CRTC Moves To Allow Broadcasters to Knowingly Lie - Page 5 - 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 2011-02-09, 02:38 PM   #61
El Gran Chico
Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Toronto/Etobicoke - Bloor/Royal York/Queensway/Islington
Posts: 1,503
Default

Quote:
What part of "Call for Comments" don't people get?
I think that's a reflection of a total lack of faith in the process. I sense the public feels the decision has already been made and the "Call for Comments" is a charade so that after the decision is finalized, some spokesman can come out and say "the public was consulted" and "the process was followed".

Personally, while the new wording concerns me, the lame stream media already has tools like half-truths, distorted truths, and truths without context. I don't think this change will make the current situation much worse. In fact, it just might turn people off lame stream media that much more.
__________________
A-D DB4e & C5, CM 7778 9521, Aquos LC37D62U, TiVo Premiere & Roamio
El Gran Chico is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 2011-02-09, 10:07 PM   #62
Gino Cerullo
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 583
Default

I actually have a BIG problem with the proposed new wording.

As it stands "shall not broadcast any false or misleading news” implies that the information being disseminated should not "endanger the lives, health or safety of the public" without spelling it out.

If the wording is changed to read "the licensee knows is false or misleading and that endangers or is likely to endanger the lives, health or safety of the public” it provides a escape clause for "false or misleading" information as long is it doesn't "endanger the lives, health or safety of the public."
Gino Cerullo is offline  
Old 2011-02-09, 11:29 PM   #63
Krydor
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: SK
Posts: 478
Default

I don't read it at all like that. It isn't carte blanche to say whatever the hell you want as long as no one dies. I read it as "get your facts straight before you go to air". This was, when I was in the industry, a problem that ocurred far too often. There were no actual repercussions.

So, let's start at the start.

Quote:
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.
Remove the conjunction to make two separate sentences (but makes it redundant).

-any news that the licensee knows is false and that endangers or is likely to endanger the lives, health or safety of the public

-any news that the licensee knows is misleading and that endangers or is likely to endanger the lives, health or safety of the public.

They couldn't, for instance, say that vaccines caused Autism. They couldn't say that Global Warming was a myth. They would be effectively hamstrung from broadcasting all the southern right wing talking points. They also couldn't say that Ignatieff, Harper, Layton or whomever cavorted with Satan whilst killing puppies because laws OUTSIDE the broadcasting act (and supercede it) make such things actionable.

The key to this is the word KNOWS. The conjunctions are irrelevant. The verb is the difference.
Krydor is offline  
Old 2011-02-10, 01:05 AM   #64
NeilN
Veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: North York
Posts: 1,834
Default

Krydor, this is what a CRTC official said when questioned:

Quote:
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.
So, yes, they're narrowing the scope of what falls under the regulation and making it easier "to say whatever the hell you want as long as no one dies". I provided several examples upthread where broadcasting false information would not be actionable outside the act.
NeilN is online now  
Old 2011-02-10, 08:17 AM   #65
Krydor
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: SK
Posts: 478
Default

Why do you, specifically you, NeilN, think that this proposed change will lead to broadcasters not only knowingly lying but lying in such a way that benefits a specific political ideology to the detriment of others?

See, prior to this, they could pretend that Climate Change was false and say "we didn't know" or "that's our opinion" and that would fall under the auspices of free speech. Now, because it's actually proven science (like gravity and evolution) they cannot. A Northern Glenn Beck has less chance of success under this proposed rule change.

As a great man once said, "you are entitled to your opinions but not your facts". That's what this proposed change will do, make news broadcasters operate from the same set of facts.
Krydor is offline  
Old 2011-02-10, 08:29 AM   #66
hugh
Member #1
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Toronto
Posts: 47,716
Default

What the CRTC is saying is simply what the lawyers have been telling them for a decade. The existing wording is worthless because it can be easily challenged in court.

In simple terms, THE STATUS QUO has to change.

The CRTC has posted a "proposed" change which I'm certain was vetted by lawyers. If you disagree then it begs the question, "what would be better wording"?

If you say the wording should stay the same then I'll drop out of this discussion.
__________________
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 2011-02-10, 08:36 AM   #67
NeilN
Veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: North York
Posts: 1,834
Default

First, Climate Change is a poor example. There's enough scientists in the world that say the data is unreliable and climate change is unproven to allow broadcasters to make the claim that Climate Change is false. A better example is from post #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.

This would now be allowable under the new wording.
NeilN is online now  
Old 2011-02-10, 08:37 AM   #68
David_Hanlon
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Richmond Hill
Posts: 258
Default

Quote:
...Remove the conjunction to make two separate sentences (but makes it redundant).

-any news that the licensee knows is false and that endangers or is likely to endanger the lives, health or safety of the public

-any news that the licensee knows is misleading and that endangers or is likely to endanger the lives, health or safety of the public.
How about we simplify a bit more?

-any news that the licensee knows is false

-any news that the licensee knows is misleading

Which is what the regulation is right now. Why is a change needed to dilute this?
__________________
A bottle of red... ooooh a bottle of white... whatever kind of mood you're in tonight...
David_Hanlon is offline  
Old 2011-02-10, 08:44 AM   #69
NeilN
Veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: North York
Posts: 1,834
Default

hugh, I'm going to repeat myself so I'll apologize in advance (and stop if you tell me to). Yes, I think the wording should say the same with the following change.

5. (1) A licensee shall not knowingly broadcast
(d) any false or misleading news.

Then, if a challenge comes up, we can see exactly who is challenging it and why and decide on the future credibility of the broadcaster.
NeilN is online now  
Old 2011-02-10, 10:44 AM   #70
Krydor
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: SK
Posts: 478
Default

That is basically what they are adding. That verb is the difference.

Climate Change is a perfect example, because no credible scientist doesn't think it's not anthromorphic and promoting denial of it does directly harm the public.

Once again, outright slander on air couldn't be done anyway. Crazy crap doesn't generally make it to air on a consistent basis. There is no Candian equivalent of infowars, and this revised wording makes sure there won't be.
Krydor is offline  
Old 2011-02-10, 10:47 AM   #71
hugh
Member #1
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Toronto
Posts: 47,716
Default

as i said in post #4

Quote:
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.
Let the courts worry about slander, not the CRTC.
__________________
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 2011-02-10, 11:05 AM   #72
MarcP
Veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Airdrie, AB
Posts: 4,159
Default

False news is not always equivalent to slander.
MarcP is offline  
Old 2011-02-14, 01:54 PM   #73
ChappyHappy
Rookie
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 6
Default

I'm trying to understand this but I'm still confused after reading the thread.

From CRTC's site:
Quote:
4. (1) Paragraph 8(1)(d) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:
(d) 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 dont really see how this can be a positive thing. I'm seeing more negatives.
If they broadcast that I shoplift or some minor crime, it seems to me that it would be allowed. It wont endanger my life, health, or safety.

I'm probably missing something here. My English and grammar isnt that good.
I'm thinking it should be expanded/reworded.
ChappyHappy is offline  
Old 2011-02-25, 01:49 AM   #74
Exid0r
Premium Supporter
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Brampton, Ontario
Posts: 607
Default

Press Release from NDP cultural critic Charlie Angus:

Quote:
NEW DEMOCRAT CAMPAIGN KEEPS TRUTH IN REPORTING

Thu 17 Feb 2011

A major victory was won today by the tens of thousands of Canadians who spoke out against the CRTC’s attempts to strip basic standards of accuracy in journalism. This morning, the Parliamentary Regulations Committee decided to “close the file” on its long-standing request for the CRTC to reassess the obligations of television and radio broadcast owners to maintain basic standards of truth and accuracy in reporting.

New Democrat Heritage Critic Charlie Angus says Canadians have made it clear they don’t want to lower our media standards. “They are opposed to the same kind of hate and misinformation shows that are common fare south of the border.”

The decision comes two weeks after Angus launched a national awareness campaign over the implications of stripping the existing regulations.

“The proposed changes would mean anything goes as long as no one gets killed. We wouldn't allow roofers, engineers or doctors to lower their standards to such a dismal level. Why should we allow news broadcasters to?"

Tens of thousands of Canadians signed petitions and wrote to their MPs and the CRTC demanding that the Canadian standard of truth be maintained. “The committee heard those calls and I’m hopeful the CRTC will too.”
Von Finckenstein says commission will withdraw 'false and misleading news' amendment

Quote:
February 18, 2011 - 4:13pm — The Wire Report

OTTAWA—CRTC chair Konrad von Finckenstein says the commission tried to stall the amendment to its prohibition on false and misleading news for 10 years, but eventually gave into pressure from the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations when it proposed its amendments in January.

But now that the regulations committee has agreed to no longer pursue the issue, the chair says the CRTC will drop it.
The above articles would seem to be a newsworthy update for this thread...or have I been mislead by a falsehood?
__________________
Rogers SA8300HD | LG 60PA6500 | LG BP200 | LG NB3520A | Panasonic DMP-BD60 |
Exid0r is online now  
Old 2011-02-25, 05:24 AM   #75
logic_gate
Rookie
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 22
Default

Thanks for posting the update. The CRTC Chair's comments irritated me. His martyr act does him no service here and left me more confused.

This concern around true reporting has been going on for decades though. The 'news' and the 'real news' is only what 'they' decide the news will be. I turn on my local 6 pm News broadcast. But where do they get their 'news'? Too often straight from government press releases. In fact the news these days seems like something news outlets try at all costs to evade. They don't chase stories. They evade them. Only the advertisers matter and they don't want to piss off the advertisers, so what happens then is something no one wants to look at too closely.

I'm lost as to the true role of the CRTC. I tend to agree with Hugh's perspective on this thread but it's almost like the CRTC itself doesn't know. And in regards to false information they would do well to clean up their own house first.
logic_gate 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 10:46 PM.

Search Digital Home

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