CRTC Moves To Allow Broadcasters to Knowingly Lie - Page 6 - 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 2011-05-11, 12:41 PM   #76
hugh
Member #1
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Toronto
Posts: 47,585
Default

Released today

Broadcasting Regulatory Policy CRTC 2011-308

Quote:
The Commission announces that it will not amend the false or misleading news provisions set out in various Commission regulations.

The Commission reminds the public that complaints that arise regarding the news content aired by broadcasters should be addressed to the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council (CBSC). The Commission will typically intervene in the complaint process only if the broadcaster in question is not a member in good standing of the CBSC or if the complaint has not been satisfactorily resolved by the CBSC.

The Commission further reminds the public that for the Commission to take action on a complaint relating to the broadcast of false or misleading news, the breach of the false or misleading news provisions must be flagrant.
from the decision

Quote:
The Commission received approximately 350 comments in response to Broadcasting Notice of Consultation 2010-931 and approximately 3,300 comments in response to Broadcasting Notice of Consultation 2011-14. In both cases, the vast majority of the comments addressed the proposed amendment to the false or misleading news provisions. Most criticized the proposal, noting that the change would permit a wide range of false or misleading news to be broadcast. The Commission received eight comments that were supportive of the change, arguing that it was more in keeping with freedom of expression.
and a reminder why the proposed changes were made

Quote:
Generally speaking, these provisions prohibit licensees of radio and television programming undertakings and broadcasting distribution undertakings from broadcasting programs that contain false or misleading news. Citing the Supreme Court of Canada’s R. v. Zundel judgment[1] (the Zundel judgment), the SJC expressed concerns that the existing false or misleading news provisions might not be in keeping with the freedom of expression provision under section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the Charter).
__________________
As of January 2012, I am no longer the owner of the Digital Home website and have disabled private messaging. For personal inquiries contact me at the Hugh Thompson website or via twitter.
hugh is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 2011-05-11, 01:02 PM   #77
ScaryBob
Veteran
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: The Dandelion City
Posts: 7,133
Default

Quote:
the SJC expressed concerns that the existing false or misleading news provisions might not be in keeping with the freedom of expression provision under section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the Charter).
I thought freedom of expression applies to individuals, not news organizations. There are many laws that restrict freedom of expression. Hate crime laws are an example. If someone wants to provide an opinion on a news station, that's fine with me. OTOH, intentionally reporting false facts as news is a completely different issue. The obvious response is that recourse can be obtained using slander (or similar) laws but that is too difficult, especially with Canada's legal system that makes such recourse next to impossible for individuals with limited resources.
__________________
At 20 I had a good mind. At 40 I had money. At 60 I've lost my mind and my money. Oh, to be 20 again. --Scary
ScaryBob is offline  
Old 2011-05-11, 01:07 PM   #78
hugh
Member #1
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Toronto
Posts: 47,585
Default

As I noted in the first page, I believe this whole issue was blown out of proportion. The CRTC was advised to change the wording because the Federal Government demanded it due to a belief that the current verbiage would not withstand a charter challenge.

People disagreed and the issue is done and the Feds should be happy.
__________________
As of January 2012, I am no longer the owner of the Digital Home website and have disabled private messaging. For personal inquiries contact me at the Hugh Thompson website or via twitter.
hugh is offline  
Old 2012-02-02, 10:22 AM   #79
Dioneo
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: GTA IV
Posts: 1,768
Default

Now I guess we can see why they wanted this change in the first place...

http://www.thestar.com/news/article/...-ceremony?bn=1

Quote:
OTTAWA—Six federal bureaucrats were drafted to pose as new Canadians for a citizenship reaffirmation ceremony broadcast on the Sun News network, an event requested by Immigration Minister Jason Kenney’s office.

The bureaucrats smiled and held Canadian flags as the TV hosts referred to a group of 10 people as “new Canadians” that had “finally” received their citizenship.

Documents released under Access to Information legislation show that just a few weeks before Canada’s Citizenship Week last October, Kenney’s staff directed departmental officials to add a last-minute citizenship ceremony at the network to their list of scheduled events.

Bureaucrats scrambled to work out the logistics, suggesting to the minister’s office that Sun News could cover one of the 13 scheduled ceremonies in Ontario — four of them in Toronto, including one at the Air Canada Centre.

One senior bureaucrat at the registrar of Canadian citizenship expressed concern to Kenney’s office that Sun News seemed to want to feature “only” the oath, which might short-change new Canadians from the full ceremony experience.

“We have to keep in mind that the ceremony should first and foremost be a special (sic) for the new citizen, most of whom will want family and friends (sic) attend this very special day in their lives,” the bureaucrat wrote.

When a bureaucrat sent Sun News a list of possible citizenship ceremonies to cover in Ontario, a network employee suggested another scenario.

“Let’s do it. We can fake the Oath,” reads an email from a @sunmedia.ca email address, the name blacked out of the document.
__________________
Long live the console war! Buy 'em all! Just don't give Sony any of your Personal info!
Dioneo is offline  
Old 2012-04-12, 09:44 AM   #80
Dougofthenorth
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: near Ottawa
Posts: 145
Default


It all is just more political smoke & mirrors - change wordings, change definitions, change legislation/regs etc

All done in order to escape consequences & accountability, and to further confuse the public as to whether or not there was in fact any actual breech done!

To prove a breech was allowed/done is relativly easy & then consequences flow fairly directly from that
versus
to prove a breech was knowingly done

are two situations that are continents apart!!

This is just more proof of how corporations take over more & more via changes to legislation/regulations

If a car you are driving exceeds the speed limit - you are fined if caught (strict liability)

However if it has to be proven that you knowingly exceeded the speed limit you have an incredible advantage in wining a contested charge!
Dougofthenorth 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 11:55 PM.

Search Digital Home

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