Has Anyone Else Completely Lost Faith In The Media?

Speaking of Fox. Let's see exactly why they are banned in Canada.


Statutes and Regulations | CRTC (http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/statutes-lois.htm)


-requires that "a licenser may not broadcast….any false or misleading news."



I think the US should pass the same type of legislation that our neighbors to the north have. Would make for better quality news.

Speaking of Fox. Let's see exactly why they are banned in Canada.

For a guy who claims to be non-partisan and advocates getting all the facts, you sure do have a hardon for lies about Fox.

As I posted once before, but you apparently chose to ignore 'cause it involved facts you dislike:

<sigh> You have been reading to many liberal blogs and accepting their statements as fact. Fox news is not and has never been "banned" in Canada:

[November, 2004] The conservative-leaning Fox News Channel will soon be coming to Canadian digital television channels. The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) approved an application Thursday to bring the Fox News Channel, one of the highest-rated news channels in the United States, onto Canadian digital airwaves. The Canadian Cable Telecommunications Association (CCTA) applied to the broadcast regulator in April. Canadians already have access to the main Fox network, but not the right-leaning, 24-hour news channel, with its trademarked slogan of ‘fair and balanced.’

There was a point when Fox News had it’s application denied by the regulatory authority, but not due to any content related issues. [11/22 Edit For Clarification: Fox was going to combine with another news agency and so a separate stand alone "Fox News" channel was deemed duplicative.]
The CRTC rejected a CCTA application to bring Fox to Canada last November [2003] because Fox News U.S. and Winnipeg-based Global Television were planning to create Fox News Canada, a combination of U.S. and Canadian news. However, in March, a Fox U.S. executive said there were no plans to create the combined channel.
CRTC approves Fox News for Canada - Canada - CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2004/11/18/fox_crtc041118.html)

In Canada, the Fox News Channel is currently available on: Access Communications, Bell TV, Cogeco, Eastlink, Manitoba Telecom Services, Rogers, SaskTel, Shaw Cable, Shaw Direct and Telus TV.

Since it has been broadcasting in Canada, Fox News has never been cited for violating the "don't broadcast false news" regulations (neither has any other station).

In fact, the whole "Canada Bans Fox" story is the twisted result of the CRTC's recent decision to drop its 10 year old attempt to change the regulation you cite. The reason they sought the change was to make their regulations compliant with Canada's constitution which protects false or misleading speech as Free Speech.

The committee was concerned that the regulation violated a 1992 Supreme Court ruling in the case of Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel, which found that the Charter of Rights provision protecting freedom of expression meant a person could not be charged for spreading false information.
CRTC ditches bid to allow fake news - The Globe and Mail (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/crtc-ditches-bid-to-allow-fake-news/article1921489/)

B/c the "ban misleading speech" regulation is one of those "feel good" laws that sounds fine but can lead to censorship and have a chilling effect on free discourse, the CRTC's proposal was met with overwhelming popular opposition when it tried to change the reg to conform to the country's constitutional requirements. After the CRTC w/drew its proposed change, and in an act of classic demagougery, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. makes a big deal that the CRTC has folded to the "will of the people" and, despite Fox News actual presence in Canada, RFK, Jr. asserts that "Fox like" news is content banned:

[Quoting RFK, Jr.:]When Stephen Harper moved to abolish anti-lying provision of the Radio Act, Canadians rose up to oppose him fearing that their tradition of honest non partisan news would be replaced by the toxic, overtly partisan, biased and dishonest news coverage familiar to American citizens who listen to Fox News and talk radio.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.: Regulators Reject Proposal That Would Bring Fox-Style News to Canada (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr/fox-news-will-not-be-moving-into-canada-after-all_b_829473.html)

He made this statement despite the fact that Fox News had been in Canada since 2004. It was picked up and twisted by liberal blogs across the internet and repeated until people like you began to believe it as truth.

In Canada, just as here, you can't pre-censor speech b/c you think it might be misleading. To protect and - in fact enhance - free and open discourse, the appropriate remedy for false speech is, as it has always been, to seek damages in libel/slander or, here's a shocking concept, fight false speech with truthful speech.

And BTW, the same study you found unsurprising in its indictment of Fox listeners also indicted those who listed MSNBC as their primary source. It is as I have been saying all along, those who rely on one source or one set of sources for their facts will, inevitably fail to see the entire picture and, rather, like yourself, they will see only those parts of the picture they find agreeable.

I stand corrected then. I have a good friend that's Canadian that said something to me about it, I don't really read any liberal blogs per say.

Why in the hell do you think I read once source? I don't fail to see the big picture. I said something that I was wrong about. Big deal. You say a lot of things that are wrong, especially in your stance with the Occupy Movement, but that doesn't stop you.

I stand corrected then. I have a good friend that's Canadian that said something to me about it, I don't really read any liberal blogs per say.

Why in the hell do you think I read once source? I don't fail to see the big picture. I said something that I was wrong about. Big deal. You say a lot of things that are wrong, especially in your stance with the Occupy Movement, but that doesn't stop you.

Out of curiosity, can you cite an example where JR was wrong(factually) on the Occupy movement, given proof of the error, and then his failing to acknowledge it?

I may not (in fact I know I don't) agree with JR on certain issues, but rarely is the disagreement based on underlying facts, which you seem to be saying when you say he says "a lot of things that are wrong", our disagreements usually involve application of those facts.

Feel free to PM with what you believe are my incorrect positions in the Occupy thread and I will gladly refute or admit as necessary. I would suggest that I stand by all my statements as factually correct and, if they are in error, I will gladly and publicly admit the same.

Further, my intention was not to say that you rely on one source but that you act like someone who does. That is just my opinion based on your various arguments and positions that you have taken in the various political threads. I said:

those who rely on one source or one set of sources for their facts will, inevitably fail to see the entire picture and, rather, like yourself, they will see only those parts of the picture they find agreeable.

Perhaps it would have been more clear to say: "rather, they will see only those parts of the picture they find agreeable just as it seems to me that you often do."

My intent, if it was not clear, was that you often (I would say consistently) are dismissive of facts which do not support you opinions and "see only those parts of the picture [you] find agreeable". Fox reports facts - they also spin them. In my opinion, you consistently look at the spin and ignore the facts.

Further, you were wrong when you initially made the statement ("Fox is banned") in the Occupy thread. I pointed out the error then, but, consistent with your methodology, you ignored it. Now, in a thread lambasting the media for their playing fast and loose with the truth, you repeat - and assert as truth - a fact which you have not verified, the error of which was previously pointed out and which is consistent with your complete and utter contempt for Fox.

Pardon me for calling "Fail" on a person who consistently blasts others for being uninformed but whose only support for a blatantly erroneous statement that is the child of rank demagougery is "a friend told me".

Out of curiosity, can you cite an example where JR was wrong(factually) on the Occupy movement, given proof of the error, and then his failing to acknowledge it?

I may not (in fact I know I don't) agree with JR on certain issues, but rarely is the disagreement based on underlying facts, which you seem to be saying when you say he says "a lot of things that are wrong", our disagreements usually involve application of those facts.

We disagree b/c I am just smarter than you. Always have been, always will be. :silly:

it seems like the GOP followers are crying over spilled milk. their party is out of power, so they have lost faith in our govt. their presidential hopeful has a ton of skeletons that are now being re reported, so they have lost faith in the media. boo hoo i say

Further, you were wrong when you initially made the statement ("Fox is banned") in the Occupy thread. I pointed out the error then, but, consistent with your methodology, you ignored it. Now, in a thread lambasting the media for their playing fast and loose with the truth, you repeat - and assert as truth - a fact which you have not verified, the error of which was previously pointed out and which is consistent with your complete and utter contempt for Fox.


I haven't ignored anything, nor do I recall the post from the other thread. Chances are I just didn't see the post. Chill out.


Are you asking me to point out where Fox lies? If so, I can definitely do that.

Out of curiosity, can you cite an example where JR was wrong(factually) on the Occupy movement, given proof of the error, and then his failing to acknowledge it?

I may not (in fact I know I don't) agree with JR on certain issues, but rarely is the disagreement based on underlying facts, which you seem to be saying when you say he says "a lot of things that are wrong", our disagreements usually involve application of those facts.

Opinion based. I don't recall anything off the top of my head or anything I care to dig for to be honest with you.

it seems like the GOP followers are crying over spilled milk. their party is out of power, so they have lost faith in our govt. their presidential hopeful has a ton of skeletons that are now being re reported, so they have lost faith in the media. boo hoo i say

Well if you have followed any of my post you will know that I lost faith both in Gov. & the media long before Obama took office.