mechanisms that are in place to prevent it happening could fail. But what you've done is taken lozen's insane hypothetical where there is zero evidence anything remotely like it has happened and then get mad at me because your like "but but but but maybe in an alternate universe it could have happened!". Sure. But it didn't.

Lol, so not only is uke wrong here because "I worked in the industry for two weeks, in another country," but, if you think about it, he is even more wrong than Lozen.

Such is the level of proof provided by certain posters here.

you are an insufferably pompous man who must love the smell of their own farts - it's so incredibly lolcow that you actually believe you're being objective here and didn't actually say the things you said because it's all fair in the course of a right wing witch burning amirite

Yeah what a stretch that the PM would use his power and influence over the CBC when he has done it with the Justice Department as well

When the governments funds you to the tune of 1.4 billion $ and selects who runs the CBC they have influence over you

you forgot that you're right wing so nothing you believe could possibly be correct - thus invalidating the possibility of any of this

try to keep up

It's easier to claim they will censor because they believe it to be correct than because of political pressure. You don't need to pressure people who think like you that much if anything, and it's not even easy to do so in Canada, not directly.

Like Rickroll said it's like if you make uke mod in charge of applying the rules on trans people in this forum.

He wouldn't need any pressure.

But chillrob is right and we should wait to see if they actually censor this bombshell event or not

Ok, back to the law one more time:

Since neither you nor rickroll has provided a single example in the history of the CBC over multiple governments of all stripes where some sort of undue influence has affected the editorial independence enshrined in law, I'm going to presume this "alternate universe" theory of rickroll's that it is theoretically possible is a universe that is very much not our own.