The CRTC will allow Canadian broadcasters airing of news they know is false or misleading rather disturbing . It paves the way for Fox News in power ...
A Notice of Consultation reports that the CRTC intends to amend its regulations to allow the dissemination of false or misleading (for removing the "prohibition to broadcast any false or misleading, returns to the permit in return) . It is this change that makes no sense. The proposal for
3d clause is: the owner is prohibited "any new that is false or misleading and constitutes or could constitute a danger to life, health or public safety .
A broadcaster that produces new stands of fiction in that it tells the real. The right to information should be considered and evaluated according to the interests of the public-receptor and not by the interests of the issuer.
explain where the problem lies.
- A is a relatively new reality that meets the information needs the citizen to perform his job of understanding the world. So it is as fair as possible is a core value in democracy.
- There is probably no standards to assess precisely who is right or wrong, but keeping "the prohibition to broadcast any false or misleading" this will keep the bar high on this ground.
- In the financial system, it punishes the spread in the public misrepresentations in securities traded on a regulated market, we should expect us to do the same in the regulated space of broadcasting telecommunications.
- Logically, the problem is not to stop after "any news he knows to be false or misleading" (first part) because it removes the duty holder to prove the truth of what he distributes as news.
- Interpretations generated in the second part ("and which is or may constitute a danger to life, health or public safety") with the conjunction 'and' between the two parties is to bring the proscription not to the falsity of the news, but his "degree of dangerousness," which is to interpret, leaving the new misleading as "not risky" move.
- Evaluate the risks and dangers of a new puts the burden of proof on the receiver (it has to prove its case), whereas the original formulation does include the issuer is careful to prove his point in case Challenges.
The CRTC should not go ahead with this change and I mentioned my opposition on their site, whose main points are summarized here.
See also:
The CRTC expected to revise the standards of broadcasting (Anne Caroline Desplanques Observatory journalism)
The lies of media, now allowed in Canada? (Jean-Louis Trudel)
The Right to Information (Professor Pierre Trudel, University of Montreal)
Lies allowed on the airwaves? The FPJQ fears a rule change to the CRTC (Guillaume Bourgault-Côté Le Devoir)
0 comments:
Post a Comment