Listen Up: Who will protect us from Fox? CRTC Deadline.

[Hoping4Change]

** DEADLINE FOR COMMENTS TO CRTC ABOUT FOX NEWS IN CANADA AUG 9 **


An application is before the Canadian Radio & Television Commission to allow FOX NEWS to be carried in Canada. Comments are being accepted by the CRTC until August 9th.


Email comments to the CRTC at [e-mail]


"The Commission will not formally acknowledge comments. It will, however, fully consider all comments and they will form part of the public record of the proceeding, provided that the procedures for filing set out below have been followed...


Address comments to the Secretary General of the Commission


"Please number each paragraph of your submission. In addition, please enter the line ***End of document*** following the last paragraph. This will help the Commission verify that the document has not been damaged during transmission.

The Commission will make comments filed in electronic form available on its web site at www.crtc.gc.ca


For more information about the FOX proposal and questions about submissions go to the CRTC at


http://www.crtc.gc.ca/archive/ENG/Notices/2004/pb2004-45.htm



ANTONIA ZERBISIAS
Toronto Star
Who will protect us from Fox?


Now that Al-Jazeera will never get on Canada's digital dial uncensored, will they now fight to protect us from Fox News.


Recall the half-assed go-ahead to the Arabic-language news channel, requiring that distributors who add it keep it free of "abusive comment." Many people applauded how cable operators must tape and monitor Al Jazeera 24/7 to head off possible offensive material.

So, now that the cable industry has yet another application to import Fox News before the CRTC, will anyone call for Fox to be similarly muzzled to stop potentially "abusive comment" on the U.S. channel?


Meanwhile, the British government recently chastised Fox ... Anchor John Gibson was cited for deliberately lying about the BBC, accusing it of anti-Americanism and, ironically, fudging news about the war on Iraq.


President of the Canadian Jewish Congress, published an op-ed praising the Canadian limitations on Al-Jazeera. Referring to how it airs "vile" material, noting it had interviewed David Duke in 2002.

... But Fox News had Duke on as well, also in 2002, discussing — and this is from Duke's Web site where you can buy a video of the interview for $25 (U.S.) — "the Israeli involvement in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks."



So just what is the difference between Fox and Al-Jazeera?



http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1090275619503&call_pageid=968867495754&col=Columnist969907624636

[LibertyorDeath]

1. Holly Crap I did not realize

Sending Email Now!!

Thank for the Heads Up

[CHIMO]

2. Went To

The CRTC site but I could not find a hearing on request for submittals on this topic. Could you help out a bit.

[LibertyorDeath]

3. CHIMO send your input re Faux here

Email comments to the CRTC at [e-mail]

[CHIMO]

4. I Would First

Like to know what the hearing is about. Where is it published that they are having a hearing?
What are the rules that Industry Canada has set up for the CRTC?
I am not sending off a letter when I don't know the basis for the evaluation.
i went to the CRTC site and could not find any reference to this hearing.
Much appreciate the facts.
Just the facts Mam.
Thanks
Chimo

[Hoping4Change]

7. The link to the notice is in the original post but here it is

again http://www.crtc.gc.ca/archive/ENG/Notices/2004/pb2004-45.htm

[Canuckistanian]

16. Here's a hint.

Send a real letter (you know, paper and ink). Letters get way more attention than emails. I know this from experience.

[Cascadian]

5. Fox News might sell well in certain parts of Alberta and B.C.

Particularly those who voted Conservative (Alliance).

:eyes:

BTW Does Rush Limbaugh broadcast on any Canadian radio stations? Just had to ask.


John

[CHIMO]

6. Not On The

CBC.

[dancing kali]

10. I've heard Limbaugh

on a couple of different local news/talk radio stations at various occasions.

About the original posting... I'm with the guy who said "If you don't like it... don't watch it." While I would prefer that Fox News not be broadcast here... we already get MSNBC, CNN, and all sorts of other US stations, and don't really need another US news station, it isn't going to end the world. To be perfectly honest... I've never seen Fox News... even when I've been back in the States. I've heard enough about it that I don't have any desire to see it. I've never watched any of the reality TV shows but know that they would be an insult to my intelligence. I choose not to watch these things.

I think that the Canadian news broadcasters would object to the availability of another 24 hour US news network in the Canadian market. I also think that there really isn't the market for it here. I don't think that the residents of "certain parts of Alberta and BC" and elsewhere, care enough about US news to watch it. The entertainment networks they'll watch... but the further away from the border that you get the less the interest in the daily goings on in Washington.

So there's an answer and my two cents (Canadian).

[Canadian_moderate]

8. No offence...

but why are you condoning censorship?

I'm familiar with FNC broadcasts (my wife is American) and I'm no particular fan, but why allow CNN and not FNC?

People should have the freedom to make up their own minds. It's not up to the government to decide what we can or cannot see.

The same goes for Al-Jazeera.

[iverglas]

9. Canadian, eh?

Well, you might want to read the legislation -- you know, Canadian legislation, enacted by Canadian governments elected by Canadians -- that the CRTC applies.

First, of course, you might want to recall that the airwaves are public property, and that it is not "censorship" to require that certain conditions be met for their use.

I always hate to seem harsh -- but this really is Canada, not the US. And we really do have distinct cultural and political and social values. And many of us really do think that it is important to preserve and protect and perpetuate those values, and that we are entitled to do so, and that requiring that public property not be used (whether by Fox or by Al-Jazeera) to undermine them is not that unreasonable.

http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/b-9.01/
http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/b-9.01/sec3.html
(with my emphasis)

Broadcasting Act
PART I GENERAL
Broadcasting Policy for Canada
Declaration
3. (1) It is hereby declared as the broadcasting policy for Canada that

(a) the Canadian broadcasting system shall be effectively owned and controlled by Canadians;

(b) the Canadian broadcasting system, operating primarily in the English and French languages and comprising public, private and community elements, makes use of radio frequencies that are public property and provides, through its programming, a public service essential to the maintenance and enhancement of national identity and cultural sovereignty;

(c) English and French language broadcasting, while sharing common aspects, operate under different conditions and may have different requirements;

(d) the Canadian broadcasting system should

(i) serve to safeguard, enrich and strengthen the cultural, political, social and economic fabric of Canada,

(ii) encourage the development of Canadian expression by providing a wide range of programming that reflects Canadian attitudes, opinions, ideas, values and artistic creativity, by displaying Canadian talent in entertainment programming and by offering information and analysis concerning Canada and other countries from a Canadian point of view,

(iii) through its programming and the employment opportunities arising out of its operations, serve the needs and interests, and reflect the circumstances and aspirations, of Canadian men, women and children, including equal rights, the linguistic duality and multicultural and multiracial nature of Canadian society and the special place of aboriginal peoples within that society, and

(iv) be readily adaptable to scientific and technological change;

(e) each element of the Canadian broadcasting system shall contribute in an appropriate manner to the creation and presentation of Canadian programming;

(f) each broadcasting undertaking shall make maximum use, and in no case less than predominant use, of Canadian creative and other resources in the creation and presentation of programming, unless the nature of the service provided by the undertaking, such as specialized content or format or the use of languages other than French and English, renders that use impracticable, in which case the undertaking shall make the greatest practicable use of those resources;

(g) the programming originated by broadcasting undertakings should be of high standard;

(h) all persons who are licensed to carry on broadcasting undertakings have a responsibility for the programs they broadcast;

(i) the programming provided by the Canadian broadcasting system should

(i) be varied and comprehensive, providing a balance of information, enlightenment and entertainment for men, women and children of all ages, interests and tastes,

(ii) be drawn from local, regional, national and international sources,

(iii) include educational and community programs,

(iv) provide a reasonable opportunity for the public to be exposed to the expression of differing views on matters of public concern, and

(v) include a significant contribution from the Canadian independent production sector;

(j) educational programming, particularly where provided through the facilities of an independent educational authority, is an integral part of the Canadian broadcasting system;

(k) a range of broadcasting services in English and in French shall be extended to all Canadians as resources become available;

(l) the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, as the national public broadcaster, should provide radio and television services incorporating a wide range of programming that informs, enlightens and entertains;

(m) the programming provided by the Corporation should

(i) be predominantly and distinctively Canadian,

(ii) reflect Canada and its regions to national and regional audiences, while serving the special needs of those regions,

(iii) actively contribute to the flow and exchange of cultural expression,

(iv) be in English and in French, reflecting the different needs and circumstances of each official language community, including the particular needs and circumstances of English and French linguistic minorities,

(v) strive to be of equivalent quality in English and in French,

(vi) contribute to shared national consciousness and identity,

(vii) be made available throughout Canada by the most appropriate and efficient means and as resources become available for the purpose, and

(viii) reflect the multicultural and multiracial nature of Canada;

(n) where any conflict arises between the objectives of the Corporation set out in paragraphs (l) and (m) and the interests of any other broadcasting undertaking of the Canadian broadcasting system, it shall be resolved in the public interest, and where the public interest would be equally served by resolving the conflict in favour of either, it shall be resolved in favour of the objectives set out in paragraphs (l) and (m);

(o) programming that reflects the aboriginal cultures of Canada should be provided within the Canadian broadcasting system as resources become available for the purpose;

(p) programming accessible by disabled persons should be provided within the Canadian broadcasting system as resources become available for the purpose;

(q) without limiting any obligation of a broadcasting undertaking to provide the programming contemplated by paragraph (i), alternative television programming services in English and in French should be provided where necessary to ensure that the full range of programming contemplated by that paragraph is made available through the Canadian broadcasting system;

(r) the programming provided by alternative television programming services should

(i) be innovative and be complementary to the programming provided for mass audiences,

(ii) cater to tastes and interests not adequately provided for by the programming provided for mass audiences, and include programming devoted to culture and the arts,

(iii) reflect Canada's regions and multicultural nature,

(iv) as far as possible, be acquired rather than produced by those services, and

(v) be made available throughout Canada by the most cost-efficient means;

(s) private networks and programming undertakings should, to an extent consistent with the financial and other resources available to them,

(i) contribute significantly to the creation and presentation of Canadian programming, and

(ii) be responsive to the evolving demands of the public; and

(t) distribution undertakings

(i) should give priority to the carriage of Canadian programming services and, in particular, to the carriage of local Canadian stations,

(ii) should provide efficient delivery of programming at affordable rates, using the most effective technologies available at reasonable cost,

(iii) should, where programming services are supplied to them by broadcasting undertakings pursuant to contractual arrangements, provide reasonable terms for the carriage, packaging and retailing of those programming services, and

(iv) may, where the Commission considers it appropriate, originate programming, including local programming, on such terms as are conducive to the achievement of the objectives of the broadcasting policy set out in this subsection, and in particular provide access for underserved linguistic and cultural minority communities.

Further declaration

(2) It is further declared that the Canadian broadcasting system constitutes a single system and that the objectives of the broadcasting policy set out in subsection (1) can best be achieved by providing for the regulation and supervision of the Canadian broadcasting system by a single independent public authority.

[Canadian_moderate]

11. Sure, I see where you're coming from...

but it is still censorship. Why allow CNN but not FNC.

Don't get me wrong, I hate FoxNews and I hate most of what the republicans stand for, but the CRTC should not be a factor in shaping our political views.

[iverglas]

12. okey dokey

"it is still censorship."

It's censorship if you say it is, I guess.

Just like it's censorship when the Globe and Mail declines to publish the letters or opinion pieces you submit, right?

The Globe and Mail is private property and its owners get to decide what it will be used for.

*We* are the owners of the airwaves, not the cable companies and not the television networks. The airwaves are public property and their owners, us, get to decide what they will be used for. Our collective decisions are made by the government and the agencies that it creates to make independent decisions about certain things that involve what individuals and corporations may do, like the CRTC.

If the criteria being applied in making that decision violated constitutional rights -- say, if they involved allowing one religion to broadcast but not another, or one political opinion to broadcast but not another -- then the decision would be unconstitutional, and the courts could strike it down.

But where there is justification for the decision -- in this case, the fundamental consensus of the society that its culture and values and identity are worth preserving, and that action will be taken to preserve them -- then the decision will not likely be found by a court to be unconstitutional. These are matters of public policy that the societ is entitled to make decisions about.

"the CRTC should not be a factor in shaping our political views."

And it isn't. The CRTC is required to apply the criteria that WE have instructed it to apply, by enacting the Broadcasting Act. Not everybody is going to be happy with every piece of legislation enacted in a society. Them's the breaks. That's what elections are for.

If the CRTC fails to apply those criteria, or applies criteria that it is not instructed to apply, or applies the criteria discriminatorily (against one applicant but not another), then there are remedies. Applicants for licences may go to the courts. (It would, of course, be improper for the government itself to interfere in a CRTC decision.)

"Why allow CNN but not FNC."

Well of course nobody has allowed CNN but not Fox. There is an application before the CRTC. I would not be at all surprised if the cable companies were given permission to distribute Fox.

But if the CRTC decides not to permit it, the CRTC will state reasons in its decision explaining the "why", and its decision may be reviewed by the courts.

If you're asking me "why", I might not be able to answer because I might not be entirely convinced that Fox should not be distributed in Canada. I certainly don't want it to be. As far as I'm concerned, it is foreign propaganda, and it will perform absolutely no function except to undermine the values and identity of my culture, people, society and nation. And I think that a strong argument for that position can be made. Whether it's strong enough to support denying permission to distribute it, I'm not completely sure. I think it probably is.

Did you happen to read anything I posted a while back about If You Love This Planet? (Newsworld just ran its Helen Caldicott profile again last week I think.) Anyone in the US wishing to show that old, 20-minute Canadian-made (NFB, I believe) flick about Caldicott's environmental campaign must still register with some branch of the US govt, the Justice Dept I think, as an agent of a foreign power. Of course, that ain't censorship, nooo.

[Canadian_moderate]

13. Just doing my job as the devil's advocate

I wouldn't waste my time watching FNC.

[iverglas]

14. I probably would!

Satan can be fascinating. ;) And hey, it feels so good when you stop.

Who I *don't* want watching it are people like my uncles in southern Ontario (London, good white, middle-class, comfy London) who already watch nothing but US television, and at the age of 70+ have no clue about what Canada is. One of my uncles always called me "counsellor", and an "attorney" -- when I was a "barrister and solicitor" or "lawyer", *not* an "attorney, and properly addressed as "counsel", *not* "counsellor".

If the language can be supplanted so easily, so can the ideas, and in fact, in their case and the case of a lot of people in that vicinity, they have been. Ask 'em: if it's Canadian, it's no good; if it's yank, it's the peak of perfection. And that is, of course, the main message conveyed by US media, and FoxNews in particular. And it is applied to health care, minority rights, equality rights, cultural diversity, and anything else that defines "Canadian".

And I really do think that the rest of us who *do* know what Canada is, and what being Canadian means, and who *do* think it's important to know that and to perpetuate it, are entitled to protect ourselves from the brainwashing of our fellow residents of Canada.

Bilingualism and biculturalism and bijuralism, and all the other diversities and equalities of Canadian society, are *good* -- but a steady diet of right-wing USAmericanism not only delivers the constant message that those things are *bad*, it ensures that the people hearing that message don't even know what they mean.

What it means to be Canadian is something that should be discussed among Canadians, not something that should be absorbed from a source that doesn't even know what it means, and is in fact committed to ending it. The message delivered by FoxNews is that all things non-USAmerican are bad, without even offering an iota of information or discussion about what those things might actually be. No other healthy culture on earth would invite that kind of cuckoo into its nest!

[Canadian_moderate]

15. true, one needs to know what the enemy is watching

As for the language thing, we're already too far down that road. We have much more in common with Americans that we do with the British when it comes to the English language.

As for how it affect people. Interestingly my father was very pro-American when I was growing up in the Netherlands and he admired Ronald Reagan.

Since we emigrated to Canada 22 odd years ago, he has changed his tune somewhat. He is now older (63) and he hates American republicans, especially the chimp. It's probably based on his years of experiences travelling throughout roughly 38 of the US states. He nows feels that the repugs are extremely condescending towards the rest of the world.