Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Speaking Freely: Why I resigned from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

tarahenley.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 441 posts

Re: Speaking Freely: Why I resigned from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

#221

Post by wussboy »

SavantIdiot wrote: post #147
CapitalistCartr wrote: post #30

Except at political groups to which I belong, I am almost always the left-most person in the room. The Lefts greatest weakness is an enthusiasm for splintering over small matters of doctrine. Identity politics, tribalism over principle, virtue signaling, whatever fad this is, it's deeply hurting progress.

> an enthusiasm for splintering over small matters of doctrine. Identity politics, tribalism over principle, virtue signaling, whatever fad this is, I question your assertion that you are "leftist" when you describe progressive thought in dismissive, inflammatory, right-wing terms.

I’m not sure if you’re being serious or not. If so, your comment is deeply ironic.

Re: Speaking Freely: Why I resigned from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

#222

Post by deltarholamda »

olivermarks wrote: post #163

Strange thread here ignoring the very important points about the media Tara is making. 'Those of us on the inside know just how swiftly — and how dramatically — the politics of the public broadcaster have shifted. It used to be that I was the one furthest to the left in any newsroom, occasionally causing strain in story meetings with my views on issues like the housing crisis. I am now easily the most conservative, f…

>Neilsen demonstrates that the legacy media are dying fast, fewer and fewer people are tuned in as the broadcasting becomes more and more toxic. This is a good thing imo.

But is it a good thing?

A free press can be thought of as the sensory organs of the polity. If the sensory organs are faulty, or worse are deliberately lying, then alternative sensory organs may fill in the blanks with less robust information. These days, when you read a story from mainstream sources, it's often best to say, "well, I don't know anything about this story, but it's pretty safe to assume that what I just read is either wrong or nonsense." That's really not good. It gets worse if the only alternatives are just as wrong, or just as nonsensical, and you have to apply some kind of boolean bullshit math to get some outline of what the issue even is.

The erosion of public trust isn't a short-term problem.

Re: Speaking Freely: Why I resigned from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

#223

Post by dang »

swayvil wrote: post #209
dang wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please keep this sort of shallow, menacing flamebait off HN. It leads nowhere interesting. We want thoughtful, curious conversation instead. Among other things, that means conversation where people listen to each other across differences . https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html p.s. We ban accounts that post slurs, including veiled ones.

Check out all the murdered replies. Can the hivemind be trusted with this power?

I'm not sure what you're referring to, but you're assuming your conclusion by using a word like 'murdered' in any case.

In general, there's a lot of space on HN for arguing contrarian or minority views, as long as you're actually using the site as intended, i.e. for curious, thoughtful, respectful conversation. Most accounts that I see complaining that they've been suppressed haven't been doing that to begin with.

Re: Speaking Freely: Why I resigned from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

#224

Post by badRNG »

hammock wrote: post #90
ineptech wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They very reliably rise to the front page (because people like arguing about this stuff) and then sink off again (because, I believe, the HN algorithm penalizes a low upvote-to-comment-count ratio). I predict this'll be gone in two hours...

>the HN algorithm More accurately, it's people flagging it and also manual nerfing by @dang

To be fair, every comment that didn't agree with the conclusion of the article was nerfed. The top comment on this post for most of its existence immediately left the top and within seconds jumped to being the very last comment at the bottom with all the other even vaguely pro-diversity comments.

Re: Speaking Freely: Why I resigned from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

#225

Post by djoldman »

> To work at the CBC in the current climate is to embrace cognitive dissonance and to abandon journalistic integrity.

Unfortunately, it appears fairly clear that over the past decade, a deeper cognitive dissonance is that of journalists' beliefs about their profession. Journalists seem to believe that Quality News [0] can sustain itself.

News is entertainment. Quality News loses because it commands less engagement than tweets, youtube videos, tv/movie streaming, gaming, and others.

News organizations survive now by aligning their stories with a chosen tribe (liberals, conservatives, whomever) and inflaming the base with rage rhetoric.

Unfortunately, it turns out that people don't really care about truth - it's pretty boring.

[0] Quality News defined however the particular journalist wants to define it (ethical/fair/unbiased/relevant/etc)

Re: Speaking Freely: Why I resigned from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

#226

Post by AlexandrB »

coolso wrote: post #134
bastardoperator wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know about everyone else but I've been using non-gendered pronouns my entire life. I was taught words like "they" and "them" in first or second grade. At this point I just assume anyone bothered by this is the actual narcissist.

Quoted post unavailable.

> They/them is extremely unnatural in American English to refer to a singular person who you’ve seen in person. It requires mental effort and it’s just plain silly.

They/them is almost always appropriate english when the gender of the person being spoken of is unknown. They only change in thinking required is to let go of the assumption that you can determine someone's gender from looking at them or reading their name.

Re: Speaking Freely: Why I resigned from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

#227

Post by Taywee »

btown wrote: post #150
dang wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. " https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

The article opens with an opinion that drawing awareness to non-binary pronouns is too much of an "editorial priority." That the author hides behind "people want to know" is a distinction without a difference. The "strongest plausible interpretation" is that the author believes LGBT issues should be talked about less. But the author is not simply talking about it less; they are using their platform to advocate that i…

> The "strongest plausible interpretation" is that the author believes LGBT issues should be talked about less.

I disagree. I think the strongest plausable interpretation is that the author believes that the specific LGBT issues getting the most airtime are less important and more trite and divisive than things that are being largely ignored. That the issues themselves are not the focus, but the goal of making corporations more powerful and wrist-slapping individuals for the most mundane slights.

The way I read it has little to do with the issues themselves, but rather that the extreme focus on identity is a powerful tool for keeping the common people fighting with each other while wealth inequality very quietly gets much more and more extreme.

Personally, I am queer and I would like LGBT issues talked about less. They should get some focus for sure, but it's hard for me to see a constant flow of sexuality and gender permeating every facet of discussion and think it isn't excessive. I don't think that my queerness is more important than a lot of other issues, and I don't want my queerness used as a tool by the powerful to turn people against each other and amass even more power, unchecked.

In short, LGBT issues are important, but that does not justify every single pro-LGBT conclusion, talking point, or moralization, and it doesn't justify the amount of constant attention it gets.

Re: Speaking Freely: Why I resigned from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

#228

Post by lovecg »

kbenson wrote: post #196
lovecg wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that’s a problem for like 1% of people who’re free to do so. Absolutely no one will confuse my bearded, balding, fat self for a “she”. Seems unnecessary to require this as a matter of policy.

I mean, not everyone interacts with people in person at work. I would go so far as to say that most these profile settings are used for textual communication, where it's not always obvious, but where some people still get upset over the wrong pronoun being used (possibly because for then it's such a contentious topic in their lives it's hard to disambiguate honest mistakes from passive agressive purposeful behavior).…

Someone else commented about how this is basically coming back full circle to the formalities of Sir/Madam or Mr/Ms in writing, maybe there’s something to it.

Re: Speaking Freely: Why I resigned from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

#229

Post by citilife »

CapitalistCartr wrote: post #94
wussboy wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect you’re right. My personal solution to this problem, having once run a left-leaning organization that was taken over by all the things you mention, is to learn more towards the centre. I’m curious if you’ve considered the same, especially because you describe yourself as “the left-most person in the room”?

In the United States the Overton Window is so far right even the Democratic Party is center-right. In a Scandinavian Country I'd be a fairly moderate, conservative social democrat. Here, if people knew my thoughts, I'd be seen as a Wild-Eyed Radical. But given the politics in my country, I've given up compromise and actually moved further Left. And more militant, less quiet. Luckily, the organization I'm currently in…

> In the United States the Overton Window is so far right even the Democratic Party is center-right.

I'm sorry, but what?

Within the party, they've promoted universal basic income (marxisim), state healthcare, universal education, etc. It's almost completely authoritarian marxist.

They're far left of most of Europe in terms of social policy (LGBTQ+ rights, abortion, drugs, etc) and economic (complete universal education, health, payments, work, etc)

If that's center-left what is left, exactly?

Re: Speaking Freely: Why I resigned from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

#230

Post by lazyasciiart »

inglor_cz wrote: post #198
CapitalistCartr wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the United States the Overton Window is so far right even the Democratic Party is center-right. In a Scandinavian Country I'd be a fairly moderate, conservative social democrat. Here, if people knew my thoughts, I'd be seen as a Wild-Eyed Radical. But given the politics in my country, I've given up compromise and actually moved further Left. And more militant, less quiet. Luckily, the organization I'm currently in…

On social stuff, California is well left of Europe including Scandinavia. What you say could apply in Arkansas. For example, Danish or Norwegian immigration rules would be a perfect fit for any R president, perhaps even too strict.

This is reductive to the point of being incorrect. "Social stuff" includes things like maternity leave, childcare, healthcare, incarceration and drug policies. California is proud that they ended sentences of life-without-parole for children in 2017 - and replaced it with life-with-possible-parole-after-25-years, which remains far worse than Denmark permits even for the worst adult crime (life with possible parole after 12 years).
Post reply on HN