General Discussion

laundry_queen

(8,646 posts)

119. *sigh*

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 09:08 PM

Dec 2012

yet again I must debunk this.

FOX NEWS IS IN CANADA. HAS BEEN FOR SOME TIME.

I know, because we watch it for laughs every now and again.

Heck, we even have our own Fox News north called Sun News.

Our regulations for news being truthful are pretty soft. All it is is a code of ethics for broadcasters that says, "full, fair and proper presentation of news, opinion, comment and editorial.” When there are a lot of complaints, a panel (made up of citizens and people from the broadcasting industry) convenes to go over the concerns. That's it. No fines or nothing. If a network is found 'guilty' so to speak, they just have to air an online statement about the ruling.

Regulations that were in no way strong enough to keep out Fox News. Fox News just had to get through the CRTC first, that's why it was delayed - which happens often with new 'foreign' channels trying to get on Canadian cable/satellite.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

186 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Should it be against the law for news networks to lie? [View all] Jamaal510 Dec 2012 OP

No. It's not always possible to determine an absolute, objective truth. slackmaster Dec 2012 #1

But there should be standards to deal with that. intheflow Dec 2012 #6

I fully agree with you on your "shoulds" but there is a big difference between self-enforced... slackmaster Dec 2012 #12

Consider the following two headlines... brooklynite Dec 2012 #38

That's a great example. Even assurance of objective truth would not eliminate spin and bias. slackmaster Dec 2012 #57

I'm not saying journalism doesn't have a POV. intheflow Dec 2012 #59

The items in your last paragraph are all perfectly acceptable forms of journalism... slackmaster Dec 2012 #77

Which is what I said in my original post that started this sub-thread. n/t intheflow Dec 2012 #121

I think you would be hard-pressed to prove lying in any of these cases... brooklynite Dec 2012 #96

"Being mistaken" is not synonymous with "lying." WinkyDink Dec 2012 #106

Rather often treated that way when it benefits the accuser. Posteritatis Dec 2012 #112

Unequivocal yes. Alternatively, if that conflicts with the 1st amendment, then closeupready Dec 2012 #2

^This^. pacalo Dec 2012 #9

I think there used to be a strongly worded federal statute against lying by the media left on green only Dec 2012 #32

You are completely wrong... brooklynite Dec 2012 #40

Granted. That opened the door to unfair & unbalanced "news", imo. pacalo Dec 2012 #42

Yes, indeed. pacalo Dec 2012 #41

This I Like ProfessorGAC Dec 2012 #10

Department of Truth... Lightbulb_on Dec 2012 #13

Hello? That's why I said, 'open to other views'. closeupready Dec 2012 #17

What I am saying... Lightbulb_on Dec 2012 #24

That's the pat argument against controls. It's not black or white. rhett o rick Dec 2012 #92

that's what courts do. spanone Dec 2012 #101

And the government never lies? Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #51

What does that have to do with anything? closeupready Dec 2012 #53

sanctioned by the government, your words... Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #64

Maybe so. On the other hand, it seems to work closeupready Dec 2012 #73

It works in commercial speech Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #78

That's always the one problem, who is the one with unequivocal truth. Often governments lie RKP5637 Dec 2012 #94

Exactly. Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #98

Hey.. my Schticky is awesome... Lightbulb_on Dec 2012 #116

BBB? Better Business Bureau? Those guys are a bunch of charletans, too! MADem Dec 2012 #81

No, I didn't - thank you for the info. closeupready Dec 2012 #84

*Disinformation Turborama Dec 2012 #126

I don't know about that but limpyhobbler Dec 2012 #3

Exactly! Spike89 Dec 2012 #33

I really think too that breaking up media conglomerates would be a major step in RKP5637 Dec 2012 #95

Yep texshelters Dec 2012 #107

I Do Sympathize With the Idea, Sir.... The Magistrate Dec 2012 #4

However, be ready for the backlash you will receive on this. Cleita Dec 2012 #5

canadians don't have our republicans. unblock Dec 2012 #19

So what does that have to do with making the news an honest broker? Cleita Dec 2012 #31

this article is perfect for this thread Enrique Dec 2012 #133

how on earth can opposition to freedom of speech be winning this poll??? unblock Dec 2012 #7

Because enough is enough. Cleita Dec 2012 #11

maybe if we somehow made a law that only canadians could enforce this law it might work. unblock Dec 2012 #23

You are making no sense. Cleita Dec 2012 #36

first, there's simply no way to legislate out propaganda. the best propaganda involves twisting unblock Dec 2012 #48

There is a way. The Canadians have found it. Also, the Brits make a serious and legal Cleita Dec 2012 #65

Well, you know, we kind of tried the liberal media thing. Selatius Dec 2012 #117

well the broad problems are an excess of corporate influence and wealth concentration unblock Dec 2012 #123

This is why you need a law like the Canadian CRTC. Cleita Dec 2012 #156

I think it's because people who can't properly quote George Santayana are doomed to paraphrase him slackmaster Dec 2012 #16

Aren't we the condescender? WinkyDink Dec 2012 #165

Because lying is not freedom of speech nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #20

Lying most certainly is protected under the first amendment.... Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #60

The corrupt SCOTUS who gave us Bush. Whoopie. WinkyDink Dec 2012 #167

Actually it was the FL Supreme Court Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #180

fraud is something else entirely. unblock Dec 2012 #62

I will give you a more more or less back and white example nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #74

i agree that not all speech, even truthful speech, is entirely protected. unblock Dec 2012 #76

And that is what I am talking about nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #83

but i don't think any change in law is required for this. unblock Dec 2012 #86

That court's decision protected all fibs nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #148

iirc, that "fib" didn't fall under the incitement to riot or libel or other restrictions. unblock Dec 2012 #151

Read the decision nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #152

You bring to mind the question texshelters Dec 2012 #111

In my mind yes. nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #147

You must consider the source.... Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #80

Yes, and we all know who their medium for this was nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #85

I remember a more responsible press.... Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #88

Yup, what we need is the liberal application nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #150

Where is the Lying Exception in the 1A? nt Codeine Dec 2012 #114

There are restrictions in regards to lying in advertising... Luminous Animal Dec 2012 #52

lying in advertising induces overvaluation of a product in an effort to pry away money. unblock Dec 2012 #67

Absolutely agree with you.... Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #54

People generally dislike civil rights when people they don't like benefit from them. (nt) Posteritatis Dec 2012 #105

So a "news" station reporting that, say, Iranians killed John Lennon, would just be "free speech"? WinkyDink Dec 2012 #164

You damn right it should be madokie Dec 2012 #8

No. n/t. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #14

I don't for one second think the Framers.. 99Forever Dec 2012 #15

Only if we first make it illegal for politicians to lie. Dr. Strange Dec 2012 #18

Brilliant thought!! n/t Inkfreak Dec 2012 #22

I had a riff on that... immoderate Dec 2012 #30

Nope Inkfreak Dec 2012 #21

Damn Skippy. riqster Dec 2012 #25

Truth in labeling. tosh Dec 2012 #26

It is in Canada. n/t arthritisR_US Dec 2012 #27

Please Google "propaganda in canada" slackmaster Dec 2012 #139

I think they should be able to lie, but not when they're calling themselves "News" gollygee Dec 2012 #28

Concur - News is reporting and subject to a higher standing. laserhaas Dec 2012 #89

Concur - nt laserhaas Dec 2012 #90

If it's a statement of known fact. nt Deep13 Dec 2012 #29

And double penalties for lying Political Ads. Matariki Dec 2012 #34

"Congress Shall Make No Law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" brooklynite Dec 2012 #35

I'm amazed at how many DU'ers in this poll are ready to throw that out the window. TeamPooka Dec 2012 #179

yes. that is why fox news can't get into Canada. Whisp Dec 2012 #37

*sigh* laundry_queen Dec 2012 #119

We could hook them up to polygraphs LeftInTX Dec 2012 #39

Ha ha texshelters Dec 2012 #113

Who determines what is a news organizations? AlexSatan Dec 2012 #43

Dictionary.com is your friend. 99Forever Dec 2012 #44

The Onion - America's Finest News Source AlexSatan Dec 2012 #45

You don't quite get the .. 99Forever Dec 2012 #46

I certainly do AlexSatan Dec 2012 #49

Me. of course. 99Forever Dec 2012 #58

The law. Cleita Dec 2012 #61

Who defines what "seriously" is? AlexSatan Dec 2012 #71

Not me. Standards of journalism have been in place for hundreds of Cleita Dec 2012 #72

Loopholes are too easy AlexSatan Dec 2012 #79

So according to you, we should sit back and do nothing because Cleita Dec 2012 #91

Yes, the gov't should sit back and do nothing AlexSatan Dec 2012 #127

I watch Stewart because he's smart and funny. Cleita Dec 2012 #128

I agree, he is smart and funny AlexSatan Dec 2012 #136

Everything was run by the Soviet Union because they practiced Cleita Dec 2012 #155

The Chinese government has it all figured out. slackmaster Dec 2012 #141

If you think Stewart and Colbert are news organizations, I have a bridge.... Cleita Dec 2012 #47

I don't. AlexSatan Dec 2012 #50

They are in a perverse sort of way because our news organizations are falling Cleita Dec 2012 #56

What is an "organization"? WinkyDink Dec 2012 #108

Already is zipplewrath Dec 2012 #55

Perhaps... 99Forever Dec 2012 #63

Sorry, Fla Supreme Court already decided the issue tech3149 Dec 2012 #66

Wow...I never knew about that case.. Blue_Tires Dec 2012 #171

Where is the separating line between a "gross exaggeration" and a "lie"? PennsylvaniaMatt Dec 2012 #68

WHAT ABOUT THE FOX PROPAGANDA NETWORK? HowHasItComeToThis Dec 2012 #69

As long as they call themselves entertainment and fake news for Republicans Cleita Dec 2012 #70

They have the same First Amendment rights the Hearst propaganda network, the Chandler propaganda... slackmaster Dec 2012 #75

If the news programming, advertised as such, is leasing airwaves from the us... LanternWaste Dec 2012 #82

No - first amendment. Initech Dec 2012 #87

Who gets to decide what's true? JVS Dec 2012 #93

Yep, that's always the down side to all of this, who is the holder of RKP5637 Dec 2012 #97

No. It conflicts with the 1st amendment. eallen Dec 2012 #99

yes. it's a great responsibility they bare. they should be held to the highest standard. spanone Dec 2012 #100

I want truth in advertising Warpy Dec 2012 #102

The real solution is texshelters Dec 2012 #103

143 crackpots and rising cthulu2016 Dec 2012 #104

Work for FOX, do you? WinkyDink Dec 2012 #109

You misspelled "Read the First Amendment" (nt) Posteritatis Dec 2012 #110

You misspelled "State Propaganda." WinkyDink Dec 2012 #157

No, that's what you're advocating. (nt) Posteritatis Dec 2012 #181

Indeed. nt Codeine Dec 2012 #115

It seems many of the great Dystopian writers of the Cold War era were right slackmaster Dec 2012 #138

or 143 not so swift folks. cali Dec 2012 #172

Canada vrguy Dec 2012 #118

WOW. 87% of DUers want Dan Rather to go to prison Nye Bevan Dec 2012 #120

No they don't and we know that Dan Rather was railroaded. Cleita Dec 2012 #122

Bwah! Rather had the goods on Dubya! WinkyDink Dec 2012 #158

Lying propaganda outlets should not be allowed to call themselves "news". backscatter712 Dec 2012 #124

Should DU be allowed to have a subforum called "Late Breaking News"? (nt) Nye Bevan Dec 2012 #134

Message boards aren't subsidized by tax-payers over the air-waves. WinkyDink Dec 2012 #159

OK, so you're only talking about old-style over-the-air TV. Nye Bevan Dec 2012 #173

Free over-the-air broadcasts are riding the people's airwaves and can be lawfully regulated. Cable TransitJohn Dec 2012 #125

Criminal Anti-Defamation Laws have been a useful tool for censorship and opression ThoughtCriminal Dec 2012 #129

Should the liberal media be prosecuted for spreading all their left-wing anti-American lies? Douglas Carpenter Dec 2012 #130

Sarah Palin agrees ThoughtCriminal Dec 2012 #131

As my 8th grade US History teacher explained, the far left and the far right are indistingushable... slackmaster Dec 2012 #137

Define "News Network" Jeff In Milwaukee Dec 2012 #132

Good lord no. JoeyT Dec 2012 #135

I'm fascinated and pleased that not one person has voted Undecided in the poll yet slackmaster Dec 2012 #140

Only about things that are not subjective... Comrade_McKenzie Dec 2012 #142

So if a scientist came out with evidence against it... Lightbulb_on Dec 2012 #149

You know, I've Just had a Newsroom HBO Marathon Xyzse Dec 2012 #143

There is no way to police that treestar Dec 2012 #144

85% of DUers hold a frightening and totally fucked up position. Jeezus. cali Dec 2012 #145

I have, over the last year, been forced to re-examine my views of the internet left cthulu2016 Dec 2012 #146

sadly true. cali Dec 2012 #168

unfortunately, as this poll proves -at best DU is only marginally more gifted with critical thinking Douglas Carpenter Dec 2012 #177

Tonkin Gulf? Was that "an opinion"? WinkyDink Dec 2012 #160

please, please grab a clue. cali Dec 2012 #169

Bush's cousin who works for FOX. WinkyDink Dec 2012 #175

Can you imagine all the super pacs Rove & Kochs would fund trying to bring down msnbc? jillan Dec 2012 #153

You mean, other than the efforts they are making as we speak? WinkyDink Dec 2012 #161

Other: You should be able to take them to court for things objectively false n/t rock Dec 2012 #154

You can already do that, but you have to prove a few things in order to win in court... slackmaster Dec 2012 #162

YES. Perhaps this could be called "slander" (nt) Nye Bevan Dec 2012 #174

Defamation law already applies to the news. (nt) Posteritatis Dec 2012 #182

As long as I can get a job at The Ministry of Truth Throd Dec 2012 #163

NO. NYC Liberal Dec 2012 #166

“And yet,to say the truth, reason and love keep little company together nowadays.” guardian Dec 2012 #170

"In Pravda there is no news, in Izvestia there is no truth." Used to be a joke. WinkyDink Dec 2012 #176

Actually, having government act as the arbiter of truth and of newsworthiness is exactly... slackmaster Dec 2012 #178

ridiculous, who decides what's a lie? you? crazyjoe Dec 2012 #183

Hmm would Ed Shultz and Hannity Riftaxe Dec 2012 #184

"Yes" voters - If George Zimmerman wins his lawsuit against MSNBC for their selective editing... slackmaster Dec 2012 #185

Oops, looks like I killed it. slackmaster Dec 2012 #186