CRTC Moves To Allow Broadcasters to Knowingly Lie

[NeilN]

dtvinvictoria, the existing law is fine. The change is "unacceptable".

[hugh]

First rules of laws: They're meaningless if they can't be enforced.

Has anyone bothered to find out why the change was made? My guess, as I alluded to in my first response, is that by altering the verbiage, they actually have a greater likelihood of conviction.

Also I think the subject of this thread is a "lie" so you appear to be guilty of knowingly spreading falsehoods. The CRTC does not change the broadcast act, the federal government does. It's a lie to say the CRTC is making this move when in fact its the government therefore your enmity should be directed at Mr. Harper, not the regulatory body responsible for ensuring the regulations set out in the broadcast act are implemented and enforced.

Maybe the Conservatives are doing this for "Sun TV"?

[NeilN]

The reference to the CRTC in the subject is accurate as it's the CRTC who is proposing (moving for) the change: http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2011/2011-14.htm

If the change's purpose is to make it easier to obtain convictions then why single out a specific topic? Call me too suspicious but I really don't like huge conglomerates like Bell also owning broadcasting networks. It can make it too tempting to influence news to make it more favourable to other parts of the company. Before, if that influence went over a line, the Broadcast Act provided a recourse. Now, it may not.

[hugh]

From the Call for comments

The amendments address concerns raised by Parliament’s Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations related to the following provisions:

• the prohibition on broadcasting false or misleading news;
• the prohibition on broadcasting programming that contains obscene or profane language; and
• the submission of information by licensees to the Commission.

It seems to me that the CRTC is simply inviting feedback on a demand by the Federal Government.

Again it's the government, not the CRTC, that is demanding the matter be investigated and the CRTC is simply responding to the governments demands.

Its the politicians, not the bureaucrats agitating for change.

[GeorgeMx]

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]

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]

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.

[hugh]

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"

[GeorgeMx]

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]

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.

[Fry1989]

Originally Posted by MarcP

No, read it again...

knows is false or misleading and that endangers

Both yourself and NielN are wrong.

"And" is the inclusive, but not requiring word in this sentence. So, information that is known to be false, is illegal, as is information that is true yet harmful, OR information that is both known to be false and harmful.

You completely misunderstood the grammar, and if any news company sees that as a loophole and tries to abuse it, they'll be quickly reprimanded.

[NeilN]

Sorry, but I'd take a noted law professor's interpretation (http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5570/125/ ) and common sense over your head-scratching assertion. If news organizations were lawfully prevented from reporting the facts, even if it caused harm, there'd be quite the uproar.

[Boca Junior]

Well since we can't seem to agree on the interpretation of this change, I suggest the next logical step is for the original poster to contact the CRTC personally and ask for clarification. He (or she) can then advise us of the facts as presented by them.

[NeilN]

As the original poster I think I'll decline your suggestion unless you are equally as qualified as Professor Geist with respect to interpreting regulations.

Fry1989's interpretation would probably be written as:
(d) any news that the licensee knows is false or misleading or that endangers or is likely to endanger the lives, health or safety of the public.

[Fry1989]

Originally Posted by NeilN

Fry1989's interpretation would probably be written as:
(d) any news that the licensee knows is false or misleading or that endangers or is likely to endanger the lives, health or safety of the public.

The way it's written now is quite clear, except to those who don't think it through first. The "or" is not necessary in this form. Everybody who is in the business will know exactly what this addition to the sentence means.

On a side-note, if you seriously think they would vote for what you're claiming, you're in dreamland. What you really should be concerned with about this sentence (if you wanna go the conspiracy route) and that everyone has missed, is that saying that broadcasters can't report on things that harm the public opens up the possibility of the government or CRTC to reprimand them for reporting stories that they personally deem harmful or inconvenient(censorship). Now of course, I'm not saying that will happen, but anything is possible under Harper.