George,
This is problematic for a number of reasons. For one thing it is sloppy. You suggest that Gina Carano is too much trouble for her employer and then link to the Soderbergh article as if to suggest that he found her problematic. The article you link to states that with "Carano’s participation [Soderbergh] did some work to alter her voice for the film." Nothing in that suggests he found her difficult to work with, just that he made a creative decision to distance her performance from her public MMA persona.

Then, you selectively pick out tweets from Ben Shapiro, another right-wing media figure, to cast him in a negative light, just as you did with Gina Carano. Given the kinds of things you tweet about I could make you look just as extreme, if not more so, in about 10 seconds or less, but for now I will refrain from doing that.

As if that wasn't enough, you then write: "Obviously certain liberal perspectives are selling right now. The long and short of it is: don't be stupid. Look around you and read the room. If you want to earn your living in mainstream media, you have to." In other words, it is OK to have a political opinion as long as it is one that you agree with. Otherwise it is perfectly reasonable for you to lose your job when you share a different point of view even when not on the clock for an employer. How very open-minded of you!

You talk about consequences to actions. Well, if No Film School continues to run this kind of commentary, I will start to think of it less like a news platform and more like a propaganda palace, and I will go elsewhere for film updates.

Thanks for that link. Interesting to see those two cameras trying to autofocus side by side. The C300 Mark II did seem to perform well in that test.