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

Go Back   Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums > Canadian Digital Industry Forums > Television Industry / Channels and Providers

Digital Home Helpful Information

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Old 2011-01-13, 01:52 PM   #1
NeilN
Veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: North York
Posts: 1,835
Default 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.
NeilN is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 2011-01-13, 01:58 PM   #2
hugh
Member #1
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Toronto
Posts: 47,716
Default

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. My comments and opinions are my own and not those of the current site owners.
I have disabled private messaging so for personal inquiries contact me at the Hugh Thompson website or via twitter.
hugh is offline  
Old 2011-01-13, 02:02 PM   #3
NeilN
Veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: North York
Posts: 1,835
Default

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.
NeilN is online now  
Old 2011-01-13, 02:12 PM   #4
hugh
Member #1
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Toronto
Posts: 47,716
Default

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. My comments and opinions are my own and not those of the current site owners.
I have disabled private messaging so for personal inquiries contact me at the Hugh Thompson website or via twitter.
hugh is offline  
Old 2011-01-13, 02:28 PM   #5
NeilN
Veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: North York
Posts: 1,835
Default

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.
NeilN is online now  
Old 2011-01-13, 10:07 PM   #6
Ralph2
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 111
Default

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"
Ralph2 is offline  
Old 2011-01-13, 10:44 PM   #7
MarcP
Veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Airdrie, AB
Posts: 4,159
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph2 View Post
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.
MarcP is offline  
Old 2011-01-13, 10:58 PM   #8
dtvinvictoria
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Victoria BC
Posts: 386
Default

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
__________________
Motorized 90cm/AzBox Elite HD/MicroHD for Ku FTA; CM-4228HD for OTA; Bell TV
dtvinvictoria is offline  
Old 2011-01-13, 11:00 PM   #9
MarcP
Veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Airdrie, AB
Posts: 4,159
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dtvinvictoria View Post
because that story would be considered information that they knew was false/misleading
Not according to this new rule because of the caveat.
MarcP is offline  
Old 2011-01-13, 11:02 PM   #10
NeilN
Veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: North York
Posts: 1,835
Default

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.
NeilN is online now  
Old 2011-01-13, 11:03 PM   #11
MarcP
Veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Airdrie, AB
Posts: 4,159
Default

That's what I said... Who are you replying to?
MarcP is offline  
Old 2011-01-13, 11:07 PM   #12
NeilN
Veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: North York
Posts: 1,835
Default

Sorry, dtvinvictoria. Your reply snuck in between (I try not to use reply quotes when not necessary).
NeilN is online now  
Old 2011-01-13, 11:09 PM   #13
dtvinvictoria
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Victoria BC
Posts: 386
Default

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
__________________
Motorized 90cm/AzBox Elite HD/MicroHD for Ku FTA; CM-4228HD for OTA; Bell TV
dtvinvictoria is offline  
Old 2011-01-13, 11:11 PM   #14
MarcP
Veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Airdrie, AB
Posts: 4,159
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dtvinvictoria View Post
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.
MarcP is offline  
Old 2011-01-13, 11:18 PM   #15
dtvinvictoria
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Victoria BC
Posts: 386
Default

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/MicroHD for Ku FTA; CM-4228HD for OTA; Bell TV
dtvinvictoria is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:18 PM.

Search Digital Home

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.