Quote:
Originally Posted by NC_Skins
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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin
<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:
Quote:
|
[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.]
Quote:
|
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
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.
Quote:
|
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
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:
Quote:
|
[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
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.