They didn't censor anything. Censorship means an outside authority such as the church or state is dictating what people can publish. It's their website and what they publish on it is entirely up to them.I'm not talking about what they published, I'm talking about what they censored...
Well yogurt, FWIW wikipedia includes "corporate censorship" in its censorship entry. I think it describes what may have happened to a T.Censorship is a serious issue and the term ought not to be used where it is not appropriate, as that tends to trivialize the issue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CensorshipCorporate censorship is the process by which editors in corporate media outlets intervene to halt the publishing of information that portrays their business or business partners in a negative light. Privately owned corporations in the business of reporting the news also sometimes refuse to distribute information due to the potential loss of advertiser revenue or shareholder value which adverse publicity may bring. See media bias.
It is widely recognized that the press has a major role in fostering public debate and holding individuals and institutions accountable -- both essential for making a democracy work. It trivializes the role of the press to view it simply as an ecoconomic relationship (i.e., they can publish what they want and I can choose to read it or not).I'm not saying I approve of it - but the comments section is part of their publication just as much as the rest of the web site or their print edition and it's their right to control what goes on it. The issue here, as with the original article, is trash journalism.
I don't know either, but judging by the firestorm the article ignited, it looks like print viewers are still the bigger target for the MSM.I don't know the ratio between online and print viewers, but my guess is that the latter dwarfs the former.
Well that page is no longer functional, see the message below. Isn't that convenient? And I'll post a follow-up with something else interesing.The Suns hit & run approach is cowardly and they should be told how we feel about it:
All the comments are back up, intact. Some are really hilarious to read. Mostly Bear banter. Actually, it is more like a Grizzly Bear mauling. I guess the Bull's don't read the paper or they don't feel compelled to post. I find it odd that the comments are so one sided. Hearing from Bulls is always worthwhile.Here's a link to the story with no comments and yet they're still asking for comments at the bottom of the article:
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news ... 710f343804
Looks like the link to the comments is open again.
Not sure about the censorship.....only one way to find out I guess.