Cripes their is so much false "information" out there now I don't see how this narrowing of the definition would effectively change things much.
The answer to your question is in the article:
Quote:
A CRTC official explained that the proposed change is in response to concerns raised several years ago by a joint parliamentary committee on scrutiny of regulations.
The committee feared the sweeping ban on false and misleading news was too broad and vague and wouldn't withstand a challenge under the Charter of Rights. Its concerns were based on a number of court rulings at the time involving freedom of speech.
For the same reason, the committee urged — and the CRTC is now also proposing — to narrow the scope of the current sweeping ban on programming that contains “obscene or profane language.”
Last edited by screature; Jan 16th, 2011 at 04:53 PM.
Cripes their is so much false "information" out there now I don't see how this narrowing of the definition would effectively change things much.
The answer to your question is in the article:
It doesn't answer my question at all. All it does is quote the opinion of an unnamed CRTC official.
Really, all one can glean from that comment is that instead of using clearer language to enforce this, they are simply going to further overlook things such as willfully misleading the public.
Even the Americans are tougher on this than we will soon be.
Quote:
Yet American broadcasters face a more stringent ban on false or misleading news than the prohibition now being proposed by the CRTC for Canadian broadcasters. U.S. law refers to knowingly broadcasting false news that causes “substantial public harm” — a phrase that Geist said can be interpreted relatively broadly.
Yes, if one is someone who seems to believe any conspiracy theory they read or even if they haven't read it, will come up with one themself.
From the same article:
Quote:
With a new right-leaning all-news network, Sun TV News, about to launch in March, Geist noted there's concern in some quarters that Canada is about to import the more aggressive, American approach to political coverage. He suggested the CRTC's proposed regulatory change will only magnify those concerns.
Location: Aylmer (Gatineau) across the river from Ottawa
Posts: 16,051
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrjimmy
It doesn't answer my question at all. All it does is quote the opinion of an unnamed CRTC official.
Really, all one can glean from that comment is that instead of using clearer language to enforce this, they are simply going to further overlook things such as willfully misleading the public.
Even the Americans are tougher on this than we will soon be.
Sure it does you asked... Who is lobbying for this exactly?
The article tells you, the joint parliamentary committee on scrutiny of regulations.
Sure it does you asked... Who is lobbying for this exactly?
The article tells you, the joint parliamentary committee on scrutiny of regulations.
Sorry screature. I require more info than a quote from an unnamed CRTC official. There is obviously more to this story than is being reported here.
Do you like the idea of allowing news organizations to be less accountable? What possibly could the benefit be? Even the Americans will be tougher than what we are proposing.
Location: Aylmer (Gatineau) across the river from Ottawa
Posts: 16,051
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrjimmy
Sorry screature. I require more info than a quote from an unnamed CRTC official. There is obviously more to this story than is being reported here.
Do you like the idea of allowing news organizations to be less accountable? What possibly could the benefit be? Even the Americans will be tougher than what we are proposing.
There is no real accountability anyway as the regulations have no real teeth and it is ultimately the CRTC who makes the ruling:
Quote:
The CRTC is not empowered to fine or imprison radio or TV executives who breach regulations.
The agency typically tries to persuade broadcasters to change bad behaviour and only takes punitive action — cancelling or refusing to renew broadcast licenses — when a broadcaster systematically and deliberately flouts the regulations.
So what difference does it make in the end? Really.
Plus your title is in and of itself erroneous, the CRTC is not the government, they operate at arms length to government. So if you were a broadcaster should you be penalized for that "lie"?
If you want more verification you can always go to Parliament of Canada - Parlement du Canada and look for Committee proceedings and if it is the truth and you care to dig long enough you would be able to find the original transcripts of the joint parliamentary committee on scrutiny of regulations. Some google searches would also probably be required to narrow down the time line but if you are really that concerned the information will be there.
To the contrary I would suggest that there is less to the story than we are seeing here as the media at large is very well known to conflate/inflate matters just to have something to print.
Linear Mode
