Welcome Guest
[Log In]
[Register]
| Welcome to Unto The Breach. Join us! http://s6.zetaboards.com/Unto_The_Breach/register/ If you are already a member log in below |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Fox News to Canada; despondent libs now head for France | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Nov 19 2004, 10:15 AM (318 Views) | |
| Lead Dog | Nov 19 2004, 10:15 AM Post #1 |
Keeper of the Hounds
|
Thursday, Nov. 18, 2004 11:03 p.m. EST Canada OKs Fox News Though it long ago approved broadcasts of pro-terrorist network al-Jazeera, Canada's official censors gave tepid approval for Fox News to broadcast there Thursday. Canada's news and broadcast police agency, the CRTC, OKed the offering of Fox News to digital cable subscribers only. Canadians looking for an alternative to the country's dominant liberal media outlets will be able to see Fox News beginning early next year. Canada's liberal press has been irked by some of Fox programming, which allows for a wide spectrum of political opinion no longer found in Canada. For example, the CP (Canadian Press) newswire cited Bill O'Reilly for having called former Prime Minister Jean Chretien "a bum." The CP service also reported that Fox's O'Reilly had "denounced Canada's medicare program as 'socialist.'" Among his other "crimes," according the the CP, O'Reilly had criticized Canada's schlock press outfits, such as the Toronto-based newspaper The Globe and Mail. "Hey you pinheads up there, I may be pompous, but at least I'm honest," the CP quoted O'Reilly citing a New York Times story. Despite such incredible and outrageous examples of free speech and a free press not seen in modern Canada, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission said it found "there is substantial demand in Canada for Fox News," CP reported. The CRTC claimed that 531 Canadians had filed statements in support of the network airing, and some 82 who opposed such a move. In addition to approving Fox, the CRTC also approved the NFL Network, "allowing it to bring to Canada live sports, game previews, news conferences and other information shows all related to the U.S.-based National Football League." |
![]() |
|
| Lead Dog | Nov 19 2004, 10:19 AM Post #2 |
Keeper of the Hounds
|
I'm not an OReilly fan but I recommend Special Report with Brit Hume. I also think Laurie Dhue is Hot!! :popcorn |
![]() |
|
| ImaHeadaU | Nov 19 2004, 12:16 PM Post #3 |
Contrarian of the Realm
|
I wouldn't call four months ago "long ago." Al-Jazeera has been available in the U.S. for years and even longer in Israel. Still, Fox News will be available in Canada long before Al-Jazeera if Al-Jazeera ever is. The heavy monitoring requirements placed by the CRTC on cable and satellite signal providers who would carry Al-Jazeera pretty much guarantees that none of them will carry it. Since both channels will only be allowed on digital services, I likely won't be receiving either one unless I care to spend the money to upgrade to digital service. Most people don't have digital service in Canada. I watch too much TV as it is already. I don't need more channels.
|
![]() |
|
| beddows | Nov 19 2004, 12:23 PM Post #4 |
|
Unregistered
|
Most of us will still watch CBC & CTV, the only unbiased news on TV. Besides maybe the BBC. |
|
|
| Psycmeistr | Nov 19 2004, 12:27 PM Post #5 |
Keeper of the Realm
|
beddows... disturbing the pots again, I see! 3rofl 3rofl |
![]() |
|
| beddows | Nov 19 2004, 12:35 PM Post #6 |
|
Unregistered
|
Yeah, Actually CTV is probably the most neutral service I've ever seen, CBC leans left. |
|
|
| nauti by nature | Nov 19 2004, 01:07 PM Post #7 |
Harbormaster of the Realm
|
On last nights news the announcer played a clip over and over again where O'Reilly was saying "french canadian kids think all americans are evil" that was on canwest global. Should be interesting. |
![]() |
|
| Mainecoons | Nov 19 2004, 01:16 PM Post #8 |
Keeper of the Royal Cattery
|
The BBC? Impartial?? 3rofl |
![]() |
|
| TenPacks | Nov 19 2004, 01:33 PM Post #9 |
![]()
Mountie of the Realm
|
The opinions of French-Canadian schoolkids - Now THERE'S a focus group that Faux News should be concerned about.... not. Just for your information folks, almost four years ago, The CRTC (our FCC) approved an application by a Canadian company to carry the FOX signal. Then three years later, a further one-year extension to the application was approved. Last Spring, FOX NEWS themselves WITHDREW the Application, and promptly began a whining campaign that they were "locked out" of Canada - what rubbish! O'Reilly, in particular, is a bigger Canada-basher than Pat ("Canuckistan") Buchanan.... Source: http://www.crtc.gc.ca/archive/ENG/Notices/2004/pb2004-45.htm Pay attention to items (8) and (9). |
![]() |
|
| Center Punch | Nov 19 2004, 02:21 PM Post #10 |
Village Smythe
|
Whew! They really dug under the rocks to get opinions! 613 People! Shazaam! |
![]() |
|
| karstenkid | Nov 19 2004, 02:28 PM Post #11 |
Realm Daycare Supervisor
|
I thought Canada had an anti-hate speech law. How does that jive with allowing Al-Jazeera broad cast? |
![]() |
|
| TenPacks | Nov 19 2004, 02:32 PM Post #12 |
![]()
Mountie of the Realm
|
CP - I think you have the wrong idea of how it works - they dont go out and ask (waste of money), they just accept written submissions from any citizen that has something to say. The fact that only 613 out of 30 Million people did have something to say, should show you what a giant "Yawn" the whole thing is up here. Hope that helps.... |
![]() |
|
| 54thparallel | Nov 19 2004, 02:46 PM Post #13 |
Duchess
|
Your statement could certainly hold true for Fox & Mr. O'Reilley's rants about Canada. |
![]() |
|
| ImaHeadaU | Nov 19 2004, 02:53 PM Post #14 |
Contrarian of the Realm
|
The Al-Jazeera license has a major qualification. Any cable or satellite signal provider that might choose to carry their signal will be required to monitor their programming 24/7 and delete any material that goes against Canadian laws including the Broadcast Act and those laws that restrict the incitement of "hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace."Hate Propaganda Given that Al-Jazeera programming is mostly in Arabic and there would be a relatively small number of prospective subscribers to its programming in Canada, it is highly unlikely that any cable or satellite signal provider will want to bother with the effort and expense involved with adhering to the CRTC requirements in this case. On the other hand re. Fox News, I'm surprised that the CRTC hasn't required signal providers to monitor Fox News in some similar fashion, given that Canada's Broadcast Act requires truthfullness in news programming and Fox News argued successfully in Court in Florida that the FCC does not require broadcasters to ensure that their news broadcasts be truthful. |
![]() |
|
| abradf2519 | Nov 19 2004, 03:12 PM Post #15 |
Duke of Dilbert
|
ImaheadaU, its good to see you're back! You said:
Fox news needs no such monitoring, I assure you. They are as least as ethical as the other news orgs here in the US. Other than providing the point of view of the right, they are no different than other news orgs. As for the court case I would have to look into that because I never heard of it. If the info you provided is acurate, it still does not prove that Fox needs monitoring, since being inaccurate isn't the same thing as preaching hate toward any particular ethnic group. |
![]() |
|
| abradf2519 | Nov 19 2004, 03:21 PM Post #16 |
Duke of Dilbert
|
I would also argue that every single news org in the world is inaccurate at one time or another. That's why newspapers print retractions on page 10, instead of page one! |
![]() |
|
| ImaHeadaU | Nov 19 2004, 03:51 PM Post #17 |
Contrarian of the Realm
|
Thanks, abradf2519. In the court case I referred to a reporter sued Fox News for false dismissal when she resisted their demands to alter a news report in such a manner that the report was documented to be false. Fox lost the case in three courts but won on appeal by successfully arguing that the FCC does not require their news to be truthful. In Canada the Canadian Broadcast does not allow broadcasters to knowing broadcast false news reports. Here are some links to the story. http://proliberty.com/observer/20001204.htm http://www.2dca.org/opinion/February%2014,...03/2D01-529.pdf http://www.foxbghsuit.com/ At the bottom web site click "Reporters v. fox: Inside the TV Coveup" on the upper right side of the first page of the web site. |
![]() |
|
| abradf2519 | Nov 22 2004, 09:27 AM Post #18 |
Duke of Dilbert
|
ImaheadaU... I read some of the links that you provided, and saw some interesting things.... The local station that employed the reporters was named in the lawsuit, not FOX news. The station wanted to modify the story because of legal issues. It seems that they were concerned about getting into a lawsuit from the manufacturer of the milk. The first jury ruled against both reporters, but ruled that they were fired unjustly. This is a separate issue, not having anything to do with weither facts were distorted or not. |
![]() |
|
| Happy Traveler | Nov 22 2004, 09:32 AM Post #19 |
Wanderer of the Realm
|
Beddows, You are so darn liberal you can't see the other side. You better start watching fair and balance news for a change. 3rofl |
![]() |
|
| ImaHeadaU | Nov 22 2004, 10:27 AM Post #20 |
Contrarian of the Realm
|
WTVT-TV, New World Communications of Tampa, Inc. is a subsidiary of Fox Entertainment Group as is Fox News. The management of the local station demanded the reporters change their story after Monsanto sent a "threatening letter to the president of Fox's network news division." "Neither FOX nor Monsanto has been able to prove that any of Wilson and Akre's material was inaccurate." Fox argued in court that its news is not required to be truthful.. IMO that means that Fox can not claim that its news doesn't contain blatent falsehoods. |
![]() |
|
| Mainecoons | Nov 22 2004, 10:44 AM Post #21 |
Keeper of the Royal Cattery
|
As usual, in your zeal to attack anything other than the liberal media, you missed the whole point of why Fox made this argument. It was a legal tactic to avoid having the proof/disproof of the accuracy of the story become the issue here when the real issue was a wrongful dismissal suit and whether or not the management had the right to fire these reporters. The attorneys did not want the basically impossible proof/disproof aspect to cloud the real issue, which was insubordination and the right of the company to deal with it. Fox, like any other media outlet, is a private concern, not a branch of the government where there are specific protections for alleged whistle blowers. This is an old story and the above was brought out in detail at the time this happened. Ima, force yourself to watch a little Fox up there. It will open up a whole new world for you. You'll find out that our troops are winning a lot more than losing in Iraq. You'll find out that there are two sides to most political issues, not just the leftist side which you have limited yourself to. Good luck, you're pretty far gone but maybe Fox can help you out. 3rofl |
![]() |
|
| wolfe59 | Nov 22 2004, 10:47 AM Post #22 |
Pack Master
|
Jane Skinner is the hottest. |
![]() |
|
| ImaHeadaU | Nov 22 2004, 10:59 AM Post #23 |
Contrarian of the Realm
|
I'm sorry but when a news organization argues, for any reason, that the news they produce can be knowingly false, I worry about the validity of any news they produce. Watch Fox? Sure I'll watch it on occasion but IMO anyone who uses TV as his/her primary news source will only have a very superficial understanding of events at best. |
![]() |
|
| abradf2519 | Nov 22 2004, 12:43 PM Post #24 |
Duke of Dilbert
|
Maincoons....I agree, it looked like a tactic that the Fox lawers used. ImaheadaU....Did you ever read an artice or saw a news report about an event that you were personally involved with? I have...they almost never get the facts straight. I think EVERY news org would argue the case the same way that Fox did. I also would be supprised if Fox was the only news org to be in this situation. Getting back on subject, my origional asertion is correct, Fox news does not need any governmental monitoring to prevent it from violatiing the Canadian law. ImaheadaU's article does not support the position that they would need monitoring. I hope you Canadians enjoy it...! It is a real eye opener! |
![]() |
|
| ImaHeadaU | Nov 22 2004, 12:54 PM Post #25 |
Contrarian of the Realm
|
I have worked in TV news. This is one reason why I have so little regard for TV news. Even when they aren't knowingly putting out false information, they rarely do a good job of conveying meaningful information. In this case, the station knowingly broadcast information it knew to be false. After the fact, they argued that doing so was okay because the FCC doesn't require broadcast news to be truthful If you don't see it as a curious argument for a news organization to make, for whatever reason, then I wonder why you would believe anything you see on Fox News or any other TV or radio news outlet in the U.S.. |
![]() |
|
| abradf2519 | Nov 22 2004, 02:21 PM Post #26 |
Duke of Dilbert
|
ImaheadaU... I almost always watch Fox news, and very seldom watch other news orgs because I have found them to be at least as good as the others and they show the right view point as well. I also daily read the Fox news web site along with CNN and MSNBC. I found that CNN and MSNBC are easier to take if I look at the web sites. Fox usually includes all view points, but I look at CNN and MSNBC to make sure. If I find any difference, it is usually a story that is only on one of the 3 and not at all on the others. |
![]() |
|
| 54thparallel | Nov 22 2004, 02:44 PM Post #27 |
Duchess
|
I just can't see all the hoopala about having Fox News available in Canada. I don't watch the alphabet news or CNN. I want to watch CANADIAN news, not some biased (read right OR left) newscast out of the US. We're exposed to enough American news stories on our own Canadian news programs. For those worried about Fox's liberal ways enlightening (or polluting) our naive minds, I think we're intelligent enough of a species to figure out which newscasts we want to believe or discredit. I know that my cable provider will not be offering Fox as a choice. I am not one of the 531 Canadians that gives a rat's ass! :whatever |
![]() |
|
| ImaHeadaU | Nov 22 2004, 02:44 PM Post #28 |
Contrarian of the Realm
|
abradf2519, I prefer to get my information from print media sources such as newspapers, magzines and their web sites. IMO TV news places far too much attention on pictures and the look of things while giving vey little depth and background information. As we say in the biz, :If it bleads, it leads."
|
![]() |
|
| abradf2519 | Nov 22 2004, 02:53 PM Post #29 |
Duke of Dilbert
|
I think you will find (if you do watch Fox) that you have been exposed to liberal bias on a daily basis. |
![]() |
|
| abradf2519 | Nov 22 2004, 02:54 PM Post #30 |
Duke of Dilbert
|
ImaheadaU..... Could you explain "As we say in the biz, :If it bleads, it leads."? Thanks.... |
![]() |
|
| iamcanuck | Nov 22 2004, 03:01 PM Post #31 |
Earl of Toronto
|
Have you had a chance to watch Canadian news coverage? It's quite a bit different than the US news that I see now (living here). With respect to IMA's saying, I think he meant 'bleeds' (30 second sound bites seem to be the order of the day on tv news). Matt |
![]() |
|
| ImaHeadaU | Nov 22 2004, 03:09 PM Post #32 |
Contrarian of the Realm
|
Thanks iamcanuck. TV news, particularly in the U.S., is mostly about emotional impact. The "top," "lead" or first item on a newscast is the one that has the most emotional, impact potential. Consequently, if the newsroom has an item with blood and guts, fire, explosions or something similar, it will almost always be the first item shown in the broadcast. "If it bleeds, it leads." |
![]() |
|
| abradf2519 | Nov 22 2004, 03:11 PM Post #33 |
Duke of Dilbert
|
I must admit I have never watched Canadian news. |
![]() |
|
| Squid | Nov 22 2004, 03:13 PM Post #34 |
Keeper of Arms
|
While Laurie and Jane are definately hot, I'm partial to Kiran Chetry. Yeah Baby, now that's what I'm talkin about!!. :popcorn |
![]() |
|
| abradf2519 | Nov 22 2004, 03:14 PM Post #35 |
Duke of Dilbert
|
I assumed that Canadian news was just like here in the US and the BBC from GB.....I have looked at yahoo news, the Canadian edition, and noticed that it was just as liberal as the American edition (Daily news). |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
![]() ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community. Learn More · Sign-up for Free |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Ye Olde Unto the Breach · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic | 12:50 PM Jul 11 |
Hosted for free by ZetaBoards · Privacy Policy








