CRTC Moves To Allow Broadcasters to Knowingly Lie

[Krydor]

It doesn't say anything about allowing broadcasters to lie. The revision does the opposite.

[NeilN]

Eh? Please read the first page of this thread.

[hugh]

Read the Globe this morning and it solidifies in my mind that this is nothing more than a re-look at something that has been discussed for many years.

The simple fact seems to be that the language is very vague and subject to charter challenge so it needs to be cleaned up.

IMO, tempest in a teapot.

I'll wait for the comments and to see the proposed changes before getting worked up over it.

[ScaryBob]

“We’ve looked everywhere to try to find out who’s pushing this, and we can’t find anybody,”

Fox News? How about Sun News, aka "Fox News North"? It's odd that this change would be be made just as Sun News is about to launch. Coincidence or coercion?

[hugh]

I'll bet coincidence. This issue should have been addressed years ago.

[NeilN]

I still think the wording should be left as is until a Charter challenge comes up. Then we can see exactly who's pushing for a narrower scope.

[hugh]

What part of "Call for Comments" don't people get?

The CRTC is inviting comments on proposed wording changes. No one is saying that it is going to change, however, it makes sense that it does change.

If you are concerned then I urge you to submit your comments to the CRTC since they are looking for them.

[Dioneo]

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/a...ed-critics-say

Michael Geist, Canada Research Chair of Internet and e-commerce law at the University of Ottawa, told the Star that “I think you could identify instances where real public harm is caused that would now be permitted under this change.”

[NDP MP Charlie] Angus said it is well-known Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s office took a direct interest in the licence application from Sun TV. His director of communications, Kory Teneycke, left the Prime Minister’s Office in the summer of 2009 to take over the helm of the fledgling network.

“I found it very unusual that the Prime Minister would get a personal briefing on a CRTC application as was done in the case of this Fox News network north. I found it very unusual that the communications [director] of the Prime Minister suddenly quits his job and reappears as an expert broadcaster,” he said.

Chris Waddell, Carleton University’s director of journalism and communications, said, “People should wait to see what Sun TV puts on the air” before passing judgment.

(The content in the square brackets was added by me.)

The timing does seem a little sinister. Leaving the whole Sun TV thing out of the picture, the wording does make it look like a weakening of broadcast standards.

[hugh]

The regulations committee pointed out to the CRTC in 2000 that its regulation seemed to be out of step with that ruling and asked the commission what it planned to do about it.

From the Globe Article linked to earlier.

It seems to me that we should be wondering why the CRTC took 11 years to address this issue.

[ScaryBob]

The whole thing looks a little too coincidental and somewhat sinister to me as well. You've got a powerful political insider that starts a news service tagged "Fox News North." Plus there is the US court ruling that allows Fox News to lie. Then the CRTC wants to (ambiguously) change the rules regarding news reporting coupled with the PMs demonstrated interest in Sun News. How many coincidences is that?

[Dioneo]

I certainly see a difference between a single person knowingly disseminating false information and a news organization doing the same thing. The SC might very well too. So maybe the CRTC didn't care what the regulations committee thought about how the Supreme Court would rule on it and felt no need to change the wording.

Even if the rule does not change, there is still plenty of room for "Fox News" kind of content up here. The most vitriolic Fox News stuff isn't news anyway. It is produced as opinion by O'Reilly, Beck, Hannity etc.

[Krydor]

Originally Posted by NeilN

Eh? Please read the first page of this thread.

I did, and I've been following this issue elsewhere. Nowhere in the proposed wording is it even implied that news organizations are going to be allowed to knowingly lie. It dooesn't even read that way. This thing is a boogeyman along the lines of "Troops in the Streets" and "Secret Agenda".

[Dioneo]

Lots of sources/people seem to think otherwise. Where is this "elsewhere" that says there is nothing to worry about? That isn't meant to be sarcastic. I'd like to read dissenting opinions about this.

Nowhere in the proposed wording is it even implied that news organizations are going to be allowed to knowingly lie. It dooesn't even read that way.

The current rule states that a broadcaster “shall not broadcast any false or misleading news.”

I read that as - A broadcaster cannot report that the moon is made of cheese. They know that this is false.

The changed wording says that a broadcaster cannot report 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 read that as - A broadcaster can report that the moon is made of cheese. They know that it is false, but it is not something that "endangers or is likely to endanger the lives, health or safety of the public.”

[Krydor]

The proposed changed wording...

At any rate: If you knew that someone was saying there was a fire in a crowded theatre, and you knew that there wasn't a fire in a crowded theatre yet broadcast that there was a fire in a crowded theatre, then you would be in violation because it might endanger the public due to them panicking about the non-fire.

They couldn't say that the moon was made of cheese because that is false. The second bit is for the sake of clarity. If you report that endangers the public based on knowingly false information, then you are liable. If you didn't know it was false, but reported it anyway, there are no repercussions outside of an on air apology.

What this will do is put the onus where it belongs.

[gobisbay]

Let's be honest here; people that watch Fox News around the clock want to be lied to. They want the news to mirror their point-of-view, which (for the most part) is completely out of whack with reality.

If you can't lie to your viewers and tell them what they want to hear, you won't have any more viewers.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe all Muslims ARE freedom-hating terrorists. Maybe the Government is coming to take all our guns. Maybe Obama isn't American. Maybe the Gold Standard is just what the U.S. needs to become a great economy again.