I was on the highway during the show so was unable to call in.

Racism in Mainstream Media and in social media is a subject I have studied for some
years. I have come to the conclusion that having public commentary on issues tied to
stories on the marginalized such as comment sections on media websites and on
social media sites like Facebook, has no value and simply serve as an amplifier to
racist ideas triggered the typical poorly written stories and headlines appearing daily
on Mainstream Media websites.

I say this for three main reasons:

Society within what you call Canada is divided into two groups. The privileged: those
who have the support of the state through legislation and policy and have all the
benefits associated with being the colour of those in power. This is epitomized as
white cis-male people. Then, there are all the rest of us. The rest of us also includes
white women who are marginalized regularly by the courts and by the structures that
ensure men hold the power.

For those in power or who are the power base for those in power (white male) the
circumstances and daily issues confronting the marginalized are so distant from their
situation they have little understanding. They have even less empathy because to
have empathy and act on it would reduce their power. Online commentary is used as
a vehicle to preserve white privilege. It does not serve the marginalized and in fact has
proven to be deadly.

Canada is a nation state built on colonialism. The beneficiaries of colonialism are

those I mentioned above. They can only perceive the world about them through the
lens of colonialism. This is very clear from the response to Indigenous stories. To
develop any other world view requires the individual to go through the process of
decolonization to understand how colonialism and privilege have shaped their
perceptions and their opinions. The majority of those I encounter in my work online
have no interest in doing this work. It is very hard. It is uncomfortable. It takes time.
It requires one to let go of their privilege. In my work the majority are just too fragile
and dis-interested in the reduction or personal "power' to do this. Therefore the

commentary on media sites and on social media is instantly us and them because the
majority is uninterested in changing the balance of power.

https://www.csub.edu/~kcarpenter/Articles/White%20Privilege%20and%20Male%
20Privilege.pdf

Secondly, Mainstream media is owned and run by members of the privileged group.
Look at CBC digital news properties. Top people are Jennifer McGuire, Alex
Johnston, and Brodie Fenlon. All are white. All are privileged. None have
decolonized. All of them demonstrate white fragility.

http://libjournal.uncg.edu/ijcp/article/viewFile/249/116

The headlines and stories I read in my work are worrisome. They actually tend to
promote the stereotypes and because they are uniformly done from a colonial
viewpoint, they are incomplete as an information source to educate readers to see
things differently. Because they promote the status quo through the absence of any
other worldview and, those who tend to comment are the privileged mentioned
above, the commentary uses the stories as a amplified to voice their privilege. I have
databased the results from most mainstream media websites in my research. If CBC
made the effort from their pre-moratorium on Indigenous story commentary and
through study of other mainstream media sites, they could only arrive at the same
conclusion.

It has been this way for so long that Indigenous People seldom speak on stories about
them. They are targeted and shouted down. Again I have the research to support this.
Only those of us encouraged by our communities to fight racism in media tend to be
seen and heard. Why bother having comments if Indigenous People don't speak? The
same tends to be true for other marginalized groups.

Third, there is yet to be a mechanism that works to ensure people are self-identified
when they provide comments. Several other media outlets required a social media
profile to open up an account from which they can make comments. I regularly
sample the profiles of the most pervasive and racist commenters on mainstream

media sites. Inevitably their profiles are phoney. No friends, no photos, no or few
posts. I have contacted Facebook and they refuse to act on these obviously phoney
profiles like "Ralston Purina".

Freedom of expression is a responsibility and not a right. The person wishing to avail
themselves of their right to freedom of expression, must first accept accountability for
their words, opinions, and public statements. Use of an alias name or a false social
media profile does not qualify.

Some Canadian media companies have turned over both identity management and
moderation to Facebook. Racism and hatred can be overt, It can also be covert. How
can a moderator who has not decolonized possibly perceive the hidden racism in
statements made by readers. They can't. I have thousands of examples in my data
sets.

Until such time as there is a clear and practical way to have users use their real names
and it be verifiable and the accept the consequences of using offensive and racist or
sexist language, there is no reasonable grounds to have public comments. Until such
time as moderators and moderating software can perceive and identify racist intent
and the nuance of racist ideology, there is no good case to be made for public
comments on news stories.