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"

MarcP · 2011-01-13, 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ralph2

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

That's beside the point. They can make up the story about a non-existent survey that never happened because it is not endangering lives, health or safety of the public.

dtvinvictoria · 2011-01-13, 10:58 PM

Quote:

That's beside the point. They can make up the story about is not endangering lives, health or safety of the public.

But under the change said brodcaster could not make up a story about transit because that story would be considered information that they knew was false/misleading

MarcP · 2011-01-13, 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dtvinvictoria

because that story would be considered information that they knew was false/misleading

Not according to this new rule because of the caveat.

NeilN · 2011-01-13, 11:02 PM

No, you've got it backwards. Under the proposed changed they can make up the story as it's not endangering lives, health or safety of the public.

MarcP · 2011-01-13, 11:03 PM

That's what I said... Who are you replying to?

NeilN · 2011-01-13, 11:07 PM

Sorry, dtvinvictoria. Your reply snuck in between (I try not to use reply quotes when not necessary).

dtvinvictoria · 2011-01-13, 11:09 PM

Quote:

5. (1) A licensee shall not broadcast (d) any news that the licensee knows is false or misleading and that endangers or is likely to endanger the lives, healthor safety of the public.

This statement implies that it is illegal to broadcast misinformation

MarcP · 2011-01-13, 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dtvinvictoria

This statement implies that it is illegal to broadcast misinformation

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.

dtvinvictoria · 2011-01-13, 11:18 PM

I understand where you're coming from now, I must have skimmed over the statement. In the form that the law exists now it is unacceptable I agree

2011-01-13, 01:52 PM	#1
NeilN Veteran Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: North York Posts: 1,620	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.

2011-01-13, 11:18 PM	#15
dtvinvictoria Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Victoria BC Posts: 357	I understand where you're coming from now, I must have skimmed over the statement. In the form that the law exists now it is unacceptable I agree __________________ Motorized 90cm/AzBox Elite HD for Ku FTA; CM-4228HD for OTA; Bell TV

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

2011-01-13, 02:02 PM	#3
NeilN Veteran Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: North York Posts: 1,620	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: 1,620	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"

2011-01-13, 11:02 PM	#10
NeilN Veteran Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: North York Posts: 1,620	No, you've got it backwards. Under the proposed changed they can make up the story as it's not endangering lives, health or safety of the public.

2011-01-13, 11:03 PM	#11
MarcP Veteran Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Airdrie, AB Posts: 3,822	That's what I said... Who are you replying to?

2011-01-13, 11:07 PM	#12
NeilN Veteran Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: North York Posts: 1,620	Sorry, dtvinvictoria. Your reply snuck in between (I try not to use reply quotes when not necessary).