CRTC Wants to Move Forward with
Allowing Limitations to Internet Access
This is the height of insanity and deceitfulness - to legalize
and authorize "lies in the broadcast media" - where can we
possibly go from here except down. Please write or fax to oppose
this amendment to the law that currently stipulates a clear
prohibition that broadcasters "shall not broadcast any false or
misleading news." to a conditional prohibition "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."
This qualification opens the door to "white lies" or
"convenient untruths" which then need to be disputed re:
endangerment, etc.
Here is an example of comments:
1. Why would any public regulating body open the door to permit
"intentionally false and misleading information"?
These are normally called "lies" and we teach our children
not to lie but to be truthful in all matters. Does the CRTC and
Canadian broadcasters have a different standard or code of conduct?
Lies and this amendment are not acceptable under any circumstances,
period.
2. Who will or how is damage to be determined? Often, the
damage caused is not immediate or not foreseeable. This is an
open invitation to "unintended consequences" which plague
life today - environmental, political, military, etc. - mostly to the
detriment of human life. How is this proposed change not going
to fall prey to negative outcomes?
3. How is this change intended to benefit the people of Canada?
It is not immediately evident to me, nor it is evident after much
thought or inquiry. Is there a magic formula or enlightened
perspective to see the wisdom of this proposed change?
Please distribute widely
Background
The CRTC would like to change its rules so that they
will allow intentionally false and misleading information to be
broadcast as long is it does not "endanger or likely to
endanger the lives, safety, or health of the
public". As Stephen Scharper points out
below, the clause saying the false material must not endanger the
public is worthless because the CRTC does not specify who will
judge whether intentionally false or misleading material does or has
endangered the pubic. This is timed conveniently to protect the
appearance in March of the right-wing SUN TV News
station.
The CRTC is accepting comments on its proposed ruling
change only until Feb. 9. For information on how to
submit comments, visit http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2011/2011-14.htm
For the email response site: https://services.crtc.gc.ca/pub/instances-proceedings/Default.aspx?Status=Open&PubArea=Brd&PubType=All&PubSubType=All&lang=eng
[The Minister responsible for the CRTC is James Moore,
Minister of Cdn. Heritage. While no email address is given out,
his fax is 819 994 1267; his phone no. is 819-997-7788,
accessible 9-5 EST.]
There is no time to lose! Please register your
protest quickly and circulate this as widely as you
can. Karin
A model letter follows to respond to
Notice #: 2011-14 , The call for comments on amendments to the
Radio Regulations, 1986, Television Broadcasting Regulations, 1987,
Pay Television Regulations, 1990, Specialty Services Regulations,
1990, and the Broadcasting Information Regulations,
1993
We object strenuously to any policy that permits
intentionally false or misleading information to be broadcast in
Canada. We wonder why the CRTC is betraying the public interest
by protecting the broadcasters of intentionally false and misleading
information.
We cannot think of any false or misleading information
that would not ultimately endanger the public in some way, whether it
is misleading information on international affairs, on scientific
information, on health or environmental information, or on other
news. Broadcasting intentionally false or misleading information
presumably reflects a corporate or governmental agenda that will in
some way ultimately damage members of the public.
That intentionally bogus information is to be
acceptable as long as it does not "endanger or likely to endanger
the lives, safety, or health of the public" provides no
protection to the public:
- Who will determine whether intentionally bogus material could
"endanger" members of the public?
- Who will determine whether anyone has been
"endangered"? If someone makes a lifestyle choice
(such as joining the military) based on intentionally false or
misleading information can they sue the source of the misleading
information (or the CRTC) because they have become "endangered"
because of that information?
- If people have been harmed or put at any risk by the broadcasting
of intentionally bogus material, is that the same as "endangered"
or will there be levels of damage that need to be defined in a court
of law?
- If intentionally bogus information is found to endanger the
public, will the CRTC's permission for the broadcasting of
intentionally false or misleading information be revoked?
- How many people have to be proven to be harmed before this might
be revoked?
The most basic question is why the CRTC, which is paid
for by the Canadian taxpayers to represent Canadian public interests,
is violating its mandate by protecting instead the anticipated
broadcasters of intentionally false and misleading information.
Whose agendas are the CRTC and James Moore, the Minister of Canadian
Heritage, actually serving by this amendment?
********
Truth, lies and broadcasting in
Canada
Published On Mon Jan 24 2011
by Stephen Bede Scharper
A recent, little-noticed news item may result in a deep
and indelible blemish on the Canadian mosaic.
Earlier this month, the Canadian Radio-television and
Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), without fanfare, posted on its
website a potential game-changer in the world of broadcast journalism.
The CRTC is seeking to relax restrictions concerning the broadcasting
of specious information on radio and television.
Currently, the law stipulates that broadcasters "shall
not broadcast any false or misleading news."
Sounds reasonable enough - and straightforward - as it
should, since it concerns the integrity of news
reporting.
But not apparently to the CRTC. It is proposing to soften
the regulation, banning "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."
In short, with the new wording, broadcasters could air
false or misleading news with impunity, provided that it does not
endanger the lives, health or safety of the public.
Unfortunately, the CRTC does not specify who will judge
whether or not such disinformation poses a danger.
An aphorism comes to mind, "If it's fixed, break
it."
The CRTC is apparently responding to concerns raised by
Parliament's standing joint committee for the scrutiny of
regulations, which worried that such a sweeping ban may not withstand
a court challenge under the Charter of Rights.
It seems, however, that the societal benefits of a
commitment to truth-telling in broadcasting far outweigh any potential
legal potholes emerging with a hypothetical court case in
future.
As University of Ottawa law professor and media expert
Michael Geist points out, there is some irony in the CRTC's timing.
Just as the U.S., reeling from the Arizona massacre that targeted
Democratic Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, is reflecting on the
wider social impact of its poisoned airwaves, the CRTC is embracing a
more U.S.-style approach.
"I think that those same kinds of fears are out there in
much the same way (as they are in the U.S.). This just provides freer
licence to do it," Geist commented.
Yet concerns over journalistic integrity in Canada are not
new. Over the past 15 years, many have sounded warnings, and some of
the clearest and most compelling tocsins have been rung by the
venerable dean of Canadian journalists, Knowlton Nash.
The former anchorman for CBC's The National, with
more than half a century's experience in print and broadcast
journalism, Nash laments the obsession of the media with the pursuit
of "trivia," as well as its increasing preoccupation with
"entertainment and gossip" at the expense of well-grounded analysis
and truly investigative reporting.
In his book, Trivia Pursuit: How Showbiz Values Are
Corrupting the News (1998), Nash sees the "dumbing down" of
the news and the supplanting of crucial political events by celebrity
scuttlebutt as nothing less than a threat to Canadian
democracy.
In a series of lectures he once graciously delivered to my
undergraduate students, Nash noted that when serving as an
"unembedded" CBC journalist during the war in Vietnam, he was with a
U.S. platoon as it engaged in a firefight. He saw several U.S. troops
killed.
When he attended the official U.S. military briefing later
that afternoon, however, a U.S. army media official stated
unequivocally that there had been "no casualties" that day. (There
was a reason journalists called those official afternoon briefings the
"five o'clock follies.")
For Nash, while the full truth of any situation will
always at some level elude us, the commitment to truth-telling, which
was a hallmark of his journalism career, should never be watered
down.
There is still time to share with the commission a
commitment to keeping broadcast news free of lies and misleading
information, for any "news" that deliberately misleads can only be
the product of a society that is seriously misguided.
|
