Fox News North can't launch because regulation against lying in the news won't be repealed

[Kuciwalker]

Who said they decide the truth for all Canadians?

Unless there is a competing broadcast regulator...

Additionally, you're being inconsistent. On one hand, you're arguing that it doesn't matter that the broadcast news may intentionally lie or otherwise since people are good at voting without it. Yet now you think a law enforcing broadcast news to tell no obvious lies as "deciding the truth for all Canadians". Which is it?

Those aren't inconsistent; I suggest that many voters vote according to socially useful rules even though they are un- or mis-informed.

[Kuciwalker]

Yeah..

I know, what a right-wing demagogue, huh?

[Asher]

Flaw with your argument: the CRTC is not part of the government. Note how they waited 10 years before addressing a request from the then-government to toss that regulation.

Also note that the courts ultimately decide if it is a lie or not. Not the government. And for the courts to decide it's a lie is equivalent to the courts finding someone guilty -- they need to be sure beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Asher]

Unless there is a competing broadcast regulator...

So your assertion is all Canadians get their truths from the broadcast news, then...

[Kuciwalker]

Also note that the courts ultimately decide if it is a lie or not. Not the government.

I was using the term in the broad sense. Regardless, I would trust neither a parliament, a regulatory board, nor a court as the final arbiter of all truth.

[Asher]

Basically, Kuci, you are misrepresenting the scenario.

You are making it out that the government arbitrarily decides what is true or not and the media all need to adhere to it.

What actually happens is people complain if a broadcaster is lying, and if they determine it is a lie (through the courts), a fine is issued or the broadcast license is revoked (probably for "repeat offenders"). There's due process at this stage, it's under no circumstances under the directives of the government.

edit: xpost

[Asher]

I was using the term in the broad sense. Regardless, I would trust neither a parliament, a regulatory board, nor a court as the final arbiter of all truth.

Good. I don't trust them as the final arbiter of all truth either. I do find them useful in keeping obvious trash off the air, which is the real-world impact of this kind of regulation.

You're being melodramatic.

[-Jrabbit]

In real journalism, "news" refers to the reportage of facts; commentary on those facts is not the "news." It is opinion (or in the case of Fox, propaganda) masquerading as news. Frankly, it's an insult to our intelligence.

HC, I know you're too young to remember newspapers, but if you were to drop a dollar, buy one (a real one) and read it, you would see "news stories" in about 90% of the paper, with a separate "op-ed" (opinion and editorial) area dedicated to individual commentary, opinions and letters. Columnists are also given specific spots in the paper where they are free to rant as they will. Interestingly, it was believed that readers understood that the "news stories" are intended as factual, fact-checked and as complete and timely as possible. Conversely, opinions, editorials, essays and columns are the personal opinion of the writer and identified as such.

"Letters to the editor" BTW are a lot like the "comments" you see in online content. Traditionally, they were written on paper and sent through the mail to the newspaper. Kind of like email, but without a computer. Amazingly, an editor would evaluate the letters received and publish the most pertinent and interesting ones. The obvious crazies would not get published. (Of course, in today's cable news, the crazies are the most likely to be "tweet of the day" or whatever, because they are incendiary and therefore, ratings boosters.

No one is trying to eliminate free speech. But Canada is making an effort to retain the idea that "news" should be factual and true.

Radical idea, I know.

[MikeH]

Yeah, the problem with Fox News is that Fox News viewers aren't smart enough, or well informed enough, to immediately see through their pathetic deceptions. It's a right wing propoganda machine, filled with classic, heavy handed and unsubtle manipulations.

Then they could publish all the moronic lies they want, people would just turn off and find a proper news channel.

But then people still buy the Daily Mail here, and that's filled with hateful rightwing lies.

[MikeH]

Fox News should be able to say whatever they want (pretty much)

They shouldn't be able to claim it's news, and they shouldn't be able to libel anyone.

[Aeson]

btw, even the "ignorant" Americans appear to follow the simple rule of voting against the party in power if the country is doing poorly, which is socially useful.

This isn't a very good argument considering roughly 80% of the electorate doesn't do this. (Only 40% gets to prove it at any given time though.)

[MOBIUS]

Censorship

This only emphasizes how full of **** you are when you talk about your blessed Canada being freer than America.

Holy ****!

You can't actually be serious about this ****...

[Jon Miller]

Once. The US Constitution is amended a little less often than once per decade, not counting the initial 10.

I don't think you should count that considering it was proposed with the Bill of Rights in 1789...

JM

[Hauldren Collider]

blah blah I'm a douche blah blah

I read the Washington Post every day, you dumbass. Quite the radical right-wing newspaper.

[Hauldren Collider]

The Washington post often gets things wrong, too. In fact sometimes they misrepresent facts. I read the Wall Street Journal most days as well and I see discrepancies every so often...is one of them lying? SHOULD ONE OF THEM BE BANNED?