Derek 2.0 Posted October 12, 2014 Report Posted October 12, 2014 and with that... we're done here. I spoke generally - you can't separate yourself, on any level, from your uber-partisianship. The party of money today, may not be the party of money tomorrow... do you get that? In any case, I'll answer the question you ignored; I'll state that you are in favour of the "race to the (attack ad) bottom"! have a shot at your last word... I'm done with you. I did answer your question in relation to the supposed "race to the bottom"........I feel ads that rely upon (now) open media sources lend greater worth than ones of baseless attack conjured in ones own party headquarters. Quote
jkoblovsky Posted October 12, 2014 Report Posted October 12, 2014 (edited) no, I'm referring to damage done to the electorate... to an election outcome. Whether "fair dealing" or a ramp-up to the Harper Conservative proposed exception, the damage done through a short election campaign of concentrated attack ads (those worst of the worst kind of slime/deception/out of context/etc.), could sway an election, particularly given the preponderance of 'low information voters'. To me, providing any opportunity to expand on the nature and preponderance of attack ads does not meet my personal measure of "fair use".As I stated in my blog post which I linked too a few pages back, the grown up thing to do is to introduce legislation or comitt to an election platform that deals with the decorum in Canadian politcs for all parties. Canadians aren't stupid, the low information voter bit is a bit insulting to the electorate. The polls are showing that the last attack ads backfired on the Conservatives. I think (especially after following this story over the past week) the vast majority of Canadians are fed up having to deal with them. Politically I think it would be a great strategic error on the Conservatives part to run attack ads even though the law says they can. I think it'll cost them the next election. We also need to ensure that going into the next election, our free press isn't holding a political adgenda and trying to influence votes based on what thier shareholders believe or want at a time of great importance on public policy as it relates to civil libertiese, at a time of war and mass surveillance. They have a hugely important role to ensure independence on public policy, and on political messages during a time of the election campaign. To interfere with that, would be to interfere with the independence of information so that the electorate can make an informed vote. Their role in a democracy is to provide independence of information and not take a political position. If that's no longer the case, we won't have a free and fair election, which after the robocalls scandal, the electorate will be monitoring a lot more closely than in recent years. They'll be monitoring all players of democracy on that, and all parties. Edited October 12, 2014 by jkoblovsky Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted October 12, 2014 Report Posted October 12, 2014 We also need to ensure that going into the next election, our free press isn't holding a political adgenda and trying to influence votes based on what thier shareholders believe or want at a time of great importance on public policy as it relates to civil libertiese, at a time of war and mass surveillance. They have a hugely important role to ensure independence on public policy, and on political messages during a time of the election campaign. To interfere with that, would be to interfere with the independence of information so that the electorate can make an informed vote. That's thier role in a domocracy. If that's no longer the case, we won't have a free and fair election, which after the robocalls scandal, the electorate will be monitoring a lot more closely than in recent years. They'll be monitoring all players of democracy on that, and all parties. .......Yet all three of the major parties decry what they feel is bias in various media outlets.........If you're a right leaning voter you chide the CBC, Star and Globe & Mail.....a Liberal, both the National Post and Sun News........the NDP, all MSM is beholden to corporate interests, so one relies upon progressive independent sources....if you're a low information voter, the local Global news, free local papers and Jon Stewart.......A wing-nut, Alex Jones, Coast to Coast AM and Yahoo....etc Everyone sees bias in media that counters their own held beliefs.......... Quote
jkoblovsky Posted October 12, 2014 Report Posted October 12, 2014 (edited) .......Yet all three of the major parties decry what they feel is bias in various media outlets.........If you're a right leaning voter you chide the CBC, Star and Globe & Mail.....a Liberal, both the National Post and Sun News........the NDP, all MSM is beholden to corporate interests, so one relies upon progressive independent sources....if you're a low information voter, the local Global news, free local papers and Jon Stewart.......A wing-nut, Alex Jones, Coast to Coast AM and Yahoo....etc Everyone sees bias in media that counters their own held beliefs.......... In broadcast journalism there are laws regarding independence and bias. If the major parties decry bias in broadcast news reporting, they are free to complain to the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council [CBSC] (or the CRTC if the the CBSC doesn't properly inforce the law). Here's my complaint into the CBSC filed yesterday:http://jkoblovsky.wordpress.com/2014/10/11/my-canadian-broadcast-standards-council-complaint-on-media-consortium/ This rarely happens by political parties because they don't put actions to thier words and follow up on complaints of bias in broadcast media to the CBSC because more often than not they are full of shit, and accusations of bias is a political escape from having to fully respond to facts on a particular or uncomfortable subject. Print news however, isn't regulated and thus less reliable as far as information and bias is concerned. Edited October 12, 2014 by jkoblovsky Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted October 12, 2014 Report Posted October 12, 2014 In broadcast journalism there are laws regarding independence and bias. If the major parties decry bias in broadcast news reporting, they are free to complain to the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council [CBSC] (or the CRTC if the the CBSC doesn't properly inforce the law). Here's my complaint into the CBSC filed yesterday: http://jkoblovsky.wordpress.com/2014/10/11/my-canadian-broadcast-standards-council-complaint-on-media-consortium/ From the concerns highlighted in your blog, do you claim CTV, despite their initial report, suggested that their interviewed guests represented the views held by CTV? On the surface, it appears that CTV started with negative report of the story, then had guests with countering views.......where is the bias? As you mention, you received training from a CTV "root school" in broadcast news, and I assume you do not presently work for CTV (or another MSM outlet), and to be blunt, your claim of a bias at CTV from what you describe appears weak.......on the surface, one could construe, you might have a bias of your own against CTV and the "big media companies"........good luck with the blog though. Quote
eyeball Posted October 12, 2014 Report Posted October 12, 2014 That's a quaint notion. Corporations are legally obliged to behave in the best interests of their shareholders, not the public. So, if you expect media to behave in the best interests of the public, you either have to: 1. Have media owned by a large, benevolent private interest 2. Have the media customers (ie the public) hold them accountable 3. Disperse media voices through mechanisms like blogs and independent media I would have added a publicly owned broadcaster and put it at the top of your list myself, but then I'd also have Auditor Generals, Parliamentary Budgetary Officers and the like aired by that broadcaster at least as often as At Issue, and probably the night before. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
jkoblovsky Posted October 12, 2014 Report Posted October 12, 2014 (edited) From the concerns highlighted in your blog, do you claim CTV, despite their initial report, suggested that their interviewed guests represented the views held by CTV? On the surface, it appears that CTV started with negative report of the story, then had guests with countering views.......where is the bias? CTV's nightly news cast "CTV National News" the day the story broke and the day after didn't air any guests with opposing views to the narritive of the story. Lisa Laflamme's reporting on this sounded an aweful like something coming from a lobbiest of a union, than it did from a journalist. In fact, many journalists belong to the writers union of Canada, which BTW had issues with fair dealing in 2010 and was heavily involved in lobbying the government against fair dealing. Back in 2010, the NDP came up with a notion to expand fair dealing provisions for everyone. Writes Union of Canada took exception to that fact, and attacked in a very similar way as Laflamme's reporting: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2010/03/twuc-on-fair-dealing/ I'm not at all insinuating that Laflamme is part of this particular union. There are a lot of writers unions, media lobby groups who disagree with fair dealing provisions in the copyright act. Not one of the major networks broke the story with opposing views on "fair dealing is stealing" while internal documentation suggested they all knew the fair dealing argument wouldn't fly legally. The situation has to be investigated ahead of an election to ensure broadcast media will remain independent throughout the next election. The initial reports from all the major networks, Laflamme's language she used to describe fair dealing, the lack of follow-up from the CTV National News Program, and most importantly internal documents from the CBC on this issue strongly suggests an effort to distort news reporting and mislead Canadians on the issue of fair dealing to believe it's stealing, so the networks can get paid for any use of their material by any political party. There are too many questions that need to be answered as a result of how this has played out by the media to ingnore ahead of an election. Edited October 12, 2014 by jkoblovsky Quote
cybercoma Posted October 12, 2014 Report Posted October 12, 2014 Only a big deal now because it's Harper. Why is it only a big deal because it's Harper? Nothing. I think it's a big deal and nothing I've said would change whether it was Harper or anyone else doing it. It creates a different set of laws for politicians than the rest of us. Maybe you're ok with that, but then you're ok with anything Harper signs his name to even before you've read the details. Quote
cybercoma Posted October 12, 2014 Report Posted October 12, 2014 I suspect they aren't so worried about intellectual properties as they don't like that something on their network might actually hurt JT. It's never a good idea to argue that you know the personal thoughts and motivations of people, especially when those people are as vague as a third-person pronoun with no antecedent. Quote
ReeferMadness Posted October 12, 2014 Author Report Posted October 12, 2014 Actually you are mistaken on that when it comes to broadcast journalism. We have laws regarding the independence of our broadcast media. http://www.cbsc.ca/english/codes/jic.php In fact Sun News challanged those laws a few years ago: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2011/01/crtc-on-false-news/ The CRTC thew the case out on complaint from the very media organizations and journalists red about not getting paid for attack ads, stating it would severely impact the credibility of broadcast journalists. The CRTC has specific regulations on media independence which are somwhat referenced in the CBSC link I posted above. I'm in the process of reviewing the broadcasting act myself, and I will quote the specific regulations on this thread in the near future. The links you've supplied are, at best, tangential to your assertions. You claim there are laws and instead of providing a link to those laws, you provide a link to an industry organization. The Canadian Broadcasting Standards Association establishes broadcasting standards, not laws. The second link is about CRTC weakening regulations about false news and has nothing to do with Sun Media or attack ads. Total non sequitur. Big corporations, media or otherwise, are still bound to make their shareholders their primary concern. Regulations don't change that essential fact. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
ReeferMadness Posted October 12, 2014 Author Report Posted October 12, 2014 I would have added a publicly owned broadcaster and put it at the top of your list myself, but then I'd also have Auditor Generals, Parliamentary Budgetary Officers and the like aired by that broadcaster at least as often as At Issue, and probably the night before. Fair points. Chairman Harper has succeeded in neutering those institutions to such a degree that I completely forgot about them. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
ReeferMadness Posted October 12, 2014 Author Report Posted October 12, 2014 Simple don't attack fair use, so you can freely criticize government without fear they will take exception to any criticism, and take down any news content through a copyright complaint they don't agree with. You've bypassed the main point. Harper has succeeded in marginalizing the media by treating them like the enemy. Our supposedly responsible government is the most secretive since the 2nd world war. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
cybercoma Posted October 13, 2014 Report Posted October 13, 2014 Harper is right. This is about free political expression and fair use. How come it's only politicians that get their free speech rights reinforced? That's the primary issue here. If this is a free speech issue, then he cannot make a separate set of laws for politicians and another for the rest of us. He needs to let third parties have access to these materials as well. He hasn't done that because he doesn't give a crap about free speech. He cares about campaigning. That's all he has ever cared about. And it's particularly sad that he's still in campaign mode with a majority. He'll forever go down as the do-nothing Prime Minister who was more interested in political campaigns than governing properly. Quote
jkoblovsky Posted October 14, 2014 Report Posted October 14, 2014 (edited) Harper is right. This is about free political expression and fair use. How come it's only politicians that get their free speech rights reinforced? That's the primary issue here. If this is a free speech issue, then he cannot make a separate set of laws for politicians and another for the rest of us. He needs to let third parties have access to these materials as well. He hasn't done that because he doesn't give a crap about free speech. He cares about campaigning. That's all he has ever cared about. And it's particularly sad that he's still in campaign mode with a majority. He'll forever go down as the do-nothing Prime Minister who was more interested in political campaigns than governing properly. I think other characters have mislead the public on that as well, for whatever political purpose I'm not sure. Conservatives aren't "changing" or "replacing" the fair dealing laws to just allow free speech by politicians, they are "amending" or adding on too existing laws around fair dealing in the copyright act. That's quite clear to me, from someone who follows public policy very closely (often criticizing Harpers policies around civil liberties and copyright on my blog) and has studied closely the leaked documents below. Last paragraph from the leaked documents from the Conservative Cabinet on this: http://cdn.michaelgeist.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/copyrightexceptiondoc.pdf "If supported, the amendment would be incorporated into the budget implementation act and enter into force upon Royal Assent" Conservatives could have done a better job communicating this to the public. They could have stated the amendment was to the copyright act, not the budget implementation bill. However the documents listed above were leaked internal cabinet documents. I don't think they were expecting these to become public, and most likely part of a conversation around how to deal with a threat from the media companies, on not complying with fair use, which is a much bigger threat to civil liberties and free speech in this country, than communication missteps from the Conservative Cabinet on this. I’m not at all excusing the miscommunication from the Conservative Cabinet, however I’m also not excusing media’s role in it either. I'm independent, so I'm not looking at this situation with any political bias. That maybe hard for some people to do on this fourm. Edited October 14, 2014 by jkoblovsky Quote
Keepitsimple Posted October 14, 2014 Report Posted October 14, 2014 Decent supporting article from Warren Kinsella this morning: What Reeves wrote in breathless prose 62 years ago still holds up. The best way to communicate with voters, then and now, is using a TV or radio spot that contains a damning bit of audio or video of your opponent. Or a stirring clip of your own leader, rallying the country. Or both. Voters want to see and hear, on their own, what a politician says. That’s how they make important choices in elections. They don’t want the media’s analysis and bias – they want the video or audio proof. That may upset media bean-counters, but too bad. The public statements of politicians belong to the public, not private media organizations. And that’s why this change, while upsetting the media bosses, is good for democracy. Link: http://www.torontosun.com/2014/10/13/media-material-for-nothing-and-clips-for-free Quote Back to Basics
jkoblovsky Posted October 14, 2014 Report Posted October 14, 2014 (edited) Ariel Katz Associate Professor at the Faculty of Law, University of Toronto, who also holds the Innovation Chair in Electronic Commerce, produced an excellent blog this morning on how the media consortium might also be infringing on the competition act: The Government’s proposal—a proposal that seems to be unnecessary and misguided at once—might have been prompted by an agreement between the major electronic media organizations not to broadcast political ads that contain audio or video content appearing to come from news services owned by CBC/Radio Canada, CTV/Bellmedia, Global/Shaw, or City/Rogers. If what those documents appear to reveal is true, then the document that those documents reveal might be an illegal one, contrary to section 45 of the Competition Act. Thus, a story that broke as a minor (albeit important) news item about copyright reform, may turn out to be a much bigger story about possible violation of the Competition Act by Canada’s major media outlets. Katz also went on to state (emphasis added): Attack ads may be distasteful, or even according to some views harmful to the political process, but they are not illegal. Likewise, using excerpts of content from their own programs may be annoying for some broadcasters, but as even some of the broadcasters’ legal advisers agree, the Copyright Act does not prohibit that. If the broadcasters aren’t happy with this state of the law it is open to them to convince Parliament to change the law (within the bounds permissible for such limitation on freedom of expression that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms would permit). Or, better still, they can fight the speech that they don’t like with their own better speech; after all, unlike most Canadian, they have unfettered access to the media—they are the media. What they cannot and should not do is enter into agreements that allows them, by virtue of their control of the most important media outlets, bypass the political process, impose their own wishes, and make their own wishes effectively the law of the land. So in addition to my complaint on illegal bias in the reporting on this, the media could be potentially dealing with a violation of the Competition Act. I've also updated my own blog on the matter, regarding the amendment of fair dealing: http://jkoblovsky.wordpress.com/2014/10/14/conservatives-propose-to-amend-fair-dealing-not-replace-it/ Edited October 14, 2014 by jkoblovsky Quote
Michael Hardner Posted October 14, 2014 Report Posted October 14, 2014 A question - does the 'fair use' also apply to groups that are not political parties, who would use clips in 3rd party ads ? [open question to anybody who might know] Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
waldo Posted October 14, 2014 Report Posted October 14, 2014 Decent supporting article from Warren Kinsella this morning: from the 'king of spots' Kinsella... saying "more spots, please"! calling purposeful manipulated, out of context/no context, attack ad sleeze and deception, "good for democracy" is an affront to common sense! I don't read Kinsella supporting the approach/tactics of Harper Conservatives here, hey Simple? I don't read Kinsella supporting this exception only for political parties... don't read Kinsella supporting the omnibus burying of this, hey Simple? Quote
eyeball Posted October 14, 2014 Report Posted October 14, 2014 A question - does the 'fair use' also apply to groups that are not political parties, who would use clips in 3rd party ads ? [open question to anybody who might know] I'd like to see more clips being produced by hackers, whistle-blowers and anyone who can slip a fly onto the walls of the backrooms that politicians frequent. A real open gov so to speak. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
cybercoma Posted October 14, 2014 Report Posted October 14, 2014 I think other characters have mislead the public on that as well, for whatever political purpose I'm not sure. Conservatives aren't "changing" or "replacing" the fair dealing laws to just allow free speech by politicians, they are "amending" or adding on too existing laws around fair dealing in the copyright act. That's quite clear to me, from someone who follows public policy very closely (often criticizing Harpers policies around civil liberties and copyright on my blog) and has studied closely the leaked documents below. Last paragraph from the leaked documents from the Conservative Cabinet on this: http://cdn.michaelgeist.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/copyrightexceptiondoc.pdf "If supported, the amendment would be incorporated into the budget implementation act and enter into force upon Royal Assent" Conservatives could have done a better job communicating this to the public. They could have stated the amendment was to the copyright act, not the budget implementation bill. However the documents listed above were leaked internal cabinet documents. I don't think they were expecting these to become public, and most likely part of a conversation around how to deal with a threat from the media companies, on not complying with fair use, which is a much bigger threat to civil liberties and free speech in this country, than communication missteps from the Conservative Cabinet on this. I’m not at all excusing the miscommunication from the Conservative Cabinet, however I’m also not excusing media’s role in it either. I'm independent, so I'm not looking at this situation with any political bias. That maybe hard for some people to do on this fourm. All of that to argue about the difference between "change" and "amend"? The dictionary definition of "amend" uses the word change. They changed the law. The amended the law. Call it whatever you want. They changed the law for politicians alone on the grounds of free political expression. Their own argument indicates that everyone else's free political expression is being infringed by the existing law. If they're going to argue that it's a free speech issue, then they can't give free speech to politicians while leaving it revoked for everyone else. That's the crux of the problem and the reason this "amendment" is poorly written. They've shot themselves in the foot with their own argument. Quote
cybercoma Posted October 14, 2014 Report Posted October 14, 2014 Decent supporting article from Warren Kinsella this morning: Link: http://www.torontosun.com/2014/10/13/media-material-for-nothing-and-clips-for-free He's absolutely right. But why do politicians get access and nobody else? If it's about free speech and political expression, then why aren't third parties given fair use over this content? You'll note Kinsella said these statements belong "to the public" not exclusively to "political parties, their agents, and politicians" as Harper's changes stipulate. Quote
Bryan Posted October 14, 2014 Report Posted October 14, 2014 A question - does the 'fair use' also apply to groups that are not political parties, who would use clips in 3rd party ads ? [open question to anybody who might know] Fair dealings applies to everyone. What the media consortium are trying to do is completely illegal, already backed up by previous court decisions. What the government is contemplating isn't really necessary, because the law is already on their side. All they're really doing is clarifying the written law so that it lines up with the case law. Quote
cybercoma Posted October 14, 2014 Report Posted October 14, 2014 (edited) A question - does the 'fair use' also apply to groups that are not political parties, who would use clips in 3rd party ads ? [open question to anybody who might know] It does not. The changes to the act pertain explicitly to political parties and their agents. Edit: Here's a copy of the document presented to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, as found on Geist's website. You can see from this document that the changes proposed apply only to "political actors and their agents." Political actors from what we can tell include only politicians themselves, their political parties, candidates running in elections and their campaign teams. This clearly does not include third-party political advertisers or supporters. Edit 2: It's also worth noting that they intend to bring this in through the back door by adding it to the budget. Edited October 14, 2014 by cybercoma Quote
waldo Posted October 14, 2014 Report Posted October 14, 2014 All they're really doing is clarifying the written law so that it lines up with the case law. please provide the case law that delineates exception rights for political parties over that of "all others"... Quote
jkoblovsky Posted October 14, 2014 Report Posted October 14, 2014 An excellent blog from Geist posted today on this issue. A must read by all: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2014/10/broadcaster-copyright-misuse-collusion-criticism-governments-political-ad-copyright-exception-may-pointed-wrong-direction/ Quote
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.