madmax Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 (edited) Under pressure from the Conservative government, the CRTC has opened the door to U.S.-style attack broadcast journalism, proposed a change to the rules on false or misleading news broadcasts on radio or television. The law currently says a broadcast licensee “shall not broadcast any false or misleading news.” I can't wait for all the fake, lying and misleading news to come from Harpers former director of communications, Kory Teneycke "False and Misleading News" station in waiting. I am not sure why there should be an undermining of Broadcast news. What exactly is wrong with providing NEWS that isn't False or Misleading? It is a strange request. Regardless of any Broadcast News Station, I do not want to see them Broadcasting False or Misleading News. Nor should this get rubber stamped in the CRTC. But I have been reading comments on this within the online papers and it appears that Conservatives are braying loudly and vocally for this change. Why does this not surprise me Edited February 8, 2011 by madmax Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 I'm not sure I really understand what this is all about. It seems like there's already a lot of false and misleading news out there. Why would they need more room to do that??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 Under pressure from the Conservative government, the CRTC has opened the door to U.S.-style attack broadcast journalism, proposed a change to the rules on false or misleading news broadcasts on radio or television. The law currently says a broadcast licensee “shall not broadcast any false or misleading news.”... Oh no...not that...anything but "US style" news. Next thing you know and the Conservatives might also want real Free Speech! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 I'm not sure I really understand what this is all about. Nor do I. What is there in place now, or was there before, that actually prevented false and/or misleading news? I don't know how often I've read errors in the press or heard downright lies uttered on television. Did those who printed those stories or broadcast those shows ever face recourse? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 Hmmmm... so there's a LEGAL reason why our news is so much better ? Great. Keep it in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 Hmmmm... so there's a LEGAL reason why our news is so much better ? Great. Keep it in. Yeah I'll second that. I'd rather keep our news than turn it into the poo-flinging intellectual wastelands that CNN, Fox etc are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 Yeah I'll second that. I'd rather keep our news than turn it into the poo-flinging intellectual wastelands that CNN, Fox etc are. I'd rather have our news be boring, non-lucrative to exploit and correct. On the other thread, half of an audience of Hannity's put their hands up when asked if Obama was Muslim. Hopefully less would have agreed with "the sky is green". Still, somebody's making good money selling exciting falsehoods to these poor people. Kind of like selling chunks of bedrock from under your house... you will make money for a time but at some point it will collapse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmax Posted February 8, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 Oh no...not that...anything but "US style" news. Next thing you know and the Conservatives might also want real Free Speech! False and Misleading News is not Free Speech. Its False and Misleading News. Free Speech is for shows that are "Not News" Maybe a Comedy Channel, Fiction, Documentary. News reports are to be Factual, Not False. Broadcast news in the US is an Embarrassment. Its entertaining but the "News" is pretty lame. Regardless, of the comments with regards to the US quality of product, its their country its their mess, Our Broadcast standard have it that the News should NOT contain False and Misleading News. Why anyone should defend False and Misleading news is bizzare. If I want False and Misleading news I will turn to 1) Saturday Night Live 2) Dailey Show 3) Fox News DOH! But this isn't about them. Its about Canadian Broadcast Quality Journalism. Even if there is a RightWing Slant in our news and with another one on the horizon, I would not want these Right Wing News Organizations to be providing False and Misleading News. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmax Posted February 8, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 Did those who printed those stories or broadcast those shows ever face recourse? Yes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 Yes Odd, because they're still doing it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 False and Misleading News is not Free Speech. Its False and Misleading News. au contraire... in Harper Conservative bizzaro world, this is a fundamental and required assault by free-speech warriors! Who can say it any better than chief BloggingTory, Stephen Taylor: But free speech advocate Stephen Taylor, a director with the National Citizen¹s Coalition, said it's wrong to look to regulatory bodies to decide what's "true"..."The last thing we need is a bureau of truth to determine what is state-sanctioned fact," Taylor said. "We should be wary of those that would seek to require an official government seal of approval on news reporting; societies which embrace such practices are seldom free." makes perfect sense in Harper Conservative bizzaro world... where regulatory wording would go => from: "a licensee shall not broadcast ...any false or misleading news." => to: "...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." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 (edited) False and Misleading News is not Free Speech. Its False and Misleading News. Free Speech is for shows that are "Not News" Maybe a Comedy Channel, Fiction, Documentary. News reports are to be Factual, Not False. Utter nonsense...who will decide...you? Broadcast news in the US is an Embarrassment. Its entertaining but the "News" is pretty lame. Then why do so many Canadians watch it? Regardless, of the comments with regards to the US quality of product, its their country its their mess, That's right...so why did you invoke the US for your "mess"? Our Broadcast standard have it that the News should NOT contain False and Misleading News. Why anyone should defend False and Misleading news is bizzare. Go back and find out what Free Speech means. Then take a journalism class....it will usually include many more AMERICAN examples...LOL! If I want False and Misleading news I will turn to 1) Saturday Night Live 2) Dailey Show 3) Fox News DOH! But this isn't about them. Of course not....you were referring to another USA in a parallel universe. Edited February 8, 2011 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 (edited) Under pressure from the Conservative government, the CRTC has opened the door to U.S.-style attack broadcast journalism, proposed a change to the rules on false or misleading news broadcasts on radio or television. The law currently says a broadcast licensee shall not broadcast any false or misleading news. Why does this not surprise me Is there a link to an article somewhere? What am I missing - is this just heresay? Edited February 8, 2011 by Keepitsimple Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 Is there a link to an article somewhere? What am I missing - is this just heresay? Indeed...does this include false or misleading weather forecasts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribblet Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 (edited) Indeed...does this include false or misleading weather forecasts? Or false and misleading thread titles, along with an inflammatory Star article based on innuendo and of course the usual attempts to censor SunTV . http://mobile.thestar.com/mobile/NEWS/article/934637 http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2011/02/07/17185126.html The CRTC was directed to review the previous wording following a Supreme Court ruling that struck down a similarly worded provision in the Criminal Code. from the NDP LOL http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dailybrew/proposed-changes-could-most-false-misleading-news-legal-20110114-093010-646.html The NDP could be "hoisted on his own petard" with this one as if followed literally there would be little that could be reported about their Layton's statements or their party's claims. I do see a point, as it seems odd odd to say that a broadcaster can publish news that it knows to be false - so - first thought was that this is intended to protect the CBC. However, the references to a criminal code provision that was found to be unconstitutional and state-sanctioned fact cleared that up. Edited February 8, 2011 by scribblet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 ...and of course the usual attempts to censor SunTV no biggee, hey scribbler? Changing that regulation will simply create buffer room for FoxNewsNorth, hey? ... Kory's Gang will be able to spew anything and simply claim not to "know" it's bullshit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribblet Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 Further to the NDP Hoo boy. After NDP MP Charlie Angus expressed fears that Canada would reach American-style levels of poisoned political discourse, linked to the pending arrival of Sun News and the CRTC’s decision to water down its regulations against false news, Sun Media’s David Aiken took to Twitter and launched a counter-attack. With a barrage of links, Aiken helpfully reminded the Canadian public of some of NDP moves that, evaluated fairly, wouldn’t have really done all that much to elevate the tone of our national political dialogue. A lot of them were familiar. There was Pat Martin’s bizarre asbestos puppet show. Or the time that an NDP MP accused Tory James Moore of surfing porn on his laptop while sitting in the House of Commons (the photos, which were not pornographic, were shots of his girlfriend taken on a beach vacation).But the real winner was a link on the NDP’s homepage titled Taking Aim, inviting members to become part of an ominously named Target Team. The map helpfully includes references to taking the Tories “head-on” … and a map of Canada covered in — you guessed it — bulls-eyes. Target Teams? Going after the Tories head-on? Targets scattered across the country, and a big scary dart picture? (Is the dart registered?) Text saying that the NDP is taking aim at Conservatives and plans to unseat the Prime Minister? Ugh, this all so martial and icky and violent. So Republican. Who’s running the NDP war room, Sarah Palin’s gunsmith? Read more: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/02/08/matt-gurney-ndps-hypocritical-complaints-ignore-its-own-u-s-style-ads/#ixzz1DPBJAyAV Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battletoads Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 I don't see how banning the media from broadcasting knowingly false information is not in line with Canaidan speech laws. Seems they just want to pave the way for Fox News North... Wave goodbye to any semblance of professionalism in the Canaidan media, and welcome the Glenn Becks and Bill O'Rilelys. I wonder how long it will take before we start hearing about how Ignatieff or Layton want to gang-rape the Canadian way of life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribblet Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 (edited) Pure innuendo and speculation. maybe some one could come up with the SC decision? ETA Okay, I got something, this committee has been asking the CRTC for years to change the wording, long before the proposed SunTV came on the scene. This is nothing but a tempest in a teapot, simply, the fact seems to be that the language is vague it needs to be cleaned up. Also bear in mind this is only a call for comments, it's not a done deal yet. Nowhere in the proposed wording is it even implied that news organizations are going to be allowed to knowingly lie, this thing is just another big bogeyman LOL so why did the CRTC take so long dragging it's feet anyway.. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2011/2011-14.htm http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/crtc-plan-to-lift-ban-on-false-news-prompts-political-investigation/article1898147/ Edited February 8, 2011 by scribblet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 Under pressure from the Conservative government, Can we ast least be told who is behind it since no one seems to have stepped and said "me". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 Pure innuendo and speculation. maybe some one could come up with the SC decision? SC vs Ernst Zundel , overturned. This is why it seems irregualar that they want to do this now with Sun TV coming online. What a co-inkydink Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esq Posted February 9, 2011 Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 (edited) How will we know if it doesn't go ahead tommorrow? or rather later today since it is now after midnight. If it goes ahead they could still say it didn't. letting them lie is just the first step of evil propaganda the second step is forcing them to lie. It has happened before, even in Canada. Edited February 9, 2011 by Esq Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribblet Posted February 9, 2011 Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 (edited) They are not 'letting them lie' nowhere does it say that. The Committee (for 11 years) asked the CRTC to change the current rule to “knowingly” broadcasts news that is “false or misleading and that endangers or is likely to endanger the lives, health or safety of the public.” Doesn't seem untowards to me. Our charter rights for freedom of expression won't mean a thing if these people who think only their way of thinking is acceptable and only they can define what is acceptable, is the correct definition. ETA: you do know that this is a bi-partisan committee of which the co-chair is a Liberal. Edited February 9, 2011 by scribblet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted February 9, 2011 Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 Can we ast least be told who is behind it since no one seems to have stepped and said "me". According to the cites it didn't come from "the conservative government" as such but "upon direction from a joint Senate-House of Commons regulatory committee". Most house committees have opposition majorities,do they not? The reason for the change is a Supreme Court decision finding a similar sounding law unconstitutional. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muddy Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 My reliable informant ,my wife, says that this has been in the works for ten years ,long before Sun news or a CP government was even thought about. Who decides what is truth? The abortionist or the right to life? I have been the subject of main stream media in a past life and when seeing or reading what I said has been a complete surprise to me. Cutting and editing can and has left the wrong message so nothing will change as far as I can see. Also it has been common practice my main stream media to not tell the whole truth by not tell the whole story. Is not reporting all the facts a lie? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.