Are they daft?

I just read the most bizarre article at the Huffington Post.

Regulators Reject Proposal that would bring Fox-style News to Canada.

Good Lord, what a piece of BS!  Take 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.

1) "Fox News" was never trying to move into Canada.
2) the PM had nothing to do with any efforts to repeal any laws (and from what I've been told, our "right wing" PM would be considered a bleeding heart socialist liberal in the US).
3) any regulations we currently have sure as heck aren't stopping our current news broadcasters from making s**t up whenever they please.  Like claiming Fox News is trying to get into Canada and that the PM is trying to force changes in our laws to allow them in.

Then we get this part...

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 

 Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha*wipestearsofmirthfromeyes*hahahahahaha!!!!

1) Canadians are free to watch Fox News and listen to "right wing" radio all they want.  They just have to buy the right bundle from their satellite or cable tv carrier.  Canadian regulations require Canadian broadcasters to have a minimum amount of Canadian content.    (see section 4)
2) how does this provision make Canada a model for democracy and freedom?  Oh, sorry... that was *liberal* democracy and freedom.  I forgot.  Only liberals are allowed to have democracy and freedom.  Anyone else doesn't count.
3) Canadians enjoy high quality news coverage?  What rot!  Our news coverage is biased, obnoxious and frequently misinformative.  Guess which side is the one represented?  Our news coverage is biased heavily towards the left, with very rare exceptions. This does not equal high quality news coverage.  It equals garbage.

Political dialogue in Canada is marked by civility, modesty, honesty, collegiality, 

Is this guy for real??  What absolute BS!  Spend some time watching CSPAN, then tell me how civil, modest, honest or collegial our political dialogue is.  Look at the drive by smear campaigns that pop up on a regular basis.  Granted, our politics may not be quite as bad as in the US for that sort of thing, but that doesn't mean it's any good.

When Stephen Harper moved to abolish anti-lying provision of the Radio Act, ...

Oh, look... we're making things up again.  PM hasn't done anything of the sort and hasn't got anything to do with it.

While we're at it, has anyone seen the proposed amendment that would "abolish the anti-lying provision." The actual regulation is here, BTW.  The pertinent part reads:

Prohibited Programming Content

8. (1) No licensee shall distribute a programming service that the licensee originates and that contains
(a) anything that contravenes any law;
(b) any abusive comment or abusive pictorial representation that, when taken in context, tends to or is likely to expose an individual or group or class of individuals to hatred or contempt on the basis of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age or mental or physical disability;
(c) any obscene or profane language or pictorial representation; or
(d) any false or misleading news.
(2) For the purpose of paragraph (1)(b), sexual orientation does not include the orientation towards a sexual act or activity that would constitute an offence under the Criminal Code.

 See also here.

PROGRAMMING CONTENT

5. (1) A licensee shall not broadcast
(a) anything in contravention of the law;
(b) any abusive comment or abusive pictorial representation that, when taken in context, tends to or is likely to expose an individual or a group or class of individuals to hatred or contempt on the basis of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age or mental or physical disability;
(c) any obscene or profane language or pictorial representation; or
(d) any false or misleading news.
(1.1) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(b), sexual orientation does not include the orientation towards any sexual act or activity that would constitute an offence under the Criminal Code.

 Pretty much all of those get skirted on a regular basis.

What I find interesting about the claims that sections 8d and 5d above has "kept Fox News" out of Canada is that by saying this, they are basically saying that absolutely everything coming out of Fox News (or anything from the right) is a lie.  Stranger still is that people actually believe this.  They literally believe that, if something comes from the political right or out of Fox News is false.  Gee, closed minded, much?


Oh, and I have yet to see the actual proposed amendment that would supposedly allow news broadcasters to lie to their hearts content (though, of course, only those on the right would do so.  The left would never make up things... like the crap in this article.  /sarcasm off/).  I've followed a number of links that supposedly showed this proposed amendment, but there was nothing there.  I had to dig through the CRTC website just to find the parts I quoted above.  I've searched the CRTS site repeatedly, with no success.  All that I've been finding date back several years.  You'd think, since their decision against the amendment is making news right now, I'd be able to find it in their "newsroom" section.  Or the "decisions, notices and orders" section.

Of course, how this amendment has been described to the public has changed.  Originally, people were saying that the amendment would open a "loophole" to the "fair and balanced" regulation - but nothing on just how it would do that.

To continue:

...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

Uhm.  No.  No they didn't.  A very small, very vocal minority has been shouting out the sort of BS that's in this article in their efforts to block SunTV.  Our left-biased media has been fighting tooth and nail to prevent competition for the airwaves.  A large number of Canadians, tired of our biased media, would LOVE to see a Canadian alternative available.  They'd LOVE to at least have the choice.

Plus, our news is already toxic, partisan, biased and dishonest.  What people who support having the SunTV option want is a news media that isn't toxic, partisan, biased and dishonest, for a change.

Harper's proposal was timed to facilitate the launch of a new right wing network, "Sun TV News" which Canadians call "Fox News North."

Again, no.  This was never "Harper's proposal."  Since I can't find the proposed amendment, I also can't find who made the proposal.  As for timing, since the CRTC is the foundation of our biased media, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the timing for this proposal (the paperwork for such things take months, and it likely goes back to well before SunTV's license application became public news) is probably very deliberate - on their part.

Also, the only Canadians who call it "Fox News North" are left-wingers and our left-biased media.   The rest of us call it SunTV.

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.  How much BS can you shove into two sentences?

1) Harper is not "often refereed to as George W. Bush's Mini Me."  I've only encountered that reference once, ever, and that was when the Conservatives first won the election years ago.  Hardly anyone uses the term.
2) there has been no "Bush like war" on any of those groups. Though I suppose having one's funding threatened because it's a useless or redundant waste of taxpayers dollars might be viewed as such by the people who's careers depend on those taxpayers dollars.
3) That last line?  Pure BS.  Plain and simple.

There's one last paragraph in the article I won't bother trying to quote from.  The whole thing is ... dare I say it?

False and misleading.

update: Tasha Kheiriddin does an excellent take down of this same article.

upperdate:  I've found a timeline for all this, and guess what?  It was the CRTC itself that proposed the amendment, the Joint Committee recommended against it, and the whole thing goes back to 1992.

Wow.


.