CRTC Moves To Allow Broadcasters to Knowingly Lie - Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums

NeilN · 2011-01-13, 01:52 PM

Current broadcasting law:
5. (1) A licensee shall not broadcast
(d) any false or misleading news.

Proposed change:
(d) any news that the licensee knows is false or misleading and that endangers or is likely to endanger the lives, health or safety of the public.

I fail to see how this proposed change fulfills the CRTC's mandate to "ensure that both the broadcasting and telecommunications systems serve the Canadian public." unless Fox-style political coverage is a good thing.

hugh · 2011-01-13, 01:58 PM

Please your subject is false.

The change makes a lot of sense. Its simply saying that you cannot knowingly broadcast false or misleading information that could cause harm.

How is that allowing broadcasters to lie?

NeilN · 2011-01-13, 02:02 PM

It adds a caveat to the "no lying rule". Before, you couldn't report, for example, that politician x voted to support abortion when that clearly wasn't the case. Now, since the public's safety is not endangered, that report would be fine.

hugh · 2011-01-13, 02:12 PM

If a news outlet knowingly published falsehoods then the politician can sue. Mr. Harper and several other politicians have done so over the years.

Slander should be dealt with in the Civil courts not through the CRTC and Industry Canada decisions.

NeilN · 2011-01-13, 02:28 PM

What about reports that don't target individuals but seek to sway opinion with falsehoods? Example: According to our scientifically conducted poll, 73% of the population supports a green tax.

I don't see why that extra caveat is needed now.

Ralph2 · 2011-01-13, 10:07 PM

Nothing wrong with that, I am sure that 73% of the population polled supported a green tax.

That is the trouble with all these polls / surveys.. what, how and who was sampled and what was the question(s)?

I participate in website surveys (LegerWeb) when asked. One group has been doing a survey in my area for public transportation. They keep trying (4 times now) but filter me out when it appears I "might" be negative. I am sure that eventually they will have a survey where a high percentage of the people support public transportation. A complete crock of BS but the headlines will read "Public ready for big Increase in Public Transportation"

GeorgeMx · 2011-01-14, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeilN

Current broadcasting law:
5. (1) A licensee shall not broadcast
(d) any false or misleading news.

Proposed change:
(d) any news that the licensee knows is false or misleading and that endangers or is likely to endanger the lives, health or safety of the public.

Maybe the proposed change is simply ambiguously worded. A second possible interpretation is 'any news that the licensee knows is false or misleading and [any news] that endangers or is likely to endanger the lives, health or safety of the public'.

Someone with fluency in French might be able to determine the intended meaning by looking at the French version.

Deckster · 2011-01-14, 03:52 PM

If that were the intended meaning then it would be it's own subsection...

(d) any false or misleading news
(e) any news that endangers or is likely to endanger the lives, health or safety of the public.

Maybe they are clearing the way for a 24 hour Daily Show/Colbert Report fake news channel.

scampbell · 2011-01-14, 04:00 PM

I'd just as soon the government not be in the business of deciding what is "misleading".

With the many sources of information available on TV and on the internet, any outright lies are likely to be caught eventually and few news organizations are going to want to risk their credibility.

GeorgeMx · 2011-01-15, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scampbell

I'd just as soon the government not be in the business of deciding what is "misleading".

...

The government doesn't decide if someone is breaking a law - the prosecutors lay charges and a judge decides after a trial.

scampbell · 2011-01-15, 03:33 PM

Quote:

The government doesn't decide if someone is breaking a law - the prosecutors lay charges and a judge decides after a trial.

Last time I checked, the prosecutors and judges work for the government.

hugh · 2011-01-14, 04:08 PM

I believe there is a perfectly innocent and rational reason for this.

If you think sinister then think government abuse. The Government could use this type of thing to stamp out news stories on government corruption or scandal. Governments around the world are imprisoning and shutting down newspapers on the flimsy excuse that they "endanger public safety"

Dougofthenorth · 2012-04-12, 09:44 AM

It all is just more political smoke & mirrors - change wordings, change definitions, change legislation/regs etc

All done in order to escape consequences & accountability, and to further confuse the public as to whether or not there was in fact any actual breech done!

To prove a breech was allowed/done is relativly easy & then consequences flow fairly directly from that
versus
to prove a breech was knowingly done

are two situations that are continents apart!!

This is just more proof of how corporations take over more & more via changes to legislation/regulations

If a car you are driving exceeds the speed limit - you are fined if caught (strict liability)

However if it has to be proven that you knowingly exceeded the speed limit you have an incredible advantage in wining a contested charge!

2011-01-13, 01:52 PM	#1
NeilN Veteran Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: North York Posts: 1,614	CRTC Moves To Allow Broadcasters to Knowingly Lie Current broadcasting law: 5. (1) A licensee shall not broadcast (d) any false or misleading news. Proposed change: (d) any news that the licensee knows is false or misleading and that endangers or is likely to endanger the lives, health or safety of the public. I fail to see how this proposed change fulfills the CRTC's mandate to "ensure that both the broadcasting and telecommunications systems serve the Canadian public." unless Fox-style political coverage is a good thing.

2011-01-13, 01:58 PM	#2
hugh Member #1 Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Toronto Posts: 47,492	Please your subject is false. The change makes a lot of sense. Its simply saying that you cannot knowingly broadcast false or misleading information that could cause harm. How is that allowing broadcasters to lie? __________________ As of January 2012, I am no longer the owner of the Digital Home website. If you have questions about the operation of the site, please contact VSAdmin. For personal inquiries contact me at the Hugh Thompson website.

2011-01-13, 02:12 PM	#4
hugh Member #1 Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Toronto Posts: 47,492	If a news outlet knowingly published falsehoods then the politician can sue. Mr. Harper and several other politicians have done so over the years. Slander should be dealt with in the Civil courts not through the CRTC and Industry Canada decisions. __________________ As of January 2012, I am no longer the owner of the Digital Home website. If you have questions about the operation of the site, please contact VSAdmin. For personal inquiries contact me at the Hugh Thompson website.

2011-01-14, 03:52 PM	#8
Deckster Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Sudbury ON, and Red Lake ON Posts: 1,040	If that were the intended meaning then it would be it's own subsection... (d) any false or misleading news (e) any news that endangers or is likely to endanger the lives, health or safety of the public. Maybe they are clearing the way for a 24 hour Daily Show/Colbert Report fake news channel. __________________ TC-P54G25, JVC Receiver, Turbosound Impact 50 speakers, Turbosound Impact 110 Sub, Sony SA-WM500 Sub, Bell TV 9200

2011-01-14, 04:08 PM	#12
hugh Member #1 Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Toronto Posts: 47,492	I believe there is a perfectly innocent and rational reason for this. If you think sinister then think government abuse. The Government could use this type of thing to stamp out news stories on government corruption or scandal. Governments around the world are imprisoning and shutting down newspapers on the flimsy excuse that they "endanger public safety" __________________ As of January 2012, I am no longer the owner of the Digital Home website. If you have questions about the operation of the site, please contact VSAdmin. For personal inquiries contact me at the Hugh Thompson website.

2011-01-13, 02:02 PM	#3
NeilN Veteran Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: North York Posts: 1,614	It adds a caveat to the "no lying rule". Before, you couldn't report, for example, that politician x voted to support abortion when that clearly wasn't the case. Now, since the public's safety is not endangered, that report would be fine.

2011-01-13, 02:28 PM	#5
NeilN Veteran Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: North York Posts: 1,614	What about reports that don't target individuals but seek to sway opinion with falsehoods? Example: According to our scientifically conducted poll, 73% of the population supports a green tax. I don't see why that extra caveat is needed now.

2011-01-13, 10:07 PM	#6
Ralph2 Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Edmonton Posts: 76	Nothing wrong with that, I am sure that 73% of the population polled supported a green tax. That is the trouble with all these polls / surveys.. what, how and who was sampled and what was the question(s)? I participate in website surveys (LegerWeb) when asked. One group has been doing a survey in my area for public transportation. They keep trying (4 times now) but filter me out when it appears I "might" be negative. I am sure that eventually they will have a survey where a high percentage of the people support public transportation. A complete crock of BS but the headlines will read "Public ready for big Increase in Public Transportation"

2011-01-14, 04:00 PM	#9
scampbell Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Port Carling, Ontario Posts: 814	I'd just as soon the government not be in the business of deciding what is "misleading". With the many sources of information available on TV and on the internet, any outright lies are likely to be caught eventually and few news organizations are going to want to risk their credibility.

2012-04-12, 09:44 AM	#13
Dougofthenorth Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: near Ottawa Posts: 110	It all is just more political smoke & mirrors - change wordings, change definitions, change legislation/regs etc All done in order to escape consequences & accountability, and to further confuse the public as to whether or not there was in fact any actual breech done! To prove a breech was allowed/done is relativly easy & then consequences flow fairly directly from that versus to prove a breech was *knowingly* done are two situations that are continents apart!! This is just more proof of how corporations take over more & more via changes to legislation/regulations If a car you are driving exceeds the speed limit - you are fined if caught (strict liability) However if it has to be proven that you *knowingly* exceeded the speed limit you have an incredible advantage in wining a contested charge!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode