Regulators Reject Proposal That Would Bring Fox-Style News to Canada

reply to post by Blaine91555


Maybe I simplified too much.

Indeed, a large number of people can decide. Not always those with the biggest wallet.

reply to post by palg1


edited the last line of my previous reply.
"Nowhere does it imply that you would loose your right to challenge those before the CRTC."

To Johnny Canuck.
Now, Where does it say that you would have no recourse to challenge any news source on the validity of their info?

Originally posted by Vio1ion
reply to post by Blaine91555

 

Maybe I simplified too much.

Indeed, a large number of people can decide. Not always those with the biggest wallet.

edit on 2/3/11 by Vio1ion because: precision

edit on 2/3/11 by Vio1ion because: (no reason given)

Even when it comes to free speech?

I dont know about that.. US corporate media forgets nuthin. They"ll probly just buy their way in like any other US based big biz. Just a matter of time till globalist elitist lobby our Parliament to "amend" our foreign-media regulations.

Originally posted by palg1
To Johnny Canuck.
Now, Where does it say that you would have no recourse to challenge any news source on the validity of their info?

Why should we change an existing regulation that is straightforward in its intention, to accommodate FOX and add another layer of bureaucracy? Like we need to create the "Fox Department of Confabulation and Whoppers"? Naw...the rules are clear and the agency is dense enough as is. If it's too tough for FOX to handle a 'no lying' clause, they are no great loss.

reply to post by Flatfish


lol yeah since democrats know how to fix everything. Just like how they want to cut spending...wait...that's republicans.

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


It doesn't matter anyway.
Nothing important happens in Canada

Originally posted by Ancient Champion
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

 

It doesn't matter anyway.
Nothing important happens in Canada

Why, bless its pointed little head, of course nothing important ever happens here, so no need to fret about us. Thanks for posting, though.

Congratulations Op, on getting a lot more responses than I did when I posted the same news on Feb 27. Just sayin. Maybe the search option doesn't work or maybe my headline was too boring for the other members.www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by palg1
To Johnny Canuck.
Now, Where does it say that you would have no recourse to challenge any news source on the validity of their info?

Why should we change an existing regulation that is straightforward in its intention, to accommodate FOX and add another layer of bureaucracy? Like we need to create the "Fox Department of Confabulation and Whoppers"? Naw...the rules are clear and the agency is dense enough as is. If it's too tough for FOX to handle a 'no lying' clause, they are no great loss.

No, Johnny Canuck. you stated on 1-3-2011 @ 14:50 that "if they LIE to you, you presently have recourse to the CRTC. Under the legislation proposed by Steve, you would lose that right"

You did not answer my question. Instead you fell back into your anti-Fox diatribe about new rules when it is clear that this rule replaces an existing one and that no new bureaucratic offices will be created . Now, if you can't debate fairly then you have lost all of the respect I might have had for you. Answer the questions asked and maybe you can start to regain some credibility. My god your starting to talk as if you work for the CBC.

Originally posted by palg1

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by palg1
To Johnny Canuck.
Now, Where does it say that you would have no recourse to challenge any news source on the validity of their info?

Why should we change an existing regulation that is straightforward in its intention, to accommodate FOX and add another layer of bureaucracy? Like we need to create the "Fox Department of Confabulation and Whoppers"? Naw...the rules are clear and the agency is dense enough as is. If it's too tough for FOX to handle a 'no lying' clause, they are no great loss.

No, Johnny Canuck. you stated on 1-3-2011 @ 14:50 that "if they LIE to you, you presently have recourse to the CRTC. Under the legislation proposed by Steve, you would lose that right"

You did not answer my question. Instead you fell back into your anti-Fox diatribe about new rules when it is clear that this rule replaces an existing one and that no new bureaucratic offices will be created . Now, if you can't debate fairly then you have lost all of the respect I might have had for you. Answer the questions asked and maybe you can start to regain some credibility. My god your starting to talk as if you work for the CBC.

The existing rules says you can't lie on the airwaves. Fox walked away when it was not changed. That's all I need to know. That is not an anti Fox diatribe...it's a simple statement of fact. If I'm lying..take it to the CRTC.

I watch FOX, CNN & MSNBC if I want to be entertained...I watch CBC and the BBC if I want the news.

FOX and MSNBC are simply the instruments of propoganda for the Right & Left. You can't trust either...but it is still entertaining.

I am very happy FOX was denied here in Canada.

Originally posted by Tiste
I watch FOX, CNN & MSNBC if I want to be entertained...I watch CBC and the BBC if I want the news.
FOX and MSNBC are simply the instruments of propoganda for the Right & Left. You can't trust either...but it is still entertaining.
I am very happy FOX was denied here in Canada.

Ahhh...but the key is not that they were denied (unless you can connect the dots between FOX and Steve), it is that they declined to set up shop if the law was maintained that it was illegal to lie on the airwaves. SUN-TV has a well-defined right-wing slant, but they are able to work within the confines of the Act, so it is not an attack on conservative populism...merely on untruths.

And it would ill-behoove me to try connect those dots.


And to directly answer Palg's question as he seems to have missed my inference already:

Originally posted by palg1
You see.. you need to look at the whole story here. The regulators (CRTC) prposed changes to the wording as follows " to alter the wording of a regulation that prohibits the broadcasting of false or misleading news. The alteration would make the regulation apply only in cases in which broadcasters knew the information was false or misleading, and that reporting it may endanger the lives, health or safety of the public.

Nowhere does it imply that you would not loose your right to challenge those before the CRTC.

...as far as I'm concerned, Palg emboldened the wrong phrase. What is important here are the qualifiers: and that reporting it may endanger the lives, health or safety of the public.

Why need there be life threatening consequences before a lie is deemed to be important enough to be sanctioned? Why not just let the ground rules state "No Lying" and leave it at that? What kind of society are we building when you need to change the law to accommodate untruths? Yes, as Palg states, one would still have recourse to the CRTC...not to challenge the facts, but only to determine the consequences of the lie.

Sorry Sparky...that's not what my Canada looks like.

Just to give everyone an idea of how distorted the CRTC and it's inner workings are here in Canada, with it's corruption and it's practice of selective censorship, Al Jazeera was just approved to be broadcast here in Canada. One of the most hate filled broadcasters in the world allowed to broadcast in a country like Canada which has specific hate laws that are enforced. It will be quite interesting to see how long it lasts and just how many complaints the CRTC receives to have it removed, especially from Jewish people who have been a target by Al Jazeera and it's hate filled propaganda for many years.

Al Jazeera Approved In Canada

Ohhhh boy! I bet we will see a balanced viewpoint from them and absolutely no lies or skewing of the truth! What a complete and utter joke. The CRTC is a corrupt organization that is driven by a socialist style business model and an agenda which leans extremely left (just what a free and open market needs eh, lol). Just as a previous poster mentioned, one needs to look no further than the latest decision by the CRTC to allow usage based billing in the internet market who's chairman and panel have financial links and interests in Bell Globe Media of Canada (Bell Canada) I don't think anyone needs to even question the reasons why the CRTC and it's cronies always seem to rule in favor of the likes of Bell Canada. They have for the last 50 years sought to stamp out free and open market pratices in the telecommunications sector here in Canada and is why Canadians pay among the highest cellular and internet rates in the world. Protectionism, ain't it grand.

Anyways, back to so called "FOX NEWS North"... As far as I know, it has been granted by the CRTC, unless we are talking about something completely different a few years ago which turned out would have been a conflict of interest with the Harper government seeing as it was Steven Harpers son trying to get it into Canada...

What is this?

Fox NEWS North ???

Another "FOX News North Article"

While we are on the topic of lies and the skewing of the NEWS, the distorting and twisting of facts, if you would like me to point out the many times in just the last month that the government funded state run CBC has done this, I'd be glad to provide a multitude of examples. I really wouldn't mind it so much if the CBC was in itself a private broadcaster, but since it gobbles up close to 1 billion dollars in tax revenue each year to operate, I think every Canadian should in the very least be getting a balanced viewpoint, and not the viewpoint of what amounts to the mandate of the NDP (or better known as the "you have to be friggin kidding me party")

Oh, and Johnny, you keep mentioning your 32 dollar cancer fix... Here's something so everyone else who don't have the privilege of living in Canada can get an idea of just how "awesome" our health care system is, or you could just keep watching Micheal Moore movies and keep the blinders on...

Macleans's Article on the State of Canada's Health Care System

Originally posted by Jocko Flocko
Oh, and Johnny, you keep mentioning your 32 dollar cancer fix... Here's something so everyone else who don't have the privilege of living in Canada can get an idea of just how "awesome" our health care system is, or you could just keep watching Micheal Moore movies and keep the blinders on...

Macleans's Article on the State of Canada's Health Care System

There is no such thing as a perfect healthcare system, we do have problems in Canada with ours. It is still heads above the system in the US.

UN well being index
8. Canada
14. US

Preventable Deaths (Natural)
4. Canada
14. US

Life Expectancy
11. Canada (80.7)
36. US (78.3)

Infant Mortality
23. Canada
33. US

Canadians are healthier overall, enjoy a better lifestyle when it comes to health and has better care overall despite the US spending more per capita than any other country in the world (7,290) while Canada spends (3,895).

So who has the better system? Facts don't lie.

Originally posted by Jocko Flocko
Just to give everyone an idea of how distorted the CRTC and it's inner workings are here in Canada, with it's corruption and it's practice of selective censorship, Al Jazeera was just approved to be broadcast here in Canada. One of the most hate filled broadcasters in the world allowed to broadcast in a country like Canada which has specific hate laws that are enforced. It will be quite interesting to see how long it lasts and just how many complaints the CRTC receives to have it removed, especially from Jewish people who have been a target by Al Jazeera and it's hate filled propaganda for many years.

Al Jazeera Approved In Canada

Ohhhh boy! I bet we will see a balanced viewpoint from them and absolutely no lies or skewing of the truth! What a complete and utter joke. The CRTC is a corrupt organization that is driven by a socialist style business model and an agenda which leans extremely left (just what a free and open market needs eh, lol). Just as a previous poster mentioned, one needs to look no further than the latest decision by the CRTC to allow usage based billing in the internet market who's chairman and panel have financial links and interests in Bell Globe Media of Canada (Bell Canada) I don't think anyone needs to even question the reasons why the CRTC and it's cronies always seem to rule in favor of the likes of Bell Canada. They have for the last 50 years sought to stamp out free and open market pratices in the telecommunications sector here in Canada and is why Canadians pay among the highest cellular and internet rates in the world. Protectionism, ain't it grand.

Anyways, back to so called "FOX NEWS North"... As far as I know, it has been granted by the CRTC, unless we are talking about something completely different a few years ago which turned out would have been a conflict of interest with the Harper government seeing as it was Steven Harpers son trying to get it into Canada...

What is this?

Fox NEWS North ???

Another "FOX News North Article"

While we are on the topic of lies and the skewing of the NEWS, the distorting and twisting of facts, if you would like me to point out the many times in just the last month that the government funded state run CBC has done this, I'd be glad to provide a multitude of examples. I really wouldn't mind it so much if the CBC was in itself a private broadcaster, but since it gobbles up close to 1 billion dollars in tax revenue each year to operate, I think every Canadian should in the very least be getting a balanced viewpoint, and not the viewpoint of what amounts to the mandate of the NDP (or better known as the "you have to be friggin kidding me party")

edit on 13-3-2011 by Jocko Flocko because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-3-2011 by Jocko Flocko because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-3-2011 by Jocko Flocko because: (no reason given)

Sorry Jocko, you sound like someone from FOX. Have you ever watched Al-Jazeera? I do. It is mostly made up of ex-BBC reporters and is more un-biased than FOX, MSNBC or even CNN. It is actually excellent reporting with fair and equal views from either side. Don't let the arabic symbols cloud your thinking, this isn't some mouthpiece of the Muslim world.

Jewish people are not the target of AL-Jazeera and they have jewish reporters working with them...is this just blind, hate filled rhetoric on your part? I take exception to comments like this. Ignorance maybe?

CBC as a tool of the NDP. Now you are really reaching.

I suggest you take a look, excellent and fair reporting. and hey, they don't even mention Sheen.

english.aljazeera.net...

Originally posted by Jocko Flocko
Ohhhh boy! I bet we will see a balanced viewpoint from them and absolutely no lies or skewing of the truth! What a complete and utter joke.

Funny...many other people...Hillary Clinton included, feel that Al Jazeerah English is showing the rest of the world what good news coverage actually is. You should look into it...it's different from AJ Arabic, is staffed by BBC and CBC types. Not your cup of tea as a right winger yourself, but certainly not what you describe. Better take a look.

Oh, and Johnny, you keep mentioning your 32 dollar cancer fix... Here's something so everyone else who don't have the privilege of living in Canada can get an idea of just how "awesome" our health care system is, or you could just keep watching Micheal Moore movies and keep the blinders on...

And the health system...blinders? I think my own example lays it out pretty nicely. It's just as good as the last time one used it and it has served me and mine very well indeed. It can be better...but I'd take it over the US system any time. Further...as to the Macleans article, that magazine has taken a certain swing to the right as of late, and it shows in the content. You see what you want to see and your apparent vision of Canada does not mirror mine. We'll duke it out in the election soon called, ok?

reply to post by Tiste


If Canadian health care is so great why on earth do canadians pay out of there own pocket to seek healthcare in the us. Especially cancer treatment my brother works for vanderbilt medical and guess what they get alot of patients from canada. Can you explain this???

reply to post by dragonridr


Yes I can...we do have longer waits in Canada for comparable surgery and treatments. What "some" canadians do is seek quicker treatments in the states if they have the money. Especially if they have critical illness insurance which gives them a cash payout where they can seek treatment in other countries or even alternative treatments.

Although life-threatening cases are dealt with immediately, some services needed are non-urgent and patients are seen at the next-available appointment in their local chosen facility.
The median wait time in Canada to see a special physician is a little over four weeks with 89.5% waiting less than 90 days.[52]
The median wait time for diagnostic services such as MRI and CAT scans [53] is two weeks with 86.4% waiting less than 90 days.[52]
The median wait time for surgery is four weeks with 82.2% waiting less than 90 days.[52]

Another study by the Commonwealth Fund found that 57% of Canadians reported waiting 30 days (4 weeks) or more to see a specialist, broadly in line with the current official statistics. A quarter (24%) of all Canadians waited 4 hours or more in the emergency room.[54]



A 2009 Harris/Decima poll found 82% of Canadians preferred their healthcare system to the one in the United States, more than ten times as many as the 8% stating a preference for a US-style health care system for Canada[7] while a Strategic Counsel survey in 2008 found 91% of Canadians preferring their healthcare system to that of the U.S.[8][9] In the same poll, when asked “overall the Canadian health care system was performing very well, fairly well, not very well or not at all?” 70% of Canadians rated their system as working either "well" or "very well".[citation needed] A 2003 Gallup poll found only 25% of Americans are either "very" or "somewhat" satisfied with "the availability of affordable healthcare in the nation," versus 50% of those in the UK and 57% of Canadians. Those "very dissatisfied" made up 44% of Americans, 25% of respondents of Britons, and 17% of Canadians.[10]

Wouldn't you want free and universal healthcare where it doesn't discriminate between classes of people?

62% of all personal bankruptcy in the US is due to medical expenses.

My wife is American, her and her family would love a system like ours.