Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums banner

61 - 80 of 80 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,624 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
626 Posts
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."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
478 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,310 Posts
Discussion Starter #64
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
478 Posts
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.
 

·
Member #1
Joined
·
47,683 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,310 Posts
Discussion Starter #67
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
258 Posts
...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?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,310 Posts
Discussion Starter #69
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
478 Posts
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.
 

·
Member #1
Joined
·
47,683 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
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.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
762 Posts
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? ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23 Posts
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.
 

·
Member #1
Joined
·
47,683 Posts
Released today

Broadcasting Regulatory Policy CRTC 2011-308

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

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

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).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,131 Posts
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.
 

·
Member #1
Joined
·
47,683 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,768 Posts
Now I guess we can see why they wanted this change in the first place...

http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1125137--federal-bureaucrats-posed-new-canadians-on-sun-news-citizenship-ceremony?bn=1

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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
175 Posts
:mad:
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!
 
61 - 80 of 80 Posts
Top