A little bit of worthwhile elaboration from the article:
Quote:
It is proposing a ban on the broadcast of “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.”
The CRTC quietly posted notice of the proposed change, which is slated to go into effect on Sept. 1, on its website last week. The agency is accepting comments from the public until Feb. 9.
Michael Geist, a University of Ottawa law professor specializing in communications issues, says the proposed prohibition is far too limited.
“If we're setting a high standard that you've got to actually endanger someone's life, health or safety, frankly almost anything that's false or misleading that's obviously outside of that fairly narrow scope would be fair game,” Mr. Geist said in an interview.
For instance, he said false news that caused financial harm would not be covered by the more limited prohibition.
As mentioned in the article, one only needs to look South to the disgraceful condition of the American 5th Estate to see the dangers inherent in this kind of change. It is so puzzling in fact that this particular change would be made, at this particular time, that I have to wonder who is pulling the strings behind the scenes.
Wasn't there some talk of FOX News coming to Canada at some point? Hmmm....
How about CRTC mans up and tell CTV to eff off with the simsubs on Amercian feed stations. If I want to watch the NFL or a show on a American feed, then I want to do that for a reason. What's the point of even having the American stations on TV if they're gonna do that?
I think I might actually write a letter to the CRTC about this.
For me, the biggest problem that I see is that when you change 'publishing false news' to 'knowingly publish false news', you create a disincentive for news sources to thoroughly fact-check their information.
It should be expected that a news source knows the factual value of the information they disperse. Maybe this is a product of the 24 hour news cycle, where information is often dispersed before it can be verified as fact. The current model allows media outlets to publish information immediately, as long as they present it from the perspective of what they know to be true. For example, saying 'A source from the opposition alleges X' is fair game, if the source did in fact say that. Viewers are familiar with this system and know to take information presented as such with a grain of salt. This change, as I understand it, allow the media to simply present 'X' as fact, and then if the information turns out to be false, they can defend themselves by saying that they were simply acting on the best knowledge they had at the time.
As a more outlandish example, news source can make completely fabricated statements that they know nothing about. I could, for example, state that our Prime Minister is gay. I have absolutely no knowledge of what goes on within 24 Sussex Drive, but that means I did not knowingly make a false statement.
There needs to be a requirement for news sources to do due diligence to ascertain the validity of the news they report, or else simply report what they factually know: that it's been alleged by certain sources. The current wording does not unfairly limit the ability of media, and provides an invaluable service to viewers.
Last edited by octothorp; 01-18-2011 at 02:44 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to octothorp For This Useful Post:
I think I might actually write a letter to the CRTC about this.
For me, the biggest problem that I see is that when you change 'publishing false news' to 'knowingly publish false news', you create a disincentive for news sources to thoroughly fact-check their information.
I don't think it's the "knowingly" part that's getting people upset; it's the "and that endangers or is likely to endanger the lives, health or safety of the public" qualifier they're proposing to add. That basically means they can knowingly publish false news, so long as it doesn't endanger lives.
I don't think it's the "knowingly" part that's getting people upset; it's the "and that endangers or is likely to endanger the lives, health or safety of the public" qualifier they're proposing to add. That basically means they can knowingly publish false news, so long as it doesn't endanger lives.
Yeah, that's why I said 'for me'. I'm not required to be mad at the same things that everyone else is mad at.
I don't think this will matter that much. It's understandable that people are worried about our news networks turning into MSNBC vs. FOX, but Canada, and Canadians are a much different demographic than Americans. Glen Beck would never be popular up here.
CBC and CTV are the two major networks, and both already appeal to the average Canadians' political (and otherwise) leanings (despite that many feel they're too liberal). The news is still going to be the news, which half the time isn't accurate.
Can someone explain to me who the CRTC consists of? Are they government officials? Are they appointed by elected officials? Do they have members that represent networks or telecommunication corporations?
I see that their website is a gc.ca site, but there is little information about who the people are that make the decisions.
They are also apparently making a law that commercials can no longer come in at a higher volume than the program... which is good, because I hate that.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
When your talking about something like SunT.V. or CTV news net or CBC news and we're complaining about the delivery of the news. Are we complaining about the news itself or the opions that go with the delivery.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
The Following User Says Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
I don't think this will matter that much. It's understandable that people are worried about our news networks turning into MSNBC vs. FOX, but Canada, and Canadians are a much different demographic than Americans. Glen Beck would never be popular up here.
CBC and CTV are the two major networks, and both already appeal to the average Canadians' political (and otherwise) leanings (despite that many feel they're too liberal). The news is still going to be the news, which half the time isn't accurate.
Glenn Beck wouldn't have been popular in the states in the 80's, either. I don't think you can say never.
CRTC proposes easing ban on broadcasting false or misleading news
