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.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.
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.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.
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 newsany 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
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ompts-political-investigation/article1898147/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.
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?“We’ve looked everywhere to try to find out who’s pushing this, and we can’t find anybody,”
(The content in the square brackets was added by me.)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.
From the Globe Article linked to earlier.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.
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".Eh? Please read the first page of this thread.
The current rule states that a broadcaster “shall not broadcast any false or misleading news.”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.