CRTC Moves To Allow Broadcasters to Knowingly Lie

[NeilN]

Can I ask what are your credentials for deciphering legalese?

[ScaryBob]

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.

[GeorgeMx]

Originally Posted by scampbell

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

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.

[GeorgeMx]

Originally Posted by ScaryBob

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.

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.

[mrvanwinkles]

(d) any news that the licensee knows ...

So now, for any enforcement or fine or penalty ... you'd have to PROVE the "licensee" themselves knew it was false or misleading.

I think that would be quite difficult to actually prove.

Open license.

As always ... viewer beware ... what you believe.

[Fry1989]

Originally Posted by NeilN

Can I ask what are your credentials for deciphering legalese?

Grade 8 English

[alebowgm]

The CRTC is proposing a regulatory change that would give Canadian TV and radio stations more leeway to broadcast false or misleading news.

Current regulations contain a blanket prohibition on broadcasting “any false or misleading news.”

The Canadian Radio-Television Telecommunications Commission wants to considerably narrow the scope of that prohibition.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/a...ding-news?bn=1

[NeilN]

Originally Posted by Fry1989

Grade 8 English

Looks like that wasn't enough. The CRTC should have left the wording alone and then we could see exactly who would raise the Charter challenge.

[Fry1989]

Originally Posted by NeilN

Looks like that wasn't enough. The CRTC should have left the wording alone and then we could see exactly who would raise the Charter challenge.

It's all about interpretation. I've stated mine, based on the rules of grammar, and stand by it. Obviously, others are choosing to interpret it otherwise.

If you really wanna get technical though, you could say that the law isn't changed at all, or infact is broadened by this, because it can easily be argued that reporting wrong stuff or lying about stories is in itself harmful to the public, because it misinforms, and can greatly affect their opinions about issues.

[NeilN]

Uh, ok. Did you read the article?

A CRTC official explained that the proposed change is in response to concerns raised several years ago by a joint parliamentary committee on scrutiny of regulations.

The committee feared the sweeping ban on false and misleading news was too broad and vague and wouldn't withstand a challenge under the Charter of Rights. Its concerns were based on a number of court rulings at the time involving freedom of speech.

You're arguing that the people who wrote the modification are now interpreting it incorrectly?

[hugh]

Again, Lets remember that this is in a "Call for Comments"

The actual verbiage may or may not change. I would be interested in hearing the comments at the proceeding before I would get all heated on this one.

[Fry1989]

The committee feared the sweeping ban on false and misleading news was too broad and vague and wouldn't withstand a challenge under the Charter of Rights. Its concerns were based on a number of court rulings at the time involving freedom of speech.

Sigh, if only we had the rules they do in Britain with Ofcom, which can and has even fined news networks for giving more time to one political party over the others during general elections.

I'm sorry Charter of Rights(which I greatly respect), but news companies have no rights to freedom of speech in this manner. Their job is to report the facts, not lies, nor twisting the facts to be convenient to either the Left or the Right.

[mjjl]

Sigh, if only we had the rules they do in Britain with Ofcom, which can and has even fined news networks for giving more time to one political party over the others during general elections.

I'm sorry Charter of Rights(which I greatly respect), but news companies have no rights to freedom of speech in this manner. Their job is to report the facts, not lies, nor twisting the facts to be convenient to either the Left or the Right.

I agree. The CRTC has to do everything in its power to prevent the disaster that has destroyed credible journalism in the United States from infecting Canadian journalism. Canadian journalism has had its low points in the past few years, but usually it has been a case of giving non-news items a disproportionate large amount of airtime (Local TV Matters, Vancouver 2010 coverage), not outright lies.

[GeoStar]

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

That means they are loosening the regins so that if a broadcaster has news they will not be responsible to verify the facts -- leading to tabloid style news
That means more hearsay and gosip will be boradcast as a staple all the time .... more effective add campains could be run to sell dog food to wannabe prime ministers

we want unverified news ? This may lead to greater sales for large newspapers owned by the people in large pr firms to propagandize the news or election campains etc

really electing a prime minister on a rumor of this or that , sounds kinda scary but the crtc has a political aim right?

[NeilN]

A CRTC proposal that could make it easier to broadcast false or misleading news has prompted confusion and criticism among opposition MPs and consternation in at least one of the unions that represents Canadian journalists.

It has also led to allegations of interference by the Prime Minister’s Office and a hastily called investigation by federal politicians, who were caught off guard by the move.
...
The decision caught many people by surprise.

“We’ve looked everywhere to try to find out who’s pushing this, and we can’t find anybody,” said Peter Murdoch, the vice-president of media for the Communication, Energy and Paperworkers Union, which represents more than 20,000 journalists, including those at The Globe and Mail.

“It’s totally bizarre. Nobody in the industry has called for it,” Mr. Murdoch said. “Where is the motivation for change that would lower the standards of truth and fairness in broadcast journalism?”
...
Behind the scenes, officials say the timing is purely coincidental, the PMO had nothing to do with it, and that the CRTC simply realized it eventually had to answer the concerns of the regulatory committee.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1898147/

So what does everyone think? CRTC business as usual or something else?