Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums banner

CRTC Moves To Allow Broadcasters to Knowingly Lie

19K views 79 replies 25 participants last post by  Dougofthenorth 
#1 ·
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.
 
#2 ·
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?
 
#3 ·
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.
 
#4 ·
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.
 
#5 ·
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.
 
#6 ·
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"
 
#14 ·
No, read it again...

knows is false or misleading and that endangers

Pay attention to what is in bold. It has to be misinformation AND endangers. Meaning that if it's just misinformation that does not endanger, it's okay. It is a big difference with the original statement which is quite sufficient for your interpretation. There is no need to change the original rule if it's just about ANY misinformation.
 
#17 ·
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"? ;)
 
#18 ·
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.
 
#19 ·
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.
 
#20 ·
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.
 
#21 ·
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.
 
#22 ·
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.
 
#23 ·
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"
 
#33 ·
So do the guys who pick up the recycling but it doesn't make them part of the 'government' in the political context of this discussion. I believed that you were using the term 'government' to refer to those public functions under the control of legislative bodies comprised of elected representatives - politicians in other words. Interpretation of law is under the control of the independent judiciary which at the highest level is the Supreme Court of Canada. Once a judge is appointed to any court he or she remains on the bench until retirement, resignation, incapacity or death. Judges who fail in their duties are removed by other judges not by our elected representatives.

Laws enacted by Parliament can and are struck down by the Supreme Court if they conflict with the Constitution. The elected government can only make laws and prevent them from being quashed by the Supreme Court if they invoke the 'not withstanding' clause in the Constitution.
 
#29 ·
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.
 
#30 ·
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.
 
#32 ·
The big problem here is that the CRTC's provision is poorly worded and open to interpretation. It may have a precise meaning in today's legal terms. OTOH, it may have a different meaning to laymen or future legal professionals. The CRTC should clarify their position in writing.
 
#34 ·
I agree. Individuals should not have to consult with a legal specialist to understand laws and regulations. The language could be drafted more clearly. If government is to be more 'transparent' then it must write laws and regulations that normally literate Canadians can understand for themselves.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top