Will Sun TV News be Good or Bad for Canadian Democracy?

[Evening Star]

Read the fine print:

Sirius Canada later announced that Howard Stern's two channels, Howard 100 and Howard 101, would not be available to its Canadian customers. Naturally this has generated negative response from Canadian fans of Stern, some of whom have claimed that they would not subscribe to any service absent the two Stern channels. According to Gary Slaight, CEO of Standard Broadcasting:

The CRTC, who we are licensed to, would eventually force us to take Stern down, because we have standards we have to abide by in this country when you own a broadcasting licence.[5]

Yes, read the fine print indeed. The CRTC did not ban or threaten to ban or even censor Stern, even in response to complaints, as shown by the two actual CRTC decisions I linked. Gary Slaight expressed a bullshit assumption that the CRTC "would 'eventually' [scare quotes added] force [sirius] to take Stern down." Anyone can make any assumption about eventualities. It's easy to deflect blame in this way.

[Evening Star]

If anything, the FCC has done much more to censor Stern, considering that they've levied $2.5M in fines on radio stations that broadcast his show.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes, read the fine print indeed. The CRTC did not ban or threaten to ban or even censor Stern, even in response to complaints, as shown by the two actual CRTC decisions I linked. Gary Slaight expressed a bullshit assumption that the CRTC "would 'eventually' [scare quotes added] force [sirius] to take Stern down." Anyone can make any assumption about eventualities. It's easy to deflect blame in this way.

Bottom line is that Stern went away for a spell because of existing policies in Canada. Canada has also banned American film content for excessive yankee patriotism which might offend royals, pornography, sex with minors, etc.

[bush_cheney2004]

If anything, the FCC has done much more to censor Stern, considering that they've levied $2.5M in fines on radio stations that broadcast his show.

FCC regulates broadcast content, not cable or satellite subscription services. That's why Stern went to Sirius/XM.

[Shwa]

LOL. Another so-called "study" in another attempt to undermine Fox News. It's become quite a trend. You'll find that the institutions and individuals responsible for conducting these "studies" have a vested interest in de-legitimize For News. They begin their studies with that very intention, and make sure the outcome matches their intent. It's getting kind of old.

Really? So WorldPublicOpinion.org, who self-admittedly is:

...an international collaborative project whose aim is to give voice to public opinion around the world on international issues. As the world becomes increasingly integrated, problems have become increasingly global, pointing to a greater need for understanding between nations and for elucidating global norms. With the growth of democracy in the world, public opinion has come to play a greater role in the foreign policy process. WorldPublicOpinion.org seeks to reveal the values and views of publics in specific nations around the world as well as global patterns of world public opinion.

Who are sponsored, in part, by:

Rockefeller Foundation

Rockefeller Brothers Fund

Tides Foundation

Ford Foundation

German Marshall Fund of the United States

Compton Foundation

Carnegie Corporation

Benton Foundation

Ben and Jerry's Foundation

And is a "...project managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland"

These are the people that want to undermine Fox News? Now, their close association with a university, sure, maybe they feel they have a stake in the education or the contribution towards the education of the American public.

But where are the studies by legitimate educational institutes that show Fox News isn't misinforming their viewers? If these studies are "another attempt" in something that is "getting kind of old" one would think that Fox News would have someone in their corner. Anyone?

Or perhaps these sorts of studies are prevalent because, you know, they are kinda true...

Edited December 17, 2010 by Shwa

[Saipan]

Another reason to have Sun TV supported by taxes.

Just like liberal spin CBC.

[Michael Hardner]

FCC regulates broadcast content, not cable or satellite subscription services. That's why Stern went to Sirius/XM.

And in Canada the government OWNS Sirius/XM !

[Evening Star]

Bottom line is that Stern went away for a spell because of existing policies in Canada.

This is different from your first comment:

It is one thing to ban American media content from crossing the border (CRTC)

Sirius suspecting or claiming that they suspect the CRTC would eventually force them to drop Stern, with no previous CRTC actions against Stern to support the claim, is not the same as the CRTC actually banning media content from crossing the border.

Canada has also banned American film content for excessive yankee patriotism which might offend royals, pornography, sex with minors, etc.

Perhaps you're right here? I never found that Canadian TV censored more than US network TV. (On the contrary, if anything.)

[Shakeyhands]

LOL. Another so-called "study" in another attempt to undermine Fox News. It's become quite a trend. You'll find that the institutions and individuals responsible for conducting these "studies" have a vested interest in de-legitimize For News. They begin their studies with that very intention, and make sure the outcome matches their intent. It's getting kind of old.

You are absolutely nuts. Talk about spin.

[bush_cheney2004]

This is different from your first comment:

OK....we'll award you points on technical merit, but the larger point remains for Stern in Canada.

Sirius suspecting or claiming that they suspect the CRTC would eventually force them to drop Stern, with no previous CRTC actions against Stern to support the claim, is not the same as the CRTC actually banning media content from crossing the border.

The CRTC bans content on a defacto basis because of content rules.

Perhaps you're right here? I never found that Canadian TV censored more than US network TV. (On the contrary, if anything.)

Many years ago...Canada would ban American content, requiring editing of films. The CBC and CRTC exist partially because of fears of a deluge from across the border...first with radio...then television.

[M.Dancer]

Sirius suspecting or claiming that they suspect the CRTC would eventually force them to drop Stern, with no previous CRTC actions against Stern to support the claim, is not the same as the CRTC actually banning media content from crossing the border.

But they have strong reasons to suspect they would...

Free-speech fight erupts after CRTC bans station

By TU THANH HA

From Wednesday's Globe and Mail

Montreal — In a Canadian first yesterday, federal regulators yanked the broadcasting licence of CHOI-FM, Quebec City's most popular radio station, because of a long-running pattern of offensive comments by its morning hosts.

Setting the stage for a fierce debate over freedom of speech and the power to regulate airwaves, station owner Patrice Demers vowed to go to court to save his $25-million, 35-employee business.

“You just witnessed an act of censorship that is totally unjustified and incomprehensible,” he said.

“I will probably lose $25-million because I stood by my hosts and gave them freedom of speech.”

It is only the sixth time since its creation that the CRTC has not renewed a licence. But until now no station had been banned solely for airing crude comments.

“This is the first time that the non-renewal is based on a pattern of verbal content as exclusively as this one is,” Charles Dalfen, chairman of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, said in an interview.

http://www.tribemagazine.com/board/tribe-main-forum/72080-crtc-pulls-plug-radio-station.html

[Shakeyhands]

...after 2006...with tape delay?

Yes, just this morning in fact, with no delay. Prior to 2006 as well, though then everyone had a tape delay.

Edited December 17, 2010 by Shakeyhands

[Black Dog]

They'd probably disagree. It's just some people don't understand that Fox News does regular news during the day, up until 5pm. Then does regular news at 6pm. But after that it's opinion journalism. Just like MSNBC and CNN. Even CBC tends to do that now.

If you think Fox's ideological direction doesn't influence its news coverage, you're smoking the drapes again.

Edited December 17, 2010 by Black Dog

[bloodyminded]

LOL. Another so-called "study" in another attempt to undermine Fox News. It's become quite a trend. You'll find that the institutions and individuals responsible for conducting these "studies" have a vested interest in de-legitimize For News. They begin their studies with that very intention, and make sure the outcome matches their intent. It's getting kind of old.

Well, these are declarative sentences, so surely you've got some information proving that the one actually cited--which provoked your response--"[has] a vested interest in de-legitimize [sic] For News," and that "[t]hey begin their studies with that very intention, and make sure the outcome matches their intent."

Because your saying it doesn't make it so. Where's your evidence?

Edited December 17, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Saipan]

If you think Fox's ideological direction doesn't influence its news coverage, you're smoking the drapes again.

Same as CBC, which unlike FOX, is "sponsored" by taxpayers - whether they agree or not.

[Shwa]

Same as CBC, which unlike FOX, is "sponsored" by taxpayers - whether they agree or not.

What "ideological direction" does the CBC take? If you please...

[Shady]

Really? So WorldPublicOpinion.org, who self-admittedly is:

Who are sponsored, in part, by:

Rockefeller Foundation

Rockefeller Brothers Fund

Tides Foundation

Ford Foundation

German Marshall Fund of the United States

Compton Foundation

Carnegie Corporation

Benton Foundation

Ben and Jerry's Foundation

These are the people that want to undermine Fox News?

Actually yes. Absolutely. Do you know the politics of groups like the Tides Foundation, and Ben and Jerry's Foundation? They're some of the most rabid leftwing people you'll find in America. Your ignorance is astounding.

[Shady]

What "ideological direction" does the CBC take? If you please...

OMG are you for real?

[Smallc]

OMG are you for real?

Yes, I think he's for real. Point to actual examples of where CBC News: Network, CBC News: The National, CBC News: The World this Hour, or CBC News: The World at Six has editorialized. If you can't do that, then you're just making things up. I can watch Fox News or Fox Business and show you examples of their editorial bias. I can't do the same with BNN, CTVNC, or CBCNN.

[Shwa]

Actually yes. Absolutely. Do you know the politics of groups like the Tides Foundation, and Ben and Jerry's Foundation? They're some of the most rabid leftwing people you'll find in America. Your ignorance is astounding.

How about the Rockefellers - are they left wing enough for you too? "Absolutely"

You ignorance is... well, Fox-News-watcher-like. Let me guess, you were one of the test subjects for many of the studies right?

[Shwa]

OMG are you for real?

So I ask someone to back up their claims and you jump in... without backing up his claims. Or making an inference without backing it up. Or just being a silly pretender. Which is it?

So, what "ideological direction" does the CBC take?

[Jack Weber]

So I ask someone to back up their claims and you jump in... without backing up his claims. Or making an inference without backing it up. Or just being a silly pretender. Which is it?

So, what "ideological direction" does the CBC take?

I'll take a guess that he'll say ,"To the left!"...

[Shady]

How about the Rockefellers - are they left wing enough for you too? "Absolutely"

Well, the only Rockefellers in Congress are Democrats.

[dre]

Yes, I think he's for real. Point to actual examples of where CBC News: Network, CBC News: The National, CBC News: The World this Hour, or CBC News: The World at Six has editorialized. If you can't do that, then you're just making things up. I can watch Fox News or Fox Business and show you examples of their editorial bias. I can't do the same with BNN, CTVNC, or CBCNN.

Yeah lets see some examples of the CBC taking clips out of content like Fox is routinely caught doing, and lets see examples of CBC commentators that allege conservatives are part of a facist government takeover conspiracy like wackjobs like Glen Beck claim about liberals. Lets see mainstream CBC hosts screaming at their guests and using the word "conservative" in the pajorative like you often see on fox. Lets see examples of the CBC donating money to one specific political party like fox does. Lets see examples of the CBC promoting liberal rallies and protests?

Thats not to say there isnt liberal editorializing on CBC... Im sure there is, although I havent watched it more for a few years since I quit TV. But to compare that to an organization like Fox that is a flat out extension of the conservative and republican political machine, and barely even tries to hide it, is ridiculous.

Edited December 18, 2010 by dre

[bush_cheney2004]

... Lets see mainstream CBC hosts screaming at their guests and using the word "conservative" in the pajorative like you often see on fox.

This is obviously written to tiptoe around the likes of the CBC's Heather Mallick....nice try!