CRTC to relax truth standards in news reporting

34 posts / 0 new

Mon, 2011-01-17 13:33

nskinskinski

The CRTC is amending its rules on reporting. Until now, broadcasters have been (theoretically) prohibited from broadcasting 'false or misleading news'. See also this discussion.

The prohibition will be amended to say '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 first clause can be got around by not investigating the facts to begin with. If you don't know you're lying, you're not culpable. There doesn't seem to be any criteria for good faith investigation or reporting.

I'm not suggesting broadcasters are perfect now - far from it - but this lays a wide berth for Fox North to generate the kind of discourse and mis/disinformation that's crippled America. Anyone has the freedom to promulgate an opinion, but calling it news is dangerous.

If you feel inclined to comment before the Feb 9th deadline, do it here. Also remember to follow their rules - you've got to number each paragraph, and electronic submissions have to end with this line: *** End of document *** .

Mon, 2011-01-17 14:29

Le T

Just so long as no one says faggot.

Mon, 2011-01-17 15:19

Sean in Ottawa

It would be really great if the public interest and the CRTC could ever meet again.

Makes you want to ask if we could create an orgainization responsible to the Canadian people now that the CRTC is consistently not that organization.

Mon, 2011-01-17 15:42

Sean in Ottawa

Actually this deserves more comment than I made above.

What I used to learn made up democracy was

1) rule of law with sufficient access to legal institutions for all people.

2) free and fair elections with healthy democratic insitutions.

3) A free, responsible and basically honest press.

This is taking a swing at the third pillar of Canadian democracy-- at a time when the other two, if we can't say are broken completely (yet) are at least showing major cracks and have been recieving threats from this government.

Mon, 2011-01-17 15:44

Sean in Ottawa

Another question:

Can Canada have one last at least partly fair election before we bring in these latest rules?

Just for old times sake-- ?

It seems that all those years when we were complainging about the legitimate flaws we had, we are seeing what we did not appreciate then.

Mon, 2011-01-17 16:15

milo204

i think the point of this is to take away any recourse on false reporting (remember ezra getting sued??) so that pundits can spew whatever uninformed shit and drivel they see fit, and can recite government propaganda without fear of being called out on it.

Although seeing how well the old rules worked, i don't think it will really matter. They're (the media) already doing a piss poor job of telling the truth.

Mon, 2011-01-17 16:23

Sean in Ottawa

There is a difference between having regulations that are not properly enforced and removing those regulations. The fear of enforcement, even remote adds some responsibility that will now go away.

And as bad as things are, they can get worse. The rules are being changed to allow that.

Mon, 2011-01-17 17:00

contrarianna

It only makes sense to amend the rules so that unknowingly false stories get a pass.

To do otherwise would require fact-checking--something that is expensive, often counterproductive to the desired message--and counter to the current media industry model.

You've got to move the product /message out to the consumers without the expense and inconvenience of facts.

It's just good business and propaganda practice.

Mon, 2011-01-17 17:12

NDPP

Didn't they use this section years ago to nail nazi Ernst Zundel in the years before it became fasionable to join them instead?(JDL-EDL)

Mon, 2011-01-17 18:01

#10

Fidel

Quote:
CRTC to relax truth standards in news reporting

lol I thought they were already relaxed? In fact they seem so relaxed at the CRTC, someone should check for pulses. Mirror checks for breath even. Someone pinch their asses perhaps.

Mon, 2011-01-17 19:31

#11

Sean in Ottawa

@Contrarianna-- I think the difference is not whether you get prosecuted for getting it wrong-- it is about having a duty of care. What is missing from this is the duty to make a reasonable effort that what you say is true.

Years ago, I published books and this was a responsibility-- you know where the line is. At times depending on the story you cannot go with it unless you can be certain it is true; at other times, when it is less damaging the standard is a little less than that but you still have to put effort in to verify and if you can't, well the story does not go anywhere. The bottom line standard is a reasonable effort to know that it is true and that is proportional to what the story is, who might get hurt etc. It is absurd in today's technologically advanced communications world that it would be harder to verify stories today than it was decades ago. This is not a practical change -- this is a moral one.

All that responsibility is being removed with a new standard that so long as the physical health of somebody is not hurt you can lie through your teeth or you can just not investigate even when you know you can and should. And when you are purposefully lying, it becomes more difficult for anyone to prove.

People are not acknowledging here the real nature of the situation -- we are not talking about old-style news agencies at arms length of their owners trying to get a story right. We are talking about conflicts of interest as today's news agencies are highly integrated in many other businesses and have more interests than sales of their news product. A broadcaster connected to a telephone company for example can rush to air a story about their competition; or a story that suits their political views about the opposition. To catch them in the lie the burden of proof would be one that includes intent rather than result-- this is a much more difficult standard to prove.

I'll be even more direct about what this is. This is about the legal removal of regulated ethics in practice-- Agreed it was a dirty business but it is getting dirtier. The new standard is a fraud as it offers nothing in law at all. If you eliminated the standard altogether then you would have the same effect as keeping this pale imitation of a standard. That is because all that is offered with this new standard is what already exists in Tort law-- basic liability for actual physical, measurable damage. This is a wholesale surrender of any notion of ethics, justice, truth and fairness from the rules relating to what you can say on the air. All that is left is the minimum liability for direct damages but none for lying. There is no responsibility, duty of care, need to be truthful. There remains a need to consider the parties who would be hurt in a liable case but not understood contract with the public to be honest-- at least to some degree.

This is an extremely important step in the reversal of what is left of Canadian democracy. We are getting close to being able to declare that this is no longer an erosion of democracy but a wholesale collapse. The cumulative effect of the changes of the last 5 years is truly astonishing. The Canada of today would not be recognized if someone from the 1970s were brought directly to this date.

I feel some nostalgia for the ideals that used to exist here-- they did not always prevail but they put up a good fight. This is a rout of justice and honesty and truth. After this, anything can happen and in some cases we won't even know it because they won't have to tell us the truth. No doubt we can cue the Orwell quotes any time now.

Tue, 2011-01-18 04:10

#12

contrarianna

Of course.

The CRTC bottom line is:

"we won't be upset at any lies you publish unless:

1)for some masochistic reason, you choose to admit you knew you were lying, or,
2)your published lies can be proven to endanger lives"

Tue, 2011-01-18 11:00

#13

absentia

How can any media lies be "proven to endanger lives"? They do endanger lives, livelihoods, rights and freedoms, every hour of every day... but how can anyone prove it? Where can anyone prove it? Remove the arena of testing (CRTC), and there is no recourse at all. That's what they're doing. No more journalists - just talking heads who read handouts from the ministry of propaganda.

Pretty soon, we'll have to do like the Tunisians.

Tue, 2011-01-18 13:05

#14

contrarianna

absentia wrote:

....

Pretty soon, we'll have to do like the Tunisians.

Who is "we" here?

Although, like Tunisia, we are formally a democracy, we live in a managed democracy where media propaganda is generally accepted by the populace as close enough to reality to give the illusion that we live in under representative government. (The Harper regime is dubbed by the (imagined) "leftish" Globe & Mail as now centrist and the "natural governing party").
Managed democracies are generally more stable than those where oppression is obvious and the wizard's puppet strings are visable.

Tue, 2011-01-18 13:56

#15

absentia

The strings are more visible every day. Have been appearing, since the Canadian tea party ate the PC.

Well, never mind - the whole edifice is going to fall under its own weight. Too bad so many innocent people are underneath.

Tue, 2011-02-15 12:09

#16

WFPD

Relaxation of journalistic requirements? Just in time for the introduction of FOX TV North! What a remarkable coincidence.

Tue, 2011-02-15 13:03

#17

ygtbk

Much as conspiracy theories are fun, this has been in the pipeline since at least the year 2000, if Gloria Galloway can be trusted:

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/crtc-plan-to-lift-ban-on-fals...

Tue, 2011-02-15 13:23

#18

Snert

Tabloids like the National Enquirer and Weekly World News have been selling in Canada for years, and people just sort of tune them out, save for a tiny wee minority who really do believe in Bat Boy. I don't know that they successfully watered down legitimate journalism standards.

Tue, 2011-02-15 13:55

#19

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

Snert - Couldn't you, just once, try not to live down to my expectations?

Fri, 2011-02-18 23:27

#20

coldcitydweller

If anyone is interested in signing a petition opposing this move by the CRTC the Avaaz petition is still collecting signatures and as of earlier today the CRTC still had not posted a decision on this issue on its website.

More than 94,000 people have already signed in the last couple of days, but I think we are going to need at least double that to make an impression on this government.

Here is the link:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/canada_fair_and_balanced/?cl=944229105&v=8398

Fri, 2011-02-18 23:41

#21

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Actioned

Sat, 2011-02-19 07:37

#22

ygtbk

And the CRTC has announced that they are withdrawing the proposed rule change:

http://www.thewirereport.ca/reports/content/12027-von_finckenstein_says_commission_will_withdraw_false_and_misleading_news_amendment

Sat, 2011-02-19 12:34

#23

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

Translation: we thought we could slip this through without anyone noticing; but since we can't get away with it, we're dropping it to scurry back under our rock.

Sat, 2011-02-19 13:03

#24

George Victor

My daughter, a library technician battling in the communication front lines on this one, will be very pleased.

Sat, 2011-02-19 13:47

#25

bagkitty

Le T wrote:

Just so long as no one says faggot.

Do you care to expand on that, or is it just gratuitous?

Sat, 2011-02-19 13:52

#26

Unionist

bagkitty wrote:

Le T wrote:

Just so long as no one says faggot.

Do you care to expand on that, or is it just gratuitous?

I thought Le T was making a fairly obvious ironic reference to the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council's recommendation that "Money For Nothing" not be played on the air waves, and contrasting this with the CRTC's apparent willingness to embrace lies in the reporting of events - kind of making a comment on what gets censored and what doesn't in our society.

But I suppose Le T can answer for himself if he's so inclined.

Sat, 2011-02-19 17:39

#27

Fidel

And Harper looks good by overruling Konrad von Frankenstein's decision to allow false and misleading propaganda by newz media. But instead of replacing this idiot with someone with an inkling of fairness or sense of responsibility to the public, he rewards another insider with a patronage appointment to the CRTC as if that will give the CRTC any more integrity. It's a case of corporate stooges appointing corporate stooges to positions they aren't qualified to do. It's ridiculous. It's no wonder our per capita growth rates resemble those of Silvio Berlulinni's Italy. Fascists!

Sat, 2011-02-19 17:43

#28

Lachine Scot

Fidel wrote:

Konrad von Frankenstein's

Silvio Berlulinni's

Even if both people are fairly distasteful, is it really progressive to mock "foreign" names like this?

Sat, 2011-02-19 22:02

#29

Fidel

Lachine Scot wrote:

Fidel wrote:

Konrad von Frankenstein's

Silvio Mussolini's

Even if both people are fairly distasteful, is it really progressive to mock "foreign" names like this?

yes you are absolutely right about that. But if they don't want to be compared to tools of fascism, then they should stop acting like them.

Sat, 2011-02-19 22:22

#30

bagkitty

Unionist wrote:

bagkitty wrote:

Le T wrote:

Just so long as no one says faggot.

Do you care to expand on that, or is it just gratuitous?

I thought Le T was making a fairly obvious ironic reference to the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council's recommendation that "Money For Nothing" not be played on the air waves, and contrasting this with the CRTC's apparent willingness to embrace lies in the reporting of events - kind of making a comment on what gets censored and what doesn't in our society.

But I suppose Le T can answer for himself if he's so inclined.

So on the one hand we have a voluntary association (CBSC) with no power to enforce anything but only to issue recommendations to its members and on the other we have a body, establishing by statute (CRTC), with an actual ability to regulate and take legal action.

Yeah, I'm sticking with gratuitous reference.

Mon, 2011-02-21 11:09

#31

Boom Boom

oops - someone beat me to it! sorry

Mon, 2011-02-21 14:14

#32

Buddy Kat

I see what they are doing...They are opening the door up to FOX style reporting ,which is basically lies spun to be somewhat truthful...like racial stereo types that somewhat pass for the truth....while at the same time curbing real truth and whistleblowing like wiki leaks ..and accustations of torture ..all things the government has hidden behind as national security or endangering the public.

Makes total sense as a puppet agency of the conservatives that they will try this...how much they get away with is another story but this is a serious slap in the face of free speech. Canadians better wake up...this is a sign that you better use it or lose it.

I notice even the CBC online has been somewhat filtered as you can only reasonably access and participate if you have a high speed connection..they have made it so only a percentage of online Canadians can properly use something they pay for.

If this country elects a conservative majority we will be on the road to Egypt and Lybia - guaranteed. The writing is on the wall..

Mon, 2011-02-21 15:18

#33

George Victor

"We never wanted to touch this thing. We put it forward because we were ordered to do it. We did what we thought would be a workable compromise," von Finckenstein said...'

What is the connection between this event and the chatter of the past two days?

Mon, 2011-05-30 13:31

#34

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

Whether officially or not, The CRTC has completely given up on this mandate.