[NeedKarma]

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.: Regulators Reject Proposal That Would Bring Fox-Style News to Canada

I like this part:

Fox News will not be moving into Canada after all! The reason: Canada regulators announced last week they would reject efforts by Canada's right wing Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, to repeal a law that forbids lying on broadcast news.

Canada's Radio Act requires that "a licenser may not broadcast....any false or misleading news." The provision has kept Fox News and right wing talk radio out of Canada and helped make Canada a model for liberal democracy and freedom. As a result of that law, Canadians enjoy high quality news coverage including the kind of foreign affairs and investigative journalism that flourished in this country before Ronald Reagan abolished the "Fairness Doctrine" in 1987.

[tomder55]

This is the type of censorship the left would like the bring to the United States. Hard to call your regulations "freedom"... it is more in line with Russia .

I'm just not that content with allowing the government to be the arbiter of truth.

[NeedKarma]

Thank you. Tom. I am a proud Canadian.

[southamerica]

Yeah, while I'm not a huge fan of Fox News (or any news, I'll be honest), it seems silly to keep it out simply because it's right wing.

[excon]

Hello s:

That's not why it's being kept out. It's because they LIE!

excon

[NeedKarma]

... it seems silly to keep it out simply because it's right wing.

Apparently you didn't bother reading the article nor the quote I put in the post. Nice going!

[southamerica]

Whoops, I didn't mean for anyone to take my comment as negative. What I meant is that *I* don't trust any news, regardless of whether it comes from the right or left. Fox News in particular is a total nuthouse and its influence terrifies me more than many of the others. I'm definitely not "tsk tsking" Canada!

[tomder55]

I am... and we have at least one person making comment here in support of this type of censorship of the press who claims to revere the 1st Amendment guarantees.
What's next ? Canada beating up reporters like the Chinese ,the Egyptians ,or the lefties in Wisconsin ?

[NeedKarma]

What's next ? Canada beating up reporters ...

Why, who's beating up reporters?

[Curlyben]

I am... and we have at least one person making comment here in support of this type of censorship of the press who claims to revere the 1st Amendment guarantees.
What's next ? Canada beating up reporters like the Chinese ,the Egyptians ,or the lefties in Wisconsin ?

Canada's Radio Act requires that "a licenser may not broadcast....any false or misleading news.

Tomder, how is this censorship or do you like being spoonfed misleading information ?
The First Amendment doesn't give you the rights to spread falsehoods or pass off misleading information as truth..
Unless you are referring to Freedom of the Press.

Mind you I suppose they could always have Fox Makebelieve and have it on Comedy Central.

Yes we have a number of "newspapers" like that in the UK, but everyone knows not to believe what they publish.

[spitvenom]

Fox News is as credible as The Onion.

[southamerica]

yes we have a number of "newspapers" like that in the UK, but everyone knows not to believe what they publish.

I think the important thing for everyone to remember is it doesn't matter where you are: if you live in a free country you will be able to access all the misleading baloney published. That's the beauty of the internet.

The flip-side is conscientious persons are then able to fact check what they read with further research. I think what some people display is a disregard for the ability, nay, the duty of a citizen to double check information resources. Result: one is merely regurgitating lies (exhibit A: Tea Party).

Does that mean Fox News shouldn't exist? Does it matter? I firmly hope and believe that we shall ultimately know them by the fruit they bear (exhibit A: Tea Party).

What saddens me is places like North Korea, where people truly don't have the freedom to decide what is truth and what is not.

Okay-that's about all the soap-boxy pseudo political ranting I can manage for one day. I try to keep it at a minimum.

[excon]

I am ...and we have at least one person making comment here in support of this type of censorship of the press who claims to revere the 1st Amendment guarantees.

Hello again, tom:

If you mean me, I said nothing about curtailing their right to lie.

excon

[speechlesstx]

Let's forbid politicians from lying, whaddya say?

Tasha Kheiriddin: RFK Jr. blasts Harper, Sun TV. ‘A wizard of bigotry and belligerent religiosity ‘

What is it with Americans who insist on commenting on Canadian issues about which they know, er, nothing? The latest about of delusional profundity comes from Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in an article entitled, “Fox News will not be moving into Canada after all.”

As America’s middle class battles for its survival on the Wisconsin barricades — against various Koch Oil surrogates and the corporate toadies at Fox News — fans of enlightenment, democracy and justice can take comfort from a significant victory north of Wisconsin border. Fox News will not be moving into Canada after all! The reason: Canada regulators today announced they would reject efforts by Canada’s right wing Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, to repeal a law that forbids lying on broadcast news.

Note to Mr. Kennedy: Fox News is already here… you can subscribe to it in Canada, as long as you buy the right cable package. The only exception is for subscribers of Videotron, which does not offer the channel, so Quebec remains largely Fox-free. Ironically, it is the owners of Videotron – Quebecor Media – who are bringing the channel Mr. Kennedy is actually complaining about to Canadian airwaves: Sun TV News.

But it gets better. To hear Mr. Kennedy describe it, the only thing standing between Canadians and journalistic Armageddon is our law against dissemination of “false and misleading news”:

The provision has kept Fox News and right wing talk radio out of Canada and helped make Canada a model for liberal democracy and freedom. As a result of that law, Canadians enjoy high quality news coverage including the kind of foreign affairs and investigative journalism that flourished in this country before Ronald Reagan abolished the “Fairness Doctrine” in 1988. Political dialogue in Canada is marked by civility, modesty, honesty, collegiality, and idealism that have pretty much disappeared on the U.S. airwaves.

Actually, it’s not that provision that makes Canada’s airwaves an alleged paragon of civility. Our version of the “fairness doctrine” is enshrined in the Canadian Broadcasting Act.

Section 3(1) (I) (iv) mandates that broadcasters,

“provide a reasonable opportunity for the public to be exposed to the expression of differing views on matters of public concern”

While Section 3(1)(d) states that

“the Canadian broadcasting system should

(i) serve to safeguard, enrich and strengthen the cultural, political, social and economic fabric of Canada…

(iii) through its programming… serve the needs and interests, and reflect the circumstance and aspirations, of Canadian men, women and children, including equal rights, the linguistic duality and multicultural and multiracial nature of Canadian society and the special place of aboriginal peoples within that society…

In other words, broadcasters in Canada are obliged to provide differing views, but since the acceptable view is already defined as the left-leaning Trudeauvian vision of things, good luck establishing a station, network, or program devoted solely to questioning these sacred cows from the right.

Of course, figuring this out would imply actually reading the Act, which Mr. Kennedy no doubt has little time to do, between beating up polluters, teaching students about the evils of corporate America, and writing misleading articles. His comments remind me of the disinformation-dressed-up-as-film that was Sicko, Michael Moore’s 2007 opus on health care, in which Mr. Moore claimed to find no evidence of long wait times in Canadian emergency rooms.

But objectivity was never Mr. Moore’s forte. And it isn’t Mr. Kennedy’s either. As a closer, consider his description of Prime Minister Stephen Harper:

Harper, often referred to as “George W. Bush’s Mini Me,” is known for having mounted a Bush like war on government scientists, data collectors, transparency, and enlightenment in general. He is a wizard of all the familiar tools of demagoguery; false patriotism, bigotry, fear, selfishness and belligerent religiosity.

Wow, that’s balanced! And accurate! Maybe the U.S. should bring back its Fairness Doctrine, to oblige Mr. Kennedy to be civil like us good ol’ Canadians, eh? Just a thought.

National Post

At least Kennedy is still free to slander and lie.

[NeedKarma]

The american Fox News does indeed get some limited airplay if you have the right digital package. The article is about establishing a Fox-style "news" show.

[tomder55]

Curley , when I hear the Fox Lied mantra being chanted by drones I recall Pontius Pilot's famous biblical question 'what is truth'?Spun through the narrow filters on the lefty lens I'm sure all that happens on Fox is a lie.

I will remind all that the top ranked shows on FOX allow alternate points of view very much in compliance with the old so called 'fairness doctrine.' Hannity ,O'Reilley , Van Sustren et al all debate people with opposing points of view . MSNBC does not with the exception of Chris Matthews.

When I see this Canada dictate I just have to wonder which special interest is being paid off . I can't believe these Canadians are proud of the fact that they refuse to air alternate points of view . Given that they elected a fairly conservative PM I guess most of the people aren't pleased by this bureaucratic dictate.

[excon]

I will remind all that the top ranked shows on FOX allow alternate points of view

Hello again, tom:

I'm not talking about points of view. I'm talking about LYING. Since I don't LIKE Fox, I point my finger there. I'm not naïve enough, though, to believe that libs don't lie too. That, however, takes nothing away from the fact that FOX lies..

Here's the most recent example I can think of. I'll certainly get the tapes if you insist, but maybe, after all these years, you'll take my word for it... You SHOULD.. Megan Kelly on her show said she watches ALL the shows on Fox and NONE of them EVER made reference to Nazi's, Hitler and those guys... Of course, there are TONS of those references emanating from Fox. Now, that's just one lie. I'm sure there are others.

excon

[TUT317]

Curley , when I hear the Fox Lied mantra being chanted by drones I recall Pontius Pilot's famous biblical question 'what is truth'?Spun through the narrow filters on the lefty lens I'm sure all that happens on Fox is a lie.

I will remind all that the top ranked shows on FOX allow alternate points of view very much in compliance with the old so called 'fairness doctrine.' Hannity ,O'Reilley , Van Sustren et al all debate people with opposing points of view . MSNBC does not with the exception of Chris Matthews.

When I see this Canada dictate I just have to wonder which special interest is being paid off . I can't believe these Canadians are proud of the fact that they refuse to air alternate points of view . Given that they elected a fairly conservative PM I guess most of the people aren't pleased by this bureaucratic dictate.

Hi Tom,

I don't think the issue us just about opposing points of view. The right can put forward a position they know to be false and misleading. In other words it doesn't accord with the facts. The left could respond to their claims by putting forward equally misleading and false information. Thus we have two opposing points of view which are false and misleading.

Think back to NK's post on Fox and the health care debate. As I said then the media has a responsibility not to deliberately put forward information they know to be false and misleading. In Australia journalists are required to follow a code of conduct. Within the television industry there is also a code of practice. This sounds a bit like 'overkill' but the media have a responsibility. Even though we have regulations in place, a government run T.V. station and a government run radio network we still have freedom of speech. I know it doesn't seems possible, but it is.

We/you have freedom of speech. This does not mean that we should say whatever we like- whenever we like simply because we can. A person could run into a crowded station and shout, FIRE, simply because freedom of speech allows it.

From your point of view, when it comes to the media, are you for unrestricted freedom of speech?

Regards

Tut

[paraclete]

Hi Tom,


We/you have freedom of speech. This does not mean that we should say whatever we like- whenever we like simply because we can. From your point of view, when it comes to the media, are you for unrestricted freedom of speech?

Regards

Tut

Tut you have to understand that in their screwed up view of the world you are are not entitled to stop someone yelling fire! You are not entitled to insist that what you are told does not contain lies and untruths. Their system permits every con artist in history to ply his trade with impunity

[tomder55]

TUT ,the fire in the theater example is tiresome. Everyone knows the issue there is public safety.
Canada continues to slip further from freedom of the press according to 'Reporters Without Borders' and it is being applauded here as a good thing . I find that amazing.

Well hope you all are content watching Keith Olberman's countdown to obscurity on the Al Gore Network disseminating his version of the truth .