Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums banner

41 - 60 of 80 Posts

·
Member #1
Joined
·
47,683 Posts
Again, Lets remember that this is in a "Call for Comments"

The actual verbiage may or may not change. I would be interested in hearing the comments at the proceeding before I would get all heated on this one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
543 Posts
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.
Sigh, if only we had the rules they do in Britain with Ofcom, which can and has even fined news networks for giving more time to one political party over the others during general elections.

I'm sorry Charter of Rights(which I greatly respect), but news companies have no rights to freedom of speech in this manner. Their job is to report the facts, not lies, nor twisting the facts to be convenient to either the Left or the Right.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
379 Posts
Sigh, if only we had the rules they do in Britain with Ofcom, which can and has even fined news networks for giving more time to one political party over the others during general elections.

I'm sorry Charter of Rights(which I greatly respect), but news companies have no rights to freedom of speech in this manner. Their job is to report the facts, not lies, nor twisting the facts to be convenient to either the Left or the Right.
I agree. The CRTC has to do everything in its power to prevent the disaster that has destroyed credible journalism in the United States from infecting Canadian journalism. Canadian journalism has had its low points in the past few years, but usually it has been a case of giving non-news items a disproportionate large amount of airtime (Local TV Matters, Vancouver 2010 coverage), not outright lies.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
171 Posts
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
That means they are loosening the regins so that if a broadcaster has news they will not be responsible to verify the facts -- leading to tabloid style news
That means more hearsay and gosip will be boradcast as a staple all the time .... more effective add campains could be run to sell dog food to wannabe prime ministers

we want unverified news ? This may lead to greater sales for large newspapers owned by the people in large pr firms to propagandize the news or election campains etc

really electing a prime minister on a rumor of this or that , sounds kinda scary but the crtc has a political aim right?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,312 Posts
Discussion Starter #45
CRTC plan to lift ban on false news prompts political investigation

A CRTC proposal that could make it easier to broadcast false or misleading news has prompted confusion and criticism among opposition MPs and consternation in at least one of the unions that represents Canadian journalists.

It has also led to allegations of interference by the Prime Minister’s Office and a hastily called investigation by federal politicians, who were caught off guard by the move.
...
The decision caught many people by surprise.

“We’ve looked everywhere to try to find out who’s pushing this, and we can’t find anybody,” said Peter Murdoch, the vice-president of media for the Communication, Energy and Paperworkers Union, which represents more than 20,000 journalists, including those at The Globe and Mail.

“It’s totally bizarre. Nobody in the industry has called for it,” Mr. Murdoch said. “Where is the motivation for change that would lower the standards of truth and fairness in broadcast journalism?”
...
Behind the scenes, officials say the timing is purely coincidental, the PMO had nothing to do with it, and that the CRTC simply realized it eventually had to answer the concerns of the regulatory committee.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ompts-political-investigation/article1898147/

So what does everyone think? CRTC business as usual or something else?
 

·
Member #1
Joined
·
47,683 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,131 Posts
“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?
 

·
Member #1
Joined
·
47,683 Posts
I'll bet coincidence. This issue should have been addressed years ago.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,312 Posts
Discussion Starter #51
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.
 

·
Member #1
Joined
·
47,683 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,768 Posts
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/934637--broadcast-standards-being-eroded-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.
 

·
Member #1
Joined
·
47,683 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,131 Posts
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?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,768 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
478 Posts
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".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,768 Posts
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.”
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
478 Posts
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.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
364 Posts
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.
 
41 - 60 of 80 Posts
Top