CRTC Moves To Allow Broadcasters to Knowingly Lie

[El Gran Chico]

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.

[Gino Cerullo]

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."

[Krydor]

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.

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.

[NeilN]

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

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.

[Krydor]

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.

[hugh]

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.

[NeilN]

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.

[David_Hanlon]

...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?

[NeilN]

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.

[Krydor]

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.

[hugh]

as i said in post #4

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.

[MarcP]

False news is not always equivalent to slander.

[ChappyHappy]

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

From CRTC's site:

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.

[Exid0r]

Press Release from NDP cultural critic Charlie Angus:

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

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?

[logic_gate]

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.