Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums banner

1 - 20 of 80 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,309 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Current broadcasting law:
5. (1) A licensee shall not broadcast
(d) any false or misleading news.

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.

I fail to see how this proposed change fulfills the CRTC's mandate to "ensure that both the broadcasting and telecommunications systems serve the Canadian public." unless Fox-style political coverage is a good thing.
 

·
Member #1
Joined
·
47,683 Posts
Please your subject is false.

The change makes a lot of sense. Its simply saying that you cannot knowingly broadcast false or misleading information that could cause harm.

How is that allowing broadcasters to lie?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,309 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
It adds a caveat to the "no lying rule". Before, you couldn't report, for example, that politician x voted to support abortion when that clearly wasn't the case. Now, since the public's safety is not endangered, that report would be fine.
 

·
Member #1
Joined
·
47,683 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,309 Posts
Discussion Starter #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.

I don't see why that extra caveat is needed now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
118 Posts
Nothing wrong with that, I am sure that 73% of the population polled supported a green tax.

That is the trouble with all these polls / surveys.. what, how and who was sampled and what was the question(s)?

I participate in website surveys (LegerWeb) when asked. One group has been doing a survey in my area for public transportation. They keep trying (4 times now) but filter me out when it appears I "might" be negative. I am sure that eventually they will have a survey where a high percentage of the people support public transportation. A complete crock of BS but the headlines will read "Public ready for big Increase in Public Transportation"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,260 Posts
Nothing wrong with that, I am sure that 73% of the population polled supported a green tax.
That's beside the point. They can make up the story about a non-existent survey that never happened because it is not endangering lives, health or safety of the public.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
398 Posts
That's beside the point. They can make up the story about is not endangering lives, health or safety of the public.
But under the change said brodcaster could not make up a story about transit because that story would be considered information that they knew was false/misleading
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,309 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
No, you've got it backwards. Under the proposed changed they can make up the story as it's not endangering lives, health or safety of the public.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,309 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
Sorry, dtvinvictoria. Your reply snuck in between (I try not to use reply quotes when not necessary).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
398 Posts
5. (1) A licensee shall not broadcast (d) any news that the licensee knows is false or misleading and that endangers or is likely to endanger the lives, healthor safety of the public.
This statement implies that it is illegal to broadcast misinformation
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,260 Posts
This statement implies that it is illegal to broadcast misinformation
No, read it again...

knows is false or misleading and that endangers

Pay attention to what is in bold. It has to be misinformation AND endangers. Meaning that if it's just misinformation that does not endanger, it's okay. It is a big difference with the original statement which is quite sufficient for your interpretation. There is no need to change the original rule if it's just about ANY misinformation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
398 Posts
I understand where you're coming from now, I must have skimmed over the statement. In the form that the law exists now it is unacceptable I agree
 

·
Member #1
Joined
·
47,683 Posts
First rules of laws: They're meaningless if they can't be enforced.

Has anyone bothered to find out why the change was made? My guess, as I alluded to in my first response, is that by altering the verbiage, they actually have a greater likelihood of conviction.

Also I think the subject of this thread is a "lie" so you appear to be guilty of knowingly spreading falsehoods. The CRTC does not change the broadcast act, the federal government does. It's a lie to say the CRTC is making this move when in fact its the government therefore your enmity should be directed at Mr. Harper, not the regulatory body responsible for ensuring the regulations set out in the broadcast act are implemented and enforced.

Maybe the Conservatives are doing this for "Sun TV"? ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,309 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
The reference to the CRTC in the subject is accurate as it's the CRTC who is proposing (moving for) the change: http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2011/2011-14.htm

If the change's purpose is to make it easier to obtain convictions then why single out a specific topic? Call me too suspicious but I really don't like huge conglomerates like Bell also owning broadcasting networks. It can make it too tempting to influence news to make it more favourable to other parts of the company. Before, if that influence went over a line, the Broadcast Act provided a recourse. Now, it may not.
 

·
Member #1
Joined
·
47,683 Posts
From the Call for comments

The amendments address concerns raised by Parliament’s Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations related to the following provisions:

  • the prohibition on broadcasting false or misleading news;
  • the prohibition on broadcasting programming that contains obscene or profane language; and
  • the submission of information by licensees to the Commission.
It seems to me that the CRTC is simply inviting feedback on a demand by the Federal Government.

Again it's the government, not the CRTC, that is demanding the matter be investigated and the CRTC is simply responding to the governments demands.

Its the politicians, not the bureaucrats agitating for change.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
738 Posts
Current broadcasting law:
5. (1) A licensee shall not broadcast
(d) any false or misleading news.

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.
Maybe the proposed change is simply ambiguously worded. A second possible interpretation is 'any news that the licensee knows is false or misleading and [any news] that endangers or is likely to endanger the lives, health or safety of the public'.

Someone with fluency in French might be able to determine the intended meaning by looking at the French version.
 
1 - 20 of 80 Posts
Top