It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

CRTC eases ban on false or misleading news

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 05:07 PM
link   

CRTC eases ban on false or misleading news


www.metronews.ca

The CRTC is proposing a regulatory change that would give Canadian TV and radio stations more leeway to broadcast false or misleading news.

It is proposing a ban on the broadcast of "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."
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 05:07 PM
link   
Amid news of Rupert Murdoch meeting with PM Harper about starting up Fox News North and the intense debate over political vitriol, the Canadian Radio-Television Telecommunications Commission quietly passed a resolution that allows practically any fake or purposely misleading news on Canadian TV and radio - so long as it doesn't "endanger the lives, health or safety of the public".

Political lies become legalized, economic wars can be waged on the news (controlled by the highest bidders, of course), propaganda becomes even more ingrained in the MSM, those peddling false news and disinformation get a nice and neat little loophole to hop through just in case they are exposed, and American powers get a surrogate talking head.

More from the article:

Geist finds it ironic that the CRTC wants to limit the scope of the prohibition on false or misleading news in Canada just as debate is raging over the impact of venomous, often grossly distorted, political discourse on the U.S. airwaves.



American broadcasters face a more stringent ban on false or misleading news than the prohibition now being proposed by the CRTC for Canadian broadcasters. U.S. law refers to knowingly broadcasting false news that causes “substantial public harm” — a phrase that Geist said can be interpreted relatively broadly.



With a new right-leaning all-news network, Sun TV News, about to launch in March, Geist noted there's concern in some quarters that Canada is about to import the more aggressive, American approach to political coverage. He suggested the CRTC's proposed regulatory change will only magnify those concerns.


This comes into effect on September 1st. SPEAK UP CANADA! The CRTC is taking "comments" on this resolution until early February. Do not take this lying down!

If apathy wins out, you should at the very least remain extremely wary and educated about what the MSM is trying to feed you - because it's anyone's game now.

www.metronews.ca
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 16-1-2011 by pforkp because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 05:11 PM
link   
To me, it sounds like an excuse to mislead on the sudden crop of disclosure threads I've noticed hovering at the top of forums since that would be a pretty big panic inducing thing for the public to know.

Then again I could be reading too much into it.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 05:34 PM
link   
I heard a certain right wing radio talk show host from the Cdn prairies, who is a former 1 term progressive conservative mp, and who admits to liking Rush limbaugh - so much so he's even taken on Rush's eloquent speech patterns, is looking to a possible future with Faux news north.
Understanding the likes of the love and hate rants of a John Gorm ley, one can clearly see where our "news" reporting is going - down the toilet tank.
Combine it with new laws, and one can clearly see the news is not real.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 05:43 PM
link   
This could also bring up an interesting debate that's waging full force in the US - what are the limits of free speech? The CRTC is also reviewing regulations on obscenity (which is mentioned in the same article posted above). I guess it comes down to this: should the news (corporate-owned media) necessarily have to show us "fact"? Should it be obliged to do so? Or can they show any information they deem fit, so long as it's not dangerous to public safety (just like any other show on TV)?

I think this is dangerous when many consider at least some of the news to be reliable sources of information. The key to successful disinformation campaigns is to mix lies in with some truth, so a casual information-consumer can't tell the difference. News sources, and journalists in general, MUST be held to an adequate level of integrity and accountability - and therefore, "pure" freedom of speech doesn't apply to them. Since the general public relies on these sources for truth about the world, "unharmful" lies and purposeful misinformation that would normally fall under the "freedom of speech" jurisdiction SHOULD BE RESTRICTED in the news. Boundaries must be set - truth itself lies in the balance.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by ItsEvolutionBaby
 



one can clearly see where our "news" reporting is going - down the toilet tank. Combine it with new laws, and one can clearly see the news is not real.

I totally agree - but how many people out there believe that the news is (at least to some extent) "real"? That it's supposed to represent fact rather than political messages, advertisements, and purposely misleading information? Many don't see the news as a reality TV show, but it's quickly turning into fiction, simply another tool in the battle for power over our minds.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by pforkp
 


While there seem to be more and more "waking up" to the fact they can't believe what they read in the daily paper, lots don't seem to have any time (or desire?) to question anything beyond the headlines, or what the commentator-of-the-day has to "report" on the-item-of-the-day.

Too busy checking the sports scores, or taking junior to soccer, or daughters to dance classes - kids aren't having enough time to be kids, and the parent(s) are too busy making sure that is so, cause thats what they know. And just the tip of the iceberg, as you know all too well!



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 06:02 PM
link   
frankly I think they need to put
labels on each tv station.

Welcome to Fox News
a right wing affiliation
sponsored by Rupert Murdoch


Welcome to The New York Times
a left wing affiliation
sponsored by George Soros

etc ... etc .....

or is there already a page list somewhere
on the net of these affiliations ???

would it be more appropriate for the station
to run a 30 sec spot each day with this info?
kinda like a disclosure of sorts.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by boondock-saint
 

Corporate affiliations are passingly mentioned in the news "credits", but the owners definitely aren't - that takes the smallest amount of digging, which sadly too many people are unwilling to do. I feel like a TV spot saying that "The following information may or may not be purposely misleading and/or false" should at least be run. It tells the truth, and doesn't mislead people into thinking that the news is mainly an objective source of information.




top topics



 
3

log in

join