The absence of any condemning of the policy itself in the article is super conspicuous. I assume the commenter below guessing it's for the protection of their

The absence of any condemning of the policy itself in the article is super conspicuous. I assume the commenter below guessing it's for the protection of their correspondent is correct. Still, it's too bad they couldn't put a lampshade on it - "we at the CBC are not in a position to comment on the merits and flaws of this policy". But even that could draw ire, I guess.