Fox News Channel ban lifted by state-censor

[Montgomery Burns]

The ban against Fox News Channel in Canada was lifted last week by Canada's Liberal Party state-censor, the CRTC, after forcing Canadians to wait until the hurdle of putting the liberals through two elections - one in Canada and one in the US - were over.

While Fox News Channel is the #1 cable news channel in the US by a huge margin (its primetime ratings are higher than CNN, CNN Headline News, MSNBC, and CNBC combined), it has been banned in Canada by the Liberal Party's state censor for years because they were concerned it allowed conservative viewpoints to leak into society, thereby ruining years of liberal-left media indoctrination, some of which was done by the state itself through the state-run CBC.

In typical Soviet-style bureaucratic nonsense that goes on for thousands upon thousands of words, the state-run state-censors at the CRTC have released their decision this morning and it will take half the day to read it. Here's the

link to it.

Canada's liberals are foaming at the mouth because soon there will actually be conservatives on TV in Canada - which at this time are as rare as a Sasquatch sighting.

Now Canadians will be able to watch spirited debate from both sides of the political sphere that passionately believe in their stances.

What a difference that will be from watching the typical state-run CBC news show where it is 2 or 3 leftists discussing the news of the day or week, and simply nodding in agreement with each other.

[caesar]

There was no ban; It is a garbage propaganda station. I would rather watch Jerry Springer; at least you can get a few laughs at that garbage.

[Montgomery Burns]

It was banned and the only garbage propaganda station is the state-run CBC - along with the CTV. Global is bearable.

The CBC is like Pravda; Marxist propaganda, and about as exciting as Anne of Green Gables or the Beachcombers.

[Guest eureka]

It probably has the same followers as Springer and the same entertainment value.

[caesar]

You haven't changed have you Monty???You are twisted.

[Stoker]

I wonder how many generations it will take for Canada to sort itself out, now that it has a news source from the opposite end of the spectrum?

Before I relyed upon CNN for the most part, but was put off over the apprent slant prior to the US election......still like Larry King and Lou Dobbs, and tape Cross Fire when I'm of the mind........almost forgot about Jack Macafferty in the morning

With Fox, I'm looking forward to probably the same news coverage as that of CNN, so in terms of that, it's most likely a sideways move. What excites me is Bill O'Reily and the lovely Ann Coulter

From what I've seen of FOX news, (FOX network Sunday Mornings) it seems more objective (possably the reason for such high rankings) and to the point then other network news programs......

When I want the Headlines, I want the Headlines.......not opinions.......Be they of a left or Right slant.....when i want news/current event related entertaniment, I'll watch Dennis Miller or Crossfire.......and soon O'reily factor.

What I would like to see from Fox news though, is perhaps a certain amount of time devouted to Canadian news......Perhaps a Fox News Canada?

[Guest eureka]

What I would like to see for Fox News is the hounds of truth nipping at the script writers.

[Stoker]

What I would like to see for Fox News is the hounds of truth nipping at the script writers.

Have you, or anybody else watched Fox 24hr news before? (I have not) Or are you judging on what you have heard from other (perhaps Canadian) news services?

How do some know that Fox news is on par with Jerry Springer? Being as such that Fox news is the highest rated American news service, (by these same Jerry Springer watching proles/voters), perhaps the Liberal elite meida is worried that a view other then thoses expressed by themselves will be voiced.

Also, perhaps those on the Left shouldn't comment negativley as much on Fox news, since it is human nature to be drawn to the "forbidden fruit"........and remeber, the proles vote also.

[redmos]

From what I've seen of FOX news, (FOX network Sunday Mornings)  it seems more objective (possably the reason for such high rankings) and to the point then other network news programs......

I don't know what to say.

Watch Outfoxed. Lovely documentary. Of course, a bit slanty to the left. On the other hand, if you're leftwardly-biased, they show a lot of clips from Fox News, which is disturbingly (and some would say dangerously) biased to the right.

Let's say that objectivity isn't why it's number one. Possibly because the right-wing slant includes a business agenda that attracts more people who buy premium cable. Possibly because the appeals to jingoistic patriotism go over so well in the U.S.

But it's worth asking yourself a couple of questions:

Why is it that Fox News is biased something like 3 to 1 towards inviting Republican over Democratic guests?

Why is it that a significantly higher proportion of Fox News viewers than the general population believe that WMDs (which, by the way, is an appallingly misleading term) were found in Iraq?

And why is it that the majority of Fox News viewers believe that Saddam Hussein was directly involved in the 9/11 attacks, despite the glaring lack of evidence?

Fox News appears less to be news, and more to be propaganda. And the facts seem to support it.

[Stoker]

Watch Outfoxed. Lovely documentary. Of course, a bit slanty to the left. On the other hand, if you're leftwardly-biased, they show a lot of clips from Fox News, which is disturbingly (and some would say dangerously) biased to the right.

So I guess it's safe to say that some would say Fox is moderate?

Why is it that Fox News is biased something like 3 to 1 towards inviting Republican over Democratic guests?

Do you have some source to base this on?

Why is it that a significantly higher proportion of Fox News viewers than the general population believe that WMDs (which, by the way, is an appallingly misleading term) were found in Iraq?

How is this known?

And why is it that the majority of Fox News viewers believe that Saddam Hussein was directly involved in the 9/11 attacks, despite the glaring lack of evidence?

Was there research put into this?

Fox News appears less to be news, and more to be propaganda. And the facts seem to support it.

Which facts?

Here is Fox's and CNN's "headline story".....Dan Rather retiring:

CNN

Fox News

Where is the spin?

Here's another topic: the newest offensive in Iraq:

CNN

Fox News

Should I break out my tin-foil hat? Where is the right-wing bias?

[Slavik44]

The ban against Fox News Channel in Canada was lifted last week by Canada's Liberal Party state-censor, the CRTC, after forcing Canadians to wait until the hurdle of putting the liberals through two elections - one in Canada and one in the US - were over.

In Fox News Canada, Decision CRTC 2000-565, 14 December 2000, the Commission approved an application by Global Television Network (OBCI) (Global) for a new Canadian Category 2 specialty programming service to be known as Fox News Canada. In Deadline to commence operation of Category 2 specialty and pay television services, Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2003-599, 16 December 2003, the Commission approved a request by Global for a one year final extension until 24 November 2004 to the implementation date for Fox News Canada.

Please You want bullshit, read your post and then read the CRTC rulings...and you will notice you are 100% off base in your wild unfounded accusations.

[Cartman]

Have you, or anybody else watched Fox 24hr news before? (I have not) Or are you judging on what you have heard from other (perhaps Canadian) news services?

Have you ever thought about reading a journal article from a library? There is something interesting about reading a peer reviewed paper that has received anonymous reviews (right and left) and has taken months or years to complete as opposed to the scripted, sensationalist one-liners on the so-called news.

[Black Dog]

The ban against Fox News Channel in Canada was lifted last week by Canada's Liberal Party state-censor, the CRTC, after forcing Canadians to wait until the hurdle of putting the liberals through two elections - one in Canada and one in the US - were over.

While Fox News Channel is the #1 cable news channel in the US by a huge margin (its primetime ratings are higher than CNN, CNN Headline News, MSNBC, and CNBC combined), it has been banned in Canada by the Liberal Party's state censor for years because they were concerned it allowed conservative viewpoints to leak into society, thereby ruining years of liberal-left media indoctrination, some of which was done by the state itself through the state-run CBC. .

Still spinning your lies, eh Monty? You should consider a job with Fox news, seeing as how you're pathalogically incapable of teling the truth.. Fox News was never banned, as was already covered in this thread. But for your further edification, here's the original CRTC decision.

"but wait," you'll no doubt cry. "That's for Fox News Canada, not Fox News."

Well, as thisToStar article points out:

Two years ago, when the cable industry applied to bring in Fox, the CRTC was hamstrung by a deal between Fox and CanWest Global for a digital hybrid, Fox News Canada. The cable guys also bungled by bundling Fox with other services that had no hope of getting in. Now there's another Fox application. Last week, the CRTC asked for comments on the application which will likely be approved.

Which it has.

Canada's liberals are foaming at the mouth because soon there will actually be conservatives on TV in Canada - which at this time are as rare as a Sasquatch sighting.

I think you're confusing the yawns that have greeted this decision with "foaming at the mouth." A big difference. Of course, I suppose it's too much to ask for you to back up such a statement...

Now Canadians will be able to watch spirited debate from both sides of the political sphere that passionately believe in their stances.

Pshaw. Not on FoxNews (unless you believe the two sides of the political spectrum are "the right" and "the ultra-right".)

What a difference that will be from watching the typical state-run CBC news show where it is 2 or 3 leftists discussing the news of the day or week, and simply nodding in agreement with each other.

Yes, when you can have 2 or 3 hysterical right wingers seeing who can get the furthest up Bush's anus.

I wonder how many generations it will take for Canada to sort itself out, now that it has a news source from the opposite end of the spectrum?

I expect it will be greeted with teh same widespread enthusiasm as Arena Football or Monster Truck racing: it won't make a dent outside it's tiny niche market.

With Fox, I'm looking forward to probably the same news coverage as that of CNN, so in terms of that, it's most likely a sideways move. What excites me is Bill O'Reily and the lovely Ann Coulter

I'm sure Bill would be excited too: and we know how excited he can get.

As for Coulter:l ovely? If bitter, dried-out and coked-up anorexics are your thing....

From what I've seen of FOX news, (FOX network Sunday Mornings) it seems more objective (possably the reason for such high rankings) and to the point then other network news programs......

That's funny. Fox is by far the most blatantly biased news source there is. It's high ratings have to do with the current American zeitgeist and the basic fact that people seldom seek out media sources that contradict their own values. Which is why Fox News will be insignificant to Canadians.

So I guess it's safe to say that some would say Fox is moderate?

Who? Nazis?

Do you have some source to base this on?

The Most Biased Name in News

Fox's slanted sources

How is this known?

There was a study.

The more commercial television news you watch, the more wrong you are likely to be about key elements of the Iraq War and its aftermath, according to a major new study released in Washington this week.

And the more you watch the Rupert Murdoch-owned Fox News channel, in particular, the more likely it is that your perceptions about the war are wrong, adds the report by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA).

Based on several nationwide surveys it conducted with California-based Knowledge Networks since June, as well as the results of other polls, PIPA found that 48 percent of the public believe US troops found evidence of close pre-war links between Iraq and the al-Qaeda terrorist group; 22 percent thought troops found weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq; and 25 percent believed that world public opinion favored Washington's going to war with Iraq. All three are misperceptions.

Where is the right-wing bias?

Well, for starters, it doesn't work to contrast CNN and Fox as they are both corporate media sources and thus more or less on the same end of the spectrum.

[Stoker]

So Black Dog, would you say that it maters on ones personnal "slant" when judging whats bias? IMO, those sites that you linked to, seem to be promoting a Liberal agenda.........To each his or her own I guess.

[Black Dog]

So Black Dog, would you say that it maters on ones personnal "slant" when judging whats bias?

Yes. Objectivity is a myth. However, when a partisan source such as FoxNews opts to pass themselves off as (in their own words) "fair and balanced", that's when we run into problems.

IMO, those sites that you linked to, seem to be promoting a Liberal agenda.........To each his or her own I guess.

But is their agenda hidden?Furthermore, does that somehow invalidate their findings about FoxNews?

FAIR

FAIR, the national media watch group, has been offering well-documented criticism of media bias and censorship since 1986. We work to invigorate the First Amendment by advocating for greater diversity in the press and by scrutinizing media practices that marginalize public interest, minority and dissenting viewpoints. As an anti-censorship organization, we expose neglected news stories and defend working journalists when they are muzzled. As a progressive group, FAIR believes that structural reform is ultimately needed to break up the dominant media conglomerates, establish independent public broadcasting and promote strong non-profit sources of information.

Alternet

AlterNet is a highly acclaimed Internet information source that provides readers with crucial facts and passionate opinions they can't find anywhere else. Since its inception in 1998, AlterNet has grown dramatically to keep pace with the public demand for independent news and now provides free online content to over 1.5 million readers every month. Relying solely on word of mouth and viral marketing, AlterNet is unique in that its success has come entirely from its readers, who demand reliable information and use it to take action.

AlterNet's journalistic achievements include being named one of NPR's five "winners on the Internet," winning a Webby in the Print and Zines category and a nomination in the "activism" category, and winning Utne's Independent Press Award for Online Political Coverage.

AlterNet is a project of the Independent Media Institute, a nonprofit organization dedicated to strengthening and supporting independent and alternative journalism that also includes WireTap Magazine, an online magazine by and for socially conscious youth, and the Strategic Press Information Network, a non-profit public relations consulting organization that provides media trainings to other non-profit organizations to enhance the power of their message.

[kimmy]

What's all the squabbling about?

Prior mention of media bias has generated only a yawn on these forums before.

(see this thread or this thread for details.)

I was under the impression that nobody seems to think it's a big deal.

-kimmy

[Shakeyhands]

its not Kimmy, but it gives the Right Wing Whackos something to moan about... they are too dumb to realize what crap eminates from Fox News.. Luckily, Canadians are much more intelligent than our good neighbours to the south and will see it for what it is, the equivalent to Springer and Pauvich.

Silly Americans.

[Black Dog]

I was under the impression that nobody seems to think it's a big deal.

You are correct. The only one who has said otherwise is individual who starte dthis thread, who claimed the FoxNews approval had liberals"frothing at the mouth" even though most people's reactions have been along the lines of "Fox is crap, I won't watch it." accompanied by a shrug.

[August1991]

Yes. Objectivity is a myth. However, when a partisan source such as FoxNews opts to pass themselves off as (in their own words) "fair and balanced", that's when we run into problems.

BD, are you suggesting that Fox News advertise itself as "Unfair and Imbalanced"?

I think the issue is not Fox News as such but why we even have a board (non-elected, I might add) such as the CRTC which makes these decisions. I can possibly understand the need to obtain permission to raise cable fees but the idea of controlling content is, well, Communist!

For heaven's sakes, even in Quebec, the government only regulates the language of communication, not what is said.

[Black Dog]

BD, are you suggesting that Fox News advertise itself as "Unfair and Imbalanced"?

How about something a litttle more reflective of their stance?

[Cartman]

IMO, equating a CRTC licensing decision with communism is an insult to people who truly suffered under communist rule. This includes people like my grandfather who spent 9.5 years in a Soviet labour camp after the war picking rocks in starvation like conditions with little access to clean water. Gov't regulation and communism are very different.

I fail to see why this has been such a hot issue. I could understand if we only had one or two US stations or Fox put forth an entirely different product (i.e. maintained academic "experts" on various issues from both sides or spent several hours taking in-depth analyses of issues important to Canadians), but I doubt this is the case.

My provider will likely include this is my "news" package which I purchased to get another channel. I suspect that I will either have to pay for Fox, drop what I want to see so that I do not have to pay for Fox, or get screwed on the price of the one channel worth buying. If I choose the latter, this changes all of my other channels and raises my pricing. It outrages me that they have obtained the right to come into Canada and indirectly raise my sat. bill for a crappy, redundant, duplicated foreign product I do not want. Some free market.

The NDP should push for a reasonably priced state sat. package and charge bundle pricing for NHL hockey.

[Stoker]

Yes. Objectivity is a myth. However, when a partisan source such as FoxNews opts to pass themselves off as (in their own words) "fair and balanced", that's when we run into problems.

Perhaps those that don't share the views of Fox news are themselves lacking in fairness and balance?

But is their agenda hidden?Furthermore, does that somehow invalidate their findings about FoxNews?

Does Fox have an agenda to hide?

Mr Pot, meet Mr Kettle

George Soros could be a powerful antidote to Rupert Murdoch, at least in the area of U.S. news coverage, if he were willing to take the lead to seriously fund a long-term electronic and internet media making institution.* The potential progressive audience has grown – start with Michael Moore's filmgoers, then add in MoveOn.org's 2.2 million members, along with the many millions who visit other progressive issue and media web sites, the growing audience for Air America (which is surviving despite being undercapitalized at the beginning) and you have the makings of a 20-30 million viewer audience. Perhaps it is far-fetched to imagine our own powerful progressive media, but there are increasing indications it could make money over time. We can demonize Fox all we want, and it deserves it, but we're never going to be able to count on Clear Channel, General Electric, Comcast, Disney, Viacom and the other media conglomerates, who control our media destiny, to give us any kind of content that will hold their most aggressive competitor, Murdoch's Fox, at bay. That very well may be our challenge.

Perhaps there is no real "progressive media" because there is no real market for it.......you know, like conspiracy

theories and punk rock.

[Black Dog]

Perhaps those that don't share the views of Fox news are themselves lacking in fairness and balance?

How doe sthis contradict my point that there's no such thing as objectivity.

Does Fox have an agenda to hide?

Their slogan is "fair and balanced". Their coverage is not, which makes them hypocrites and liars.

As for alternet, you don't see terms like "objective" and "balanced" on their web site because it is devoted to progressive viewpoints.

Perhaps there is no real "progressive media" because there is no real market for it.......you know, like conspiracy theories and punk rock.

Yet the quote you selected contradicts that very point. Odd.

[Big Blue Machine]

A TV channel should be able to broadcast whereever they want to. You can't ban a TV channel from broadcasting into Canada.

[JWayne625]

I think we should completely dismantle our state-censor, and allow Canadian's the freedom to watch whatever medium present technology allows one to access. Having someone tell me that I have to subscribe to either of our two licensed monopoly's like StarChoice or Bell ExpressVu, smacks of a dictatorship style of enforcing adherance to state policy. The same type of practices used in North Korea, mainland China or Cuba. Are we a free country or are we not? I'm having a hard time telling the difference.