From what I can tell, Canada has restrictions on news organizations that say that they can't broadcast false or misleading information, but that there is a wing of the government that is trying to do away with or relax this ban. I'm curious what people think about this.
I'm ambivalent. On the one hand, yes, obviously new organizations have a responsibility to not tell people things that aren't true, and I think that the fact that many American news organizations have given up on even trying to live up to this responsibility is deplorable.
One the other hand, as with any content based discrimination, I'm uncomfortable with the government having the right to decide what is and is not worthy of a ban. I don't know much of anything about the Canadian ban, but I hope that they have some objective standards set out as to how this is determined.
If I had to make a decision on this for the U.S., I'd support a ban as well, but that's because the lack of responsibility on the part of the producers and also, very importantly, the consumers of news is so very bad.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Looking into it, it seems more like legal housekeeping than anything. The regulation hasn't actually been used. And the proposed change was due to various parts of the government asking each other to clarify the regulation.
quote:He added that he was always "perfectly happy" with the current ban on false news, which has never been invoked against any broadcaster.
(Looks like the proposed change was withdrawn over public pressure)
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
When news is encouraged to act for profit motives which is inherently degenerative the government has a responsibility to the people to maintain the commons are being used correctly for the public good.
There is no room in the airwaves for propoganda stations.
IP: Logged |
All news is a business. The very nature of the beast means it is for a profit motive.
I am wary of any government intervention in between what is honest yet controversial reporting and what is deliberate propoganda. So wary and leery, in fact, that I'm relieved it is rarely invoked in Canada and I'm alarmed it even exists at all. And I'm even more horrified by the idea of banning propoganda.
It isn't like yellow journalism is a new thing. The entire conceit that news is above human biases or even capable of being above human biases is a modern experiment and is clearly failing miserably. And any ban flies directly in the face of freedom of speech, which is a modern experiment that is successfull.
The solution to bad speech isn't government censorship. It's better speech.
posted
There has been a verifiable inherent degeneration in the quality and accuracy of news since the repeal of the fairness doctrine; propoganda doesn't improve public discourse, it is inherently poisonous to the commons, the airwaves are for the public good, the only way to avoid the tragedy of the commons is for government intervention.
The fairness doctrine was perfectly in line with the constitution regarding freedom of speech, was and still is.
In fact the Supreme Court had made it abundantly clear there is no conflict.
quote: Keep in mind that the Fairness Doctrine only applied to holders of FCC broadcast licenses. It holds that the limited number of broadcast frequencies are a public trust, and that those who are granted licenses to those frequencies have an obligation to serve the public. For the government to grant a broadcast license to a station that airs only one point of view would be tantamount to government support of propaganda.
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: There has been a verifiable inherent degeneration in the quality and accuracy of news since the repeal of the fairness doctrine; propoganda doesn't improve public discourse
posted
It should be noted that large portions of the BBC, CBC, and Al Jazeera are government funded and do not really operate as businesses. As the ongoing revolutions in the Middle East demonstrate, Al Jazeera is producing news that vastly out-classes their commercial counterparts (and it also happens to be available in Canada on cable).
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The conceit that there is news that is free of human bias is an illusion and a lie.
There is ALWAYS a reporting bias. Every anthrolopologist and historian knows that. If you think a channel is free from any bias, that's because their biases align with yours.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Katharina is correct, so with a Fairness Doctrine does the government decide what should be said, and how it should be said?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It should also be noted that the committee that referred the matter to the CRTC also noted that the problem can also be policed on the level of slander and libel. As in, the regulation might be redundant since the government already polices what should be said and how it should be said via the courts rather than through broadcasting licenses.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: Katharina is correct, so with a Fairness Doctrine does the government decide what should be said, and how it should be said?
Some of us believe that on a whole the government is trustworthy in a democratic society to handle the public trust.
quote: The conceit that there is news that is free of human bias is an illusion and a lie.
There is ALWAYS a reporting bias. Every anthrolopologist and historian knows that. If you think a channel is free from any bias, that's because their biases align with yours.
So because its impossible to perfectly restrict bias we should just give up on ever being able to restrict its egregious excesses?
And blah blah a channel must obviously have opinions that align with yours to be free of bias objective analysis be damned blah blah.
IP: Logged |
posted
You deeply fail to understand the very nature of the issue.
-----
If you actually trusted the people in the first place, you would trust them to distinguish for themselves the gold from the dross.
If the people are incapable of good judgment, then they are incapable of electing a government with good judgment.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The CRTC is comprised of civil servants while judges (that would interpret slander and libel) in Canada are appointed, so elections are a bit less relevant.
(The usual complaint about the CRTC is that corporations have too much influence over it, *not* the elected branches of the government which have had much higher profile disagreements with the CRTC over the last year)
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's worse - there aren't even elections involved.
I'm less worried about the slander and libel laws, because those are usually pretty specific about what counts as slander and libel.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: That's worse - there aren't even elections involved.
I don't think that is obvious across the board. The system is somewhat parallel to your independent agencies system. The benefit is that certain agencies, like with judicial independence, can be free to interpret the law (or regulations) without being influenced by partisan political concerns.
In fact, if one is concerned about this regulation, one would prefer this separation because the alternative is that the elected government would both create the regulation *and* be in charge of interpreting it which could easily be abused. Instead, the result was that the elected government created the regulation (over ten years ago) and the CRTC never bothered to invoke it because of its independence.
Edit for clarification: The request for clarification was ten years ago, the initial regulation was created about twenty years ago and was never invoked.
posted
I'm fine with fake news being banned. I can't think of a scenario where I would prefer fake news over real news. What is real is pretty easily determined in this day and age, even by a layperson.
News can still be censored and slanted so really I feel it makes no difference at all-- propaganda is still allowable as lying by omission is not false news, simply bad news.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Censorship of any kind is such an enormous use of power that there needs to be overwhelming, compelling, national-security-abuse-of-children reasons to do it.
quote:What is real is pretty easily determined in this day and age, even by a layperson.
Unless you are talking about satire (and even Rachel Maddow has problems identifying that), it is not remotely easily determined. Rather, it is easily determined, and easily determined by different people as diametrically different objects. There will be strong, dissenting opinions, and that's good. Better to leave it all out there instead of anointing one point of view as "real".
What if people LIKE what you consider to be fake news? What is the compelling justification to remove the ability to adults to enjoy a view of the world that fits what they want to hear?
Do you distinguish "opinion" from this? Or do you only apply this standard to "Thus Saith The Lord" kind of news (does that kind exist?)?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't really think there's a compelling reason to stop people hearing what they ant to hear. There is a compelling reason, however, to prevent a business from lying in order to make a profit.
Also, I'm not sure why the courts would be unable to determine truth or falsity of facts stated on a news program, but able to do so regarding facts of, say, a murder case.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:There is a compelling reason, however, to prevent a business from lying in order to make a profit.
What? What's the compelling reason?
Keep in mind we aren't talking about advertising or product claims. We are talking about news, made quickly, in which, every day, there are THOUSANDS of mistakes. There are whole sections of newspapers dedicated to retractions and corrections. Should those newspapers be muzzled? Or should the whole concept of news be shut down because there might be errors? Should all information be subjected to the same standard of evidence as there is in a murder trial?
Do you understand the implications and consequences of subjecting public speech to the same standards of truth as required for a murder trial? The chilling effect on speech, the ENORMOUS time, personnel, and financial burden of making those judgements, the virtual elimination of breaking news, because the consequences of being wrong would be so great.
Do you believe that every bit of information disseminated should be subject to judicial review?
If you honestly don't know why, then the above should give you an idea of the multitude of reasons why such a policy would be a bad, bad idea.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Katharina, first of all recall that me and Mucus live in a de facto Constitutional Monarchy (Canada, technically a Parliamentary Democracy/Republic thing but we recognize the Queen of England as our Sovereign of the Commonwealth); as such hyperindividualistic libertarian ideology doesn't hold much currency with us. To use, having our Crown Prosecutors and judges being appoint is the superior system because they can sit down and do their job without needing to be elected to do it.
Secondly you need to recognize that there's nothing inherently true about individualism and the need to fully respect human liberty and demonize the government etc; it is just a system of ethical values that is equally valid and worthy of debate along with utilitarianism, Kantian Ethics, Bioethics, egoism and negative consequentialism.
Meaning that "taxation is theft" or similar, or other truisms about the evils of government while rationalizeable or justifible under one system doesn't make it true or automatically appliceable to all systems.
quote: If you actually trusted the people in the first place, you would trust them to distinguish for themselves the gold from the dross.
Good natured people capable of making informed rational decisions are not necessarily automatically able to have their bullshit detectors up and running at all times and could be easily misled when spoonfed misinformation.
If they only have a few sources of information and all sources of information say the same thing to varying degrees, "death panels", "Obama is a Muslem Communist Nazi who has British citizenship", "government wants to raise taxes on you." over and over in a drum beat of ideologically driven partisan propoganda there's no way even rational people will be able to make an informed decision in the voting both when the television and the newspapers and radios; outlets they have been taught since very young to be reliable sources of information..... spew this nonesense and only this nonesense of course they can't make an informed decision.
To make an informed judgement presupposes that you've been exposed to all sides of the issue, and this requires that news agencies actually provide that coverage.
All of this also completely ignores the point, when I say "I trust in government" I am trusting in an INSTITUTION not people, there's a clear difference. That I can't trust the average joe to not desecrate my corpse isn't to say I also equally don't trust the highly educated lawyer appointed to my case file at social assistance.
Government when properly funded is usually full with competent bureaucrats who know how to do their job right.
IP: Logged |
quote:Katharina is correct, so with a Fairness Doctrine does the government decide what should be said, and how it should be said?
Nope, individuals do. Remember the fairness doctrine? The one where people who disagreed with a news agency's take on a subject had the right to present their case, because the network doesn't own the airwaves? THAT fairness doctrine.
Katharina: you are comparing lies with mistakes. Are you actually saying that there is no compelling reason that news agencies shouldn't lie?
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Katharina, first of all, who's talking about mistakes? I'm talking about lying. The difference between proving error and proving dishonesty is pretty large. Enough so that I think your fears of a chilling effect are overstated.
Secondly, I think you've got things rather backwards with respect to my comparison to a criminal trial. If I'm going to formally accuse News Company X of having lied, I would expect the burden of proof to be on me! I'm not sure where you got the idea that I (or anyone else) think that news firms ought to have to prove their innocence at every turn, but I don't think it's been said here.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: ... the ENORMOUS time, personnel, and financial burden of making those judgements, the virtual elimination of breaking news, because the consequences of being wrong would be so great.
*shrug* It's all relative. Under some points of view, I guess 10 million a year (or 33 cents) per Canadian could be considered enormous. But I think its a fairly reasonable cost considering all the other things the CRTC has to manage as well.
Could it be considered a chilling effect? Sure. But the result is we do in fact have a less partisan, more truthful media and we still got more controversial broadcasters like Al Jazeera before the States. Breaking news even.
posted
Up above it said that it has been rarely invoked. If the only defense of the law is that it never gets enforced, then it's a stupid law.
As for the other arguments, I don't see any evidence that you have a grasp on the what the true consequences would be. The existence of a state-funded media is a far cry from banning news that doesn't report things the way a government agency considers to be the true angle.
As for lying not being the same as mistakes - ask Dan Rather. He is STILL contending that he was fired because some people didn't want to face the "truth" he exposed with his faked documents. Clearly, it's a matter of judgment. Expensive, litigious, heavy-handed, freedom-of-speech killing judgment.
You also can't look at it in a vacuum. In other words, it isn't a true experience as long as Canada is heavily influenced by the United States, which still does have freedom of speech. It's like claiming the key to a strong welfare state is to skimp on your armed forces. Not a problem when you're a member of NATO and someone else pays the standing army.
But for people who don't value freedom of speech, I imagine the state deciding who gets to talk and who has to be quiet sounds like a fabulous idea. What could possibly go wrong?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Censorship of any kind is such an enormous use of power that there needs to be overwhelming, compelling, national-security-abuse-of-children reasons to do it.
Despite the First Amendment, there are slander and libel laws in your own country. Should these then be repealed?
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Wow, so much wrong there it's hard to begin.
First of all we're hardly skimping, we're a major partner in NATO and have about ~40,000 soldiers which is decent considering a major coalition struggle is incredibly unlikely and interventions as peace keepers is the going MO.
Thus why need a massive army? The whole point of coalitions like nato IS the burdon sharing! otherwise there's no point to it; it was designed specifically so everyone one didn't need to put 8% of gdp to armed forces but contribute a more egalitarian yet lower amount, and this is even lower now with the Cold War over.
Armed forces should always be kept to the minimum possible, they're an unnecessary contrivance whose only purpose is to maintain order and keep the barbarians at bay.
That we desire to give the people the best possible place to live in instead of oppressing random brown people is our moral victory over you.
Are you implying that we don't have freedom of speech just because we just to regulate it? I think your definition of what it is shouldn't use the American example as the only example of what can be reasonably considered freedom of speech.
quote: But for people who don't value freedom of speech, I imagine the state deciding who gets to talk and who has to be quiet sounds like a fabulous idea. What could possibly go wrong?
Absolutely nothing in a freely elected government with strong long standing institutions, obvious blatant strawman argument notwithstanding.
The state isn't deciding "who gets to talk" only that on these X many frequencies that are considered a part of the public commons and thus everyone using them SHOULD and HAVE to contribute to the public good cannot use it for propaganda purposes and have to give equal time to the other side.
quote: I don't see any evidence
Well duh you can't see it, you have a rigidly enforced ideology that insists absolutely that individual freedom and liberty is an absolute right even at the expense of the majority and the public good; you'll never see or be convinced that sometimes a authoritative body must be empowered to make sure that everyone excersizing their full legal freedoms aren't infringing on someone elses.
IP: Logged |
posted
Wave that flag, Blayne. Burst into "O, Canada" if you makes you feel better.
I don't care about Canada. It's a stupid law and its only defense is that no one has been ruthless enough to enforce it, probably because freedom of speech is more valued that the laws would lead one to believe.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:That we desire to give the people the best possible place to live in instead of oppressing random brown people is our moral victory over you.
And whistled. Accusations of racism because you want to insult because you can't keep your head are never acceptable.
If you meant the general "you" to Americans, then it is both insulting and irrelevant. Go take a breather and stop posting until you can separate your feelings here.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote: I don't care about Canada. It's a stupid law and its only defense is that no one has been ruthless enough to enforce it, probably because freedom of speech is more valued that the laws would lead one to believe.
Firstly its defense isn't "its never enforced" Mucus I'm fairly certain pointed out that its actually a redundant law as there's many regulations that add up to more or less the same thing.
Secondly you have also failed yet again to mount a defense of why regulation of the airwaves is "stupid" other than irrelevent incorrect truisms about it being some sort of hilarious abridging of freedom of speech as if it was some kind of unassailable right where only your country's definition is the correct one.
I don't see at all how my post is whistleable, its actually a reference to George Carlin making the same observation and it's also factually true.
Saying Americans oppress brown people isn't a ToS violation it's grounds for the goddamn nobel peace prize.
IP: Logged |
posted
Blayne aside, Twinky's point should be taken seriously. I'd add that fraud laws should be considered well.
Furthermore, you're making claims about the way the law works that I haven't seen substantiated elsewhere:
quote:[...]banning news that doesn't report things the way a government agency considers to be the true angle
Do you have any evidence to lend credence to the idea that this was the intent of the law? I'd be pretty surprised if your characterization matched the actual wording of the law.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
What do you mean by "Blayne Aside"? Can you elaborate please.
IP: Logged |
posted
For people who are still interested, I found an interesting point of reference on Michael Geist's blog. He's a law prof at the University of Ottawa who holds a Canada Research Chair. He's my go-to guy for regulatory copyright, telecom, and media issues.
He summarizes the current regulation and the proposed change, and then excerpts the equivalent FCC regulation in the US for comparison.
Personally, I think the existing Canadian regulation is problematic, but the proposed revision isn't really better. The existing regulation is a blanket statement with no exceptions. For instance, technically, a Canadian news organization couldn't broadcast coverage of Santa's trip around the globe at Christmas each year. This is probably why no one has ever been punished for violating it, but a regulation that's so vaguely worded that it can't reasonably be applied is one that, realistically, should probably either go away or be revised.
That said, I don't like the revision, either. It restricts the application of the prohibition on false/misleading statements to cases of potential or actual physical harm to people. I think that's too narrow. Just as we have laws to protect individuals from libel and slander, I don't think it's unreasonable to have a similar law that prohibits deliberately misleading people; there just have to be clearly delineated and suitably broad exceptions.
The FCC regulation is okay. It's quite narrow, though; it pertains only to crimes and catastrophes. I don't have an issue with a regulation like this only applying to broadcasts on certain topics, but the main thing I like about the FCC's regulation is the broad exception provided for anything with an attached disclaimer. I'm not sure that's the perfect solution, but it's pretty good, since it covers everything from fake comedy news to infomercials.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:What do you mean by "Blayne Aside"? Can you elaborate please.
nly that I don't expect the conversation between you two to be very fruitful, given that she's already whistling you (deserved or not). I was vaguely hoping refocus katharina's attention to a different part of the conversation. Whether she'll want to is, of course, up to her.
No slight against you, personally, was intended.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose:
quote:What do you mean by "Blayne Aside"? Can you elaborate please.
nly that I don't expect the conversation between you two to be very fruitful, given that she's already whistling you (deserved or not). I was vaguely hoping refocus katharina's attention to a different part of the conversation. Whether she'll want to is, of course, up to her.
No slight against you, personally, was intended.
Okay thanks, definitly a case of where "calm down, breath for 5 seconds ask for clarification" has paid off.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Up above it said that it has been rarely invoked. If the only defense of the law is that it never gets enforced, then it's a stupid law.
Incorrect.
It has never been invoked, but that doesn't logically follow that it's a stupid law. We also have a law against high treason that has never been invoked for at least the same amount of time, but that doesn't mean a law against high treason is stupid.
Edit to add: Also technically, it isn't a law. These are regulations, not laws.
quote:Originally posted by katharina: As for the other arguments, I don't see any evidence that you have a grasp on the what the true consequences would be.
What? You mean aside from having the policy for twenty odd years? It seems bizarre to claim that there will be these huge costs and huge consequences with such a policy when we've already had it for two decades with no such thing.
quote: It has never been invoked, but that doesn't logically follow that it's a stupid law. We also have a law against high treason that has never been invoked for at least the same amount of time, but that doesn't mean a law against high treason is stupid.
This. The suggestion that a law must be routinely enforced, that is to say it must be applied and its punishments acted out, in order to be effective seems to me to be quite strange. I don't buy it-I think you also need to examine other questions, such as why the law exists, what it targets, and what it prevents by having the law in place. It seems to me you're narrowing the discussion down to exactly one area: 'how often has this law been used', and then when the answer is 'almost never or never', rejecting it as ridiculous even though its proponents don't even advance that as one of its benefits.
quote:What? You mean aside from having the policy for twenty odd years? It seems bizarre to claim that there will be these huge costs and huge consequences with such a policy when we've already had it for two decades with no such thing.
And this as well. I'm not a fan of the kind of speech laws being discussed here either, katharina, but frankly you're coming off as a bit hyperbolic in your criticisms here. Unless the consequences you're talking about are moral or something.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I recall a case of where a corporation was sued via a class action lawsuit by a town that was down river of their factory, it would've been thrown out had it not been for a 200 year old law regarding river navigation.
Sometimes old unenforced laws are definitly good.
IP: Logged |
posted
As I stated, I think this is really a case where we have competing concerns with positive and negative points on both sides.
Oddly enough, kat, I feel like you acknowledge this in your first post, but immediately veer away from this into it being a black and white issue.
You acknowledge that a significant subsection of people are bad at selecting reputable news and that news organizations will, if allowed, cultivate their audience with dishonest reporting.
I'm not sure how you go from that to the idea that government intervention is categorically wrong in this case.
Canada does not seem to have anywhere near the toxic news culture that America has. It's not clear that this policy is a direct cause of this, but I think it's pretty easy to argue that it is a likely contributing factor. As stated, a law that has never been used to punish a transgression can still have the effect of both setting clear standards and preventing transgressions from occurring.
And, in practice, while you seem to be suggesting that this policy will have dire results, what seems to have occurred is Canadians on average are much better informed about news events than, say, Americans are and can pretty much trust that their news outlets are feeding them outright lies. I don't see that as so terrible (for the Canadians).
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
