Conservatives for , False and Misleading news

[waldo]

This is not journalism

:lol:

scribbler... how about these articles showing the PMO Conservative Party of Canada (PMO advises the email/talking points did not originate from the PMO; rather, they originated from the Conservative Party of Canada), targeting these same academics... is this journalism?

Tories target Liberal 'disdain for the Canadian Forces'

Earlier in the day, the PMO Conservative Party of Canada (PMO advises the email/talking points did not originate from the PMO; rather, they originated from the Conservative Party of Canada), took issue with the appearance of former Harvard professor Amir Attaran on a Liberal panel on Canadians abroad.

“Sadly, Ignatieff and the Liberals have once again demonstrated their disdain for the Canadian Forces by including in their meeting a witness who has accused Canadian troops of war crimes,” that PMO statement says.

“Amir Attaran, a former Harvard professor and close personal associate of Michael Ignatieff when they were at Harvard has said: ‘Canadians are complicit in torture, and therefore, it is beyond any doubt that Canadians have committed war crimes. The only question is who, and when, and what the details are.’(Global National, November 23, 2009)”

Professor blasts back at 'small-minded' PMO

Amir Attaran says Stephen Harper’s office is “dishonestly” blurring and misrepresenting him in an internal email to Conservative MPs and supporters.

The email containing a set of talking points was released yesterday. It accuses the University of Ottawa professor of characterizing the Canadian troops as war criminals.

“It is maliciously wrong of the Prime Minister’s office to write that I ‘accused Canadian troops of war crimes,’” the professor told The Globe in an email today.

“That Canada has transferred Afghan detainees in actual knowledge of a risk of torture – a war crime – is undeniable, and this is largely because of the investigative work of The Globe’s Graeme Smith and Paul Koring,” he said.

“To state such a thing is not controversial. Even the Canadian Forces Judge Advocate General, BGen Ken Watkin, told Parliament in November that ‘the transfer of detainees to a real risk of torture or ill-treatment is contrary to international humanitarian law, also known as the law of war,’” he said.

Prof. Attaran’s outrage stems from talking points sent to Conservative MPs and supporters about his appearance at a Liberal roundtable.

[Saipan]

It came to my attention that Amir Attaran is paid by Al-Quida.

[Bitsy]

Actually, the Star had two articles on it.........all over an "anonymous" FOI request:

Tories Accused of Digging up Dirt on "Liberal" Profs: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/936704--tories-accused-of-digging-up-dirt-on-liberal-profs

Professors Fight Back in Information War: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/937569--professors-fight-back-in-information-war

Thanks for the links.

[Bitsy]

I suppose not, The Star title is Tories accused of digging up dirt on ‘Liberal’ profs - hmmm it is all pure speculation with no basis in fact, one person tries to access FOI on two professors who speculate that it might be a conservative - really - and this is journalism - reporting on speculation and innuendo - oh wait it's the Star, should've known. Of course the fact that the CPC has denied making the request doesn't mean anything to rumour mongers.

This is not journalism, it's paranoid delusional and too many people are willing to buy into fantasies put forward by them. Many people for many reasons attempt to access information through the FOI, but one has to wonder what these professors have to hide to make them so fearful.

As one commentator said: Hooked on a feeling, high on believing.....paranoia is a very interesting condition for which there are several options in treatment. :lol:

Accused, scribblet, accused. I assume Star readers are smart enough to recognize the distinction between accused of and guilty of. Considering that one of these professors was previously targeted by conservatives certainly makes this FOA newsworthy by all journalistic standards.

I read nothing that indicates the professors are fearful of the information requested even the information that goes beyond the scope. They are willing to be transparent if only the individual requesting the information would respond in like.

Anyone here ever wonder why paranoia is such a favorite word of Conservatives.

[Bitsy]

scribbler... how about these articles showing the PMO Conservative Party of Canada (PMO advises the email/talking points did not originate from the PMO; rather, they originated from the Conservative Party of Canada), targeting these same academics... is this journalism?

Tories target Liberal 'disdain for the Canadian Forces'

Professor blasts back at 'small-minded' PMO

Thank you, waldo, for posting this relative information. It adds another level of credibility to the speculation of the professors

[Saipan]

I assume Star readers are smart enough to recognize the distinction between accused of and guilty of.

No, you assume too much. They are not. Else they would be reading real newspaper.

[scribblet]

It came to my attention that Amir Attaran is paid by Al-Quida.

It has also come to my attention so am breathlessly reporting that one of the McGuinty boys was seen in a smoke filled non existent backroom and busty hookers. :lol:

The Star gives yellow journalism a bad name.

Actually, I've decided it's a big liberal conspiracy in cahoots with the star to discredit the CPC, so it's probably a Liberal making the request but the Star can breathlessly report that it is believed to be the Tories making the request. There's an election in the air so it must be true.

Edited February 13, 2011 by scribblet

[Bitsy]

No, you assume too much. They are not. Else they would be reading real newspaper.

I thought the Star had the highest circulation of all Canadian newspapers, as well as more awards than any other Canadian newspaper. Surely they can't all be unable to distinguish between "accused" and "guilty".

[Bitsy]

The Star gives yellow journalism a bad name.

When I see the term yellow journalism bandied about without any evidence, I often think it is the color of the reader’s lens. How can a newspaper with the circulation of the Star and the prizes amassed by them be practicing yellow journalism? If the facts of their news stories are incorrect, do you not have means to address the lies they print? Their opinion journalists are just that, opinions, but their news reporters should be expected to present the facts of an event, and if they do not, they should be censured/sued/fired or whatever means available to be held accountable for their stories. They certainly are in the US…think Jason Blair, Jack Kelly, Eason Jordan, Judith Miller, etc. Canada needs an independent media watchdog to prevent this type of “yellow journalism”.

[scribblet]

Let's get back to the word "Knowingly" - because when this happens some outlets will have a whole mess of complaints leveled against them...they know it... and that's why they hate the proposed rule change.

Besides as Liberal MP Derek Lee, a long-time committee member says - Despite the outcry, the joint committee for the scrutiny of regulations is unlikely to back down - and a little more of the truth here

Under the proposed new wording of the regulation, broadcasters would be prevented from spreading false or misleading news only in situations where they know the information is untrue and it “endangers or is likely to endanger the lives, health or safety of the public.”

“But our main function is to assure legal compliance of all government regulations. I think we will simply proceed with the files as they are, put on the record our response, and acknowledge the desire of the public to do everything we can to assure truth in broadcasting.…”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/opponents-of-crtcs-false-news-proposal-bombard-website/article1902999/

[Saipan]

I thought the Star had the highest circulation of all Canadian newspapers

The National Enquirer has proportionally higher, it's on every stand including check-out lines.

as well as more awards than any other Canadian newspaper.

From or by whom?

Like the Hollywood petting each other on the back with "awards"

[Bitsy]

The National Enquirer has proportionally higher, it's on every stand including check-out lines.

From or by whom?

Like the Hollywood petting each other on the back with "awards"

I was referring to paid circulation; in the states, a paper is judged by their paid circulation not their distribution.

I was speaking of the National Newspaper Awards; they are the equivalency of our prestigious Pulitzer Prize Awards.

The Star has won 10 National Newspaper awards for Best Investigating Reporting, more than any other newspaper. In the US, the Best Investigating Reporting is one of the most coveted awards. They were second only to the Globe and Mail in Best Long Features Reporting; ditto to Best Foreign Reporting; they were number one in Breaking News category.

[Shwa]

I was referring to paid circulation; in the states, a paper is judged by their paid circulation not their distribution.

I was speaking of the National Newspaper Awards; they are the equivalency of our prestigious Pulitzer Prize Awards.

The Star has won 10 National Newspaper awards for Best Investigating Reporting, more than any other newspaper. In the US, the Best Investigating Reporting is one of the most coveted awards. They were second only to the Globe and Mail in Best Long Features Reporting; ditto to Best Foreign Reporting; they were number one in Breaking News category.

Well that is easily explainable in Saipan-speak: the paid circulation is typical liberal/left number fabrication and the only reason they won all thoses awards is because they are all voted on by the other liberal/left bias media. (oh, and throw something in about the gun registry too.)

I mean, seriously, that much should be clear already.

[Saipan]

I was referring to paid circulation

Me too.

I was speaking of the National Newspaper Awards; they are the equivalency of our prestigious Pulitzer Prize Awards.

Who really cares? Will Pulitzer make grocery cheaper or weather warmer?

The Star has won 10 National Newspaper awards for Best Investigating Reporting, more than any other newspaper.

Issued by WHOM?

[Bitsy]

Me too.

Who really cares? Will Pulitzer make grocery cheaper or weather warmer?

Issued by WHOM?

National Enquirer is not a Canadian newspaper. The purpose of a newspaper is to inform their readers of grocery prices and weather changes, their role is to alert not alter; that falls to the government and its citizens. What part of National Newspaper Awards needs explaining?

Geez, and you sit in judgment on the Star readers ability to comprehend the written word.

[Evening Star]

The "knowingly" part isn't what concerns me, scribblet. It's that there would now be a requirement that in order for action to be taken, not only would the news have to be false or misleading but it would also have to “endanger or [be] likely to endanger the lives, health or safety of the public.” False and misleading news should be avoided even without this requirement.

Let's get back to the word "Knowingly" - because when this happens some outlets will have a whole mess of complaints leveled against them...they know it... and that's why they hate the proposed rule change.

[Molly]

Meh. Scribblet has the wrong end of the stick with that comment anyway. Loosening up the requirement in this way would reduce the number of complaints-in-waiting, not add to them.

Adding the word 'knowingly' is the freedom to claim black is white, so long as you play stupid.

[scribblet]

Well, it's obvious that the current ruling hasn't been a huge deterrent to those purveyors of falsehoods, especially in some papers. Has there ever been action taken based on violation of the current rules? It seems to me that none of us here are actually aware of the whole concept and decisions made.

BTW, does anyone know who else is on this committee recommending the change?

http://www.winnipegsun.com/comment/columnists/alan_shanoff/2011/02/11/17245546.html

Let’s call a time-out and examine this a bit. First, the Supreme Court of Canada has already declared a section of the Criminal Code unconstitutional which made it illegal to publish false news. At first blush that’s a point in favour of the right. But just because it isn’t a criminal offence to publish false news doesn’t necessarily mean there should never be any repercussions for publishing false news.

Second, about a year ago the Supreme Court handed the media a defamation defence called the responsible communication. This defence gives the media the right to be wrong when reporting on or discussing matters of public interest provided we have acted responsibly — whatever that means.

So while the court seems to think it’s OK for the media to get some facts wrong, apparently the left doesn’t agree.

But wait a minute, wasn’t it the Toronto Star that led the charge to have the Supreme Court adopt the responsible communication defence? I didn’t see anybody objecting.

If Sun Media led the charge I’d bet we’d have seen headlines such as “Sun tabs want right to spread false news.”

The real problem with a law that prohibits factual errors or punishes broadcasters for broadcasting falsehoods lies in the difficulty in distinguishing between facts and opinions, as well as establishing whether a purported fact is true or false.

-----

ast, if we preserve the CRTC rule regarding falsehoods we are retaining a regime wherein broadcasters are held to a higher standard than print publishers. How can that dichotomy be justified?

So what’s my take? The Supreme Court got it right when it gave us the responsible communication defence.

The CRTC shouldn’t be in the business of distinguishing between opinions and facts or policing what is true or false. Leave that up to the courts.

[scribblet]

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/crtc-plan-to-lift-ban-on-false-news-prompts-political-investigation/article1898147/?service=mobile

The joint chairman is Liberal Andrew Kania, so we know that two at least are Liberals so surely they would not cave in to untowards pressure -

[madmax]

Its hillarious to read the posts here defending

"false and misleading news".

Could we do away with books categorized as Fact while we are at it.

Just a big "Fiction" section.

Free Speech u know..

[Molly]

Well, it's obvious that the current ruling hasn't been a huge deterrent to those purveyors of falsehoods, especially in some papers.

CRTC =/= newspapers. Apple rules generally have very little regulatory effect on oranges.

From your link: "...ast, if we preserve the CRTC rule regarding falsehoods we are retaining a regime wherein broadcasters are held to a higher standard than print publishers. How can that dichotomy be justified?"

To the degree that it's true, (though the assertion of higher standard is very, very, VERY arguable) the greater public impact - broader, more passive exposure by way of a very finite and necessarily regulated medium - is plenty of justification.

[madmax]

Todays False News.

Bev Oda "NOT"

It all depends on how you interpret NOT and what NOT means. Not is really a recommendation and is often inserted into documents that are NOT friendly to the government vision. CIDAs recommendation was NOT really a recommendation. It was NOT recommended. Its just a matter who did NOT recommend it. People should NOT get up in arms about this. Bev Oda is NOT responsible as she claimed to have NOT put NOT into the document and if she did NOT do this, it did NOT happen even if she said she directed the document NOT be approved.

Its just a big misunderstanding. Its like the Clintons definition of "IS" or Rumsfeld defining "Unknown".

Bev Oda is NOT NOT.

Reporting for the False News Network.

[waldo]

Regulations committee drops advice to CRTC on false and misleading news

Facing mounting public pressure, the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations, a committee of the House and Senate, agreed Thursday to withdraw advice to the CRTC to water down a regulation prohibiting the broadcast of false and misleading news.

Some observers now expect the CRTC, which is against the proposal, to withdraw or abandon the regulatory change it put forward in a consultation on Jan. 10.

The amendment would change the commission’s prohibition on the broadcast of false and misleading news so that it would instead be a prohibition on “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.”

latest sweet tweets advise that in response to the committee withdrawal, CRTC chair von Finckenstein states the CRTC will drop the proposed, 'false and misleading' amendment

score: True and Honest News => 1, FoxNewsNorth => 0

[Saipan]

THE DARK SIDE OF GUN CONTROL

For more than a year (time of C-68), Canadians who support the right of private gun ownership have been writing to and meeting with their Members of Parliament and providing them with facts, figures and refutations of the common gun control arguments similar to those contained in this article. Justice Minister Rock has been deluged with mail and has spoken to many concerned groups. The gun owner who scared off the bear and the burglars has related his stories to Rock in person.

They have been met with astonishing indifference and closed-mindedness.

Those who appeared at the Commons Committee hearings on Bill C-68 report rude and dismissive treatment by most of the Liberal and Bloc Quebecois members of the Committee. Their presentations lead to no significant changes in the bill. Rock appeared unmoved by the possibility that his pet policies, had they been enacted years earlier, might have resulted in the death of the man he was speaking with.

What does this say about the kind of society the Liberal government and Justice Minister Rock want us to live in? Several things:

It's a society in which the government makes no distinction between criminals and law-abiding citizens. Canadians are all assumed to be equally violent and equally disrespectful of others' rights and will be treated as such by the state.

It's a society in which passivity and dependence upon government for protection is encouraged even though that protection is impossible to provide, while initiative and responsibility for oneself are discouraged, even where human life is at stake.

It's a society in which the government does not trust hitherto law-abiding citizens not to abuse their power of individual self-defence, but expects those same citizens to trust the state not to abuse its newly expanded powers of search and seizure.

It's a society in which parliamentarians would prefer to follow the path of least resistance and vote for the myths that the public opinion polls show their constituents believe in, instead of taking the trouble to educate themselves and their constituents.

In fact, the evidence that gun control will fail to prevent suicide, fatal accidents or violent crime is so overwhelming that it is hard to believe that educated, intelligent people who have had an opportunity to consider the evidence could genuinely continue to advocate it. Much more plausible is the hypothesis that gun control is attractive to governments for other reasons.

Indeed, there is one thing for which gun control has proven itself to be admirably suited: the control of civilian populations. Authoritarian governments around the world have on many occasions subjugated rebellious peoples first by requiring gun registration, and later by confiscating the registered guns.

Canada is currently facing several potential threats to its internal order: provincial secession, aboriginal uprisings, and (perhaps more remotely) civil unrest arising out of growing dissatisfaction with big government itself--something akin to the militia movement in the U.S. Clearly, a disarmed population would be easier for the state to deal with than an armed one. In fact, the silence of the government on the subject of armed violence in connection with these issues has become almost conspicuous. However, the timing of the call for universal gun control is a suspiciously convenient coincidence.

Perhaps the most revealing and worrisome aspect of this whole debate has been the rhetoric of the primary debater, the Justice Minister himself.

"There's no room for an American style gun lobby in this country," he said in one speech. In a letter to the editor of the Globe and Mail, he dismissed the arguments of two of his most potent critics by labelling them "gun enthusiasts" and members of the "gun lobby." Even if these labels were true, it wouldn't change the accuracy of their statistics or the logic of their arguments. Who else would normally be expected to take an interest in legislation if not the people most affected?

Since when has Canada started deciding whom it has room for on the basis of their political opinions? What's next--forbidding the "gun lobby" the right to speak because they disagree with government policy?

Here, then, is my challenge for the Justice Minister. I was born in Canada. I've lived here all my life. I have never owned a gun and have no plans to get one. I'm too squeamish to hunt and I think target shooting would bore me. I have never belonged to or worked for any gun-related organization. In short, I am neither an American, nor a gun enthusiast nor a gun lobbyist. I do not wish to live in the paternalistic, authoritarian, crime-filled society that gun control promises to impose. Now, Mr. Rock, tell me why I should have to.

[madmax]

THE DARK SIDE OF GUN CONTROL

Maybe u can find a thread to put that post in....