Our Canadian brothers have demonstrated their intelligence yet again by rejecting the efforts of their conservative prime minister to repeal the law that requires honesty in news programming. "Canada's Radio Act requires that "a licenser may not broadcast....any false or misleading news." 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 including the kind of foreign affairs and investigative journalism that flourished in this country before Ronald Reagan abolished the "Fairness Doctrine" in 1987. Political dialogue in Canada is marked by civility, modesty, honesty, collegiality, and idealism that have pretty much disappeared on the U.S. airwaves. 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. Harper's proposal was timed to facilitate the launch of a new right wing network, "Sun TV News" which Canadians call "Fox News North." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rober...be-moving-into-canada-after-all_b_829473.html Canada's anti-lying laws will continue to keep Fox News and its related businesses out of Canada. Thank God for smart Canadians.
In defense of lying. I almost don't want to defend this, but who cares if people are lying? And who is to choose what is a lie? The worship of free speech should include all manner of illusion and deception. Deception can be high art while it can also be dangerous as hell.
The United States is finding out how dangerous it is. Since the repeal of our equivalent, The Fairness Doctrine and the rise of Fox News, the US has gone from budget surpluses and historic low tax rates to massive debt and deficits and multiple foreign wars. And the nation has become more fractured and divided. Few Americans know the truth; only 6% of Americans know the budget deficit has shrunk under President Obama. Most Americans think the deficits are still increasing, thanks to Fox News and her fellows in the Republican entertainment industry. Democracy depends on a well informed electorate. A recent study was completed by Fairleigh Dickinson University’s found that those who watch no news at all were better informed than those who watched Fox News. Similar studies have been completed with similar findings. “They found that someone who watched only Fox News would be expected to answer 1.04 domestic questions correctly compared to 1.22 for those who watched no news at all. Those watching only "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" answered 1.42 questions correctly and people who only listened to NPR or only watched Sunday morning political talk shows answered 1.51 questions correctly. “ - Business Insider Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/stud...-watching-no-news-at-all-2012-5#ixzz2LhhLdMsV
Yeah, we need something like that here. And it wouldn't just curb Fox News, but the majority of the bullshit reported on the 24-hour news networks. It's disgusting that we have to rely on two comedians--Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert--for genuine political journalism. It's enjoyable, obviously, but it's a sad commentary that the best source for honest political coverage and commentary only occurs on a station called "Comedy Central."
if you call them news, than watch Al-Jazeera instead, at least they show the videos from front lines.
as long as it is nicely packaged lie, you wouldn't tell a difference alltogether. Under slogans of "freedom" and "rights" as well as "justice" you can be glued to a tv and accept everything it tells you as truth.
How come the law was ever abolished in US? as for Canadian news, its very objective (which is nice, but its boring). Meaning most of the news is just reporting and retelling of events, not an actual panel of discussion of the issues like what happens in CNN or Fox. It is more statements, than questions. CityTV, CTV, Global, all of these are like your local news station, but on a national scale. Our newspapers are much different though. Sun TV News is a wannabe Fox News channel, and they actually make arguments in terms of what christianity has to say about it, which isn't Canadian-like at all. I would say a lot of Canadians actually watch american news though. I would say its lukewarm (nothing too liberal or too conservative), nothing is really hugely politically-charged in canada, or to the extent of american politics which sometimes gets really vicious. Case in point, just this week one of the Liberal candidates Findlay made a comment about fellow rival Trudeau that he wasn't part of the middle class and didn't understand the problems. She actually issued a public apology right after the conference LOL. Calling someone "non-middle class" is very tame, I've seen so much verbal abuse in American politics, some people call each other terrorists and antisemitic.
The US equivalent was the Fairness Doctrine. “The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was, in the Commission's view, honest, equitable and balanced. The FCC decided to eliminate the Doctrine in 1987” – Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine It was not a law but a regulatory agency policy. Republicans were able to gain control of the regulatory agency (Federal Communications Commission) through appointments and the regulatory agency then promptly reversed the Fairness Doctrine. Democrats in Congress tried to codify the Fairness Doctrine into law twice. But both attempts were vetoed by Republican presidents. And Republicans have for the most part controlled one or both houses of Congress and the presidency since that time, making reinstatement of The Fairness Doctrine nearly impossible. Democrats had one shot at restoring The Fairness Doctrine in December of 2010. But they blew it. Organization and strategy were never Democratic strong points. Open honest discussion of the issues does not favor Republicans. Ignorance favors Republican causes. That is why Republicans are so opposed to The Fairness Doctrine. Democrats should have restored The Fairness Doctrine when they had a chance in December of 2010.
I am not comfortable with the government getting to determine what is "truth" and what isn't, with the full force of their power behind them. I'm not even comfortable with them determining "decency" and a heavy hand there is not nearly as likely to cause serious harm. What were the punishments for those who violated the fairness doctrine? If it was anything more than a sternly worded letter and admonishment to do better, then the FCC was probably overreaching. Politically appointed bureaucrats acting as self-appointed arbiters of truth? What could go wrong? It seems like the answer is "A lot."
that's a fair point you bring up. but instead of that extreme, what is occurring is the opposite extreme, where you have channels like Fox News that are spewing out blatant lies that will be gobbled up by the public as facts considering they are the NEWS, because someone must be promoting truth and transparency of the media, right?
I used to think that, but as I read more history, I lost my sense of this being a particularly partisan time. Newspapers used to routinely print hit pieces against politicians they opposed, and most newspapers were solidly in one camp or another. The most famous example is of James Callender's smears of Alexander Hamilton (and then that same Callender turning against Thomas Jefferson in later years). Should the government police truth in the press therefore as well? What about on the internet, much of which passes over the same cable lines as Fox News (and so is just as subject to FCC control)? (If not, why not? How do we even define the "news" given that Fox News is mostly pundits--not newscasters--giving their opinions, at least in prime time. Do we hold Jon Stewart to the same standards, or are pundits hired to state their opinions providing "news" but comedians who opine on both the pundits and politicians not? If comedy is specially protected, why not protect other forms of speech-based entertainment, like punditry?) In the mid-to-late-20th century we had a golden period in which the news media decided, for its own reasons, that "objectivity" was important. They failed to deliver it, because objectivity is itself a fuzzy quality that is subject to subjective interpretation, but in the abstract they thought it was important. That period was, as near as I can tell, an unusual period in American news reporting. It came after at least 150 years of partisan bickering through the news media. What we see today is still far closer to the ideal of "objectivity" than what existing in the 19th and very early 20th century, when yellow journalism was common and even the respectable news outlets still had a definite point of view. Some would say they still do. Would we trust Bush to police the truth of MSNBC? The New York Times? I wouldn't, and I wouldn't trust Obama to police Fox News. Even if both administrations were honest and acted in good faith, I think they would be heavy handed, because I think there would be good faith disagreements on what is true...and most partisans are bloody-awful at recognizing when such legitimate disagreements exist. Look at sciforums. You frequently see two sides of a debate arguing, each I believe in good faith, that the other side is lying on a host of different issues, from global warming and evolution to GMO foods. And those are topics where one would think science could step up and show us cold hard data to resolve that...but it can't, at least not in a way that resolves the good faith dispute over what fundamentally is true. Why would the government police private speech anyway? Why not start with their own, governmental, speech? For argument's sake, I can see it being asserted that if the government is going to police the truth, then they should start by policing the speech of government officials. Thus the FCC should start going after *politicians* who speak falsehoods though regulated public media (which could include broadcast TV, cable TV, or whatever else we choose for purposes of this thought experiment.) This would, I think, turn ugly quickly, with each administration using (and/or being accused of using) the FCC to silence political opponents. So, I think rightly, elected politicians and judges would be declared immune from this sort of FCC action, if only to avoid that fight. Assuming that's right, why, then, would the speech of private citizens be subject to more regulation than that of governmental speakers? If it's not right, why would we not start by allowing the government to limit the government's speech?
Good, because the Fairness Doctrine doesn't limit speech. Under the Fairness Doctrine, the government doesn't attempt to determine truth. It mandates fair and balanced. Each side can say what they want, but the other side gets a fair chance to respond . . . none of this Fox News crap.
Yeah but Fox News would just parade weak liberals onto their airwaves as straw men. That's kind of what they do now, isn't it?
True, Fox and right wing radio bring in so called "liberals" and use them misrepresent opposing views, but that isn't fair.
No, but fairness only amounts to equal time for opposing views, so I don't think the Fairness Doctrine would solve the problems we have today in terms of the misinformation machines that are right-wing radio and Fox News (and, though to an admittedly lesser extent, MSNBC and CNN). I think the problems in our news media are a bit more complex than just matters of equal time. It's the fact that people like Sean Hannity, whom I listened to the other day on the way to the store, will say things like "There's no legitimate science behind Global Warming" on the air and be taken seriously by listeners. In fact, he even took a call from a liberal college student and got her to admit that Hollywood's Green message should be ignored because they're all hypocrites. A solution would probably have to look something like Canada's anti-lying law, but I agree Cavalier's point about the government being empowered to decide the truth. That strikes me as very scary.
I think you are confusing the Fairness Doctrine with the Equal Time Rule. The Fairness Doctrine required operators to compare and contrast and present a diversity of opinion. “The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was, in the Commission's view, honest, equitable and balanced. The FCC decided to eliminate the Doctrine in 1987, and in August 2011 the FCC formally removed the language that implemented the Doctrine.[1] The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented.[2] The main agenda for the doctrine was to ensure that viewers were exposed to a diversity of viewpoints. In 1969 the United States Supreme Court upheld the FCC's general right to enforce the Fairness Doctrine where channels were limited. But the courts did not rule that the FCC was obliged to do so.[3] The courts reasoned that the scarcity of the broadcast spectrum, which limited the opportunity for access to the airwaves, created a need for the Doctrine. However, the proliferation of cable television, multiple channels within cable, public-access channels, and the Internet have eroded this argument, since there are plenty of places for ordinary individuals to make public comments on controversial issues at low or no cost. The Fairness Doctrine should not be confused with the Equal Time rule. The Fairness Doctrine deals with discussion of controversial issues, while the Equal Time rule deals only with political candidates." - Wikipedia
Yeah, I'm not all that familiar with the Fairness Doctrine. I was just going by what you said here: It sounded as if the whole object of the Doctrine was to make sure both sides of an issue are being presented to the viewer, which I would argue is what these networks do, albeit in the form of straw men. Of course, now seeing the Wiki entry's mention of a commission upholding broadcasters to honesty, equity, and balance changes that. This is, as you said before, not a government dictation of "truth," but instead a means to ensure (in theory, anyway) that such straw men are not used as stand-ins for the opposition's viewpoint. At least that's how I see it. I wonder why the law was repealed. I don't see how freedom of speech would be compromised--you still can say whatever the hell you want, you just have to also say "And here's what the other side says."
