FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. writes: "Fox News will not be moving into Canada after all! The reason: Canadian regulators today announced they would reject efforts by Canada's right-wing Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, to repeal a law that forbids lying on broadcast news."

Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper takes part in an event at the Library of Parliament on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, 02/28/11. (photo: Chris Wattie/Reuters)
Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper takes part in an event at the Library of Parliament on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, 02/28/11. (photo: Chris Wattie/Reuters)




Fox News' Lies Keep Them Out of Canada

By Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Reader Supported News

01 March 11

 

s America's middle class battles for its survival on the Wisconsin barricades - against various Koch Oil surrogates and the corporate toadies at Fox News - fans of enlightenment, democracy and justice can take comfort from a significant victory north of the Wisconsin border. Fox News will not be moving into Canada after all! The reason: Canadian regulators announced last week they would reject efforts by Canada's right-wing Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, to repeal a law that forbids lying on broadcast news.

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 US airwaves. When Stephen Harper moved to abolish the 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."

Harper, often referred to as "George W. Bush's Mini Me," is known for having mounted a Bush-like war on government scientists, data collectors, transparency, and enlightenment in general. He is a wizard of all the familiar tools of demagoguery; false patriotism, bigotry, fear, selfishness and belligerent religiosity.

Harper's attempts to make lying legal on Canadian television are a stark admission that right-wing political ideology can only dominate national debate through dishonest propaganda. Since corporate profit-taking is not an attractive vessel for populism, a political party or broadcast network that makes itself the tool of corporate and financial elites must lie to make its agenda popular with the public. In the Unites States, Fox News and talk radio, the sock puppets of billionaires and corporate robber barons, have become the masters of propaganda and distortion on the public airwaves. Fox News' notoriously biased and dishonest coverage of the Wisconsin's protests is a prime example of the brand of news coverage Canada has smartly avoided.

 

Comments   

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

 
+411 # Tom Degan 2011-03-01 11:01
You couldn't make this stuff up in fiction. Good one, Bobby.

http://www.tomdegan.blogspot.com

Tom Degan
 
 
+438 # Ed Fallon 2011-03-04 06:59
Maybe if the United States required this of Congress, we would not be in the mess we are today.
 
 
+142 # doctordemocracy 2011-03-12 19:05
The US used to have Federal Communication rules that required both higher standards in limiting bias AND much tighter limits on the number of media outlets one company can control in a market. Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton oversaw the destruction of those laws.
 
 
+143 # nothingpetty 2011-07-12 16:44
We need to push to go back to those rules.
 
 
-500 # Dennis 2011-04-04 13:04
Just once I wish someone would actually come up with an example of one of these lies that liberals are so quick to claim Fox spews out of their broadcasts. If you cannot come up with at least one verified example of a lie that was from Fox news and not one of their opinion contributors, which all of the news orgs have, even the holy of holies, the NY Times, then maybe it is time for all of you to stop lying about Fox lying.
 
 
-241 # Semper Fi 2011-04-05 04:21
THANK YOU!!!!
 
 
+428 # Keegan 2011-04-07 09:06
You mean the obvious falsification of the Tea Party rallies that Fox was caught using different footage to make it look larger then it actually was and it was pointed out to the nation as a whole? That specific enough for you?
 
 
+426 # hahaney 2011-04-09 13:14
Fox “News” edits Obama's statements makes it seem as if he wants health care "like in the European countries."
This is not what he says at all. Fox shows a clip as he repeats a question he is asked. He then goes on to say that it is not what he wants. Fox does not show that part.

When the 9/12 Tea Party march on DC was being reported by Fox “News”, the numbers they were parroting were massive: 1.5 million, maybe 1.7 million. In fact, all reputable news organizations and the DC police were putting the number between 60,000 and 70,000, which was about the size of the National Equality March a few weeks later. Unlike everyone else, Fox “News” viewers didn't hear much about that one. Too many gay people.

Fox “News” footage from Bill O'reilly shows union protesters in T-shirts marching along through the palm tree-lined streets of Madison.

Wait, palm trees and T-shirts? Weren't temperatures hovering near the teens at the time as the crowd of 100,000 got pounded with snow? The answer is “yes” to that question.

Yep, Fox dug up the clip from a rally in Sacramento, then tried to pass it off as proof that violent union thugs and "professional leftists" were running things up in Madison, ostensibly in an effort to discredit the protesters and give the governor's agenda a boost.
 
 
+302 # hahaney 2011-04-09 13:15
In March 2009, Fox “News” made it seem as if Joe Biden was parroting the line that made John McCain look so out of touch during the campaign to try to inject false hope into the ailing economy. In fact, Biden never said that "the fundamentals of the economy are strong" in March. That clip of Biden was actually from the campaign when he was mocking McCain and selectively edited to seem as if Biden was saying it.
 
 
+315 # hahaney 2011-04-09 13:16
In April 2009, the Fox “News” show America's Newsroom made the claim that Obama's $3.6 trillion budget is 4x bigger than Bush's costliest plan. This isn't true at all. Bush's budgets for 2009 and 2008 were $3.1 and $2.9 trillion respectively. Keep in mind, Fox “News” lives in an age where even a second grader could access this information in about 20 seconds. Fortunately for them, their average viewer isn't that bright.
 
 
+171 # hahaney 2011-04-09 13:21
http://www.newshounds.us/

http://www.spitefulcritic.com/home/10-most-ridiculous-fox-news-lies-creative-edits-and-half-truths

http://www.newshounds.us/2007/10/31/fox_friends_doocy_lies_about_flag_folding_change.php

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/02/anthony-weiner-calls-fox_n_482525.html

http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3D5rqdtZlec0s&sa=U&ei=-bCgTdTkK4aXtwequImBAw&ved=0CBkQtwIwAA&usg=AFQjCNEXx0Joo9StZXPAaFAL5BIfyNQKMQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DRClJ6vK9x_4&sa=U&ei=-bCgTdTkK4aXtwequImBAw&ved=0CDUQFjAI&usg=AFQjCNGfwuWloP2vTILhQvgH5vSS8jrqBA
 
 
+130 # hahaney 2011-04-09 13:28
SHOCKER! Defending Itself Against Lying, Fox “News” Lies

The Blogosphere was having a lot of fun with the so-called Fox “News” Channel. This after a scientific study proved that so-called Fox “News” viewers were the least informed. When asked about the study, senior VP Michael Clemente also proved why the so-called Fox “News” audience is the least informed: He lied to the so-called librul NYT.

In a statement, Michael Clemente, who is the senior vice president of news editorial for the network, said: “The latest Princeton Review ranked the University of Maryland among the top schools for having ‘Students Who Study The Least’ and being the ‘Best Party School’ – given these fine academic distinctions, we’ll regard the study with the same level of veracity it was ‘researched’ with.’”

The snark is what we’ve come to expect from Fox News, but where’s the lie? Also according to Stelter:

For the record, the Princeton Review says the University of Maryland ranks among the “Best Northeastern Colleges.” It was No. 19 on the Review’s list of “Best Party Schools.”
 
 
+167 # Neil 2011-04-25 12:49
No problem. http://mediamatters.org/research/201104240006 Now, before you hold true toform and call this article out as "leftist propaganda" simply because it puts the spotlight on the true biased network and liars therein, you would do well to check the sources of the unedited and full content provided by the author of the article. The Lexis database merely takes down what was broadcast by everyone verbatim - including the crap spewed by Hannity in the aforementioned "news special". He edited it, turned it into crap, and spoon fed it to you calling it filet mignon ...and you ate it up with a grin on your face. So... You feelin pretty good about yourself? Sucker. Just so we're clear - I am being rather cold and gruff intentionally to make two points. 1. Republicans MUST lie to further their policies and not only should you be disgusted but embarrassed that these liars are the people your elected officials look up to, and; 2. This is EXACTLY the type of rhetoric Canadian citizens wish to keep out of their country. In short, it's important to them and they feel no need to have trifiling, mouth-breathing righties messing up their system of governance. Disagree? Think it's wrong? Go into your next important business meeting spouting lies and see how long you keep your job. In the end people want honest, respectful discourse, particularly when considering what is at stake.
 
 
-261 # Gene Poole 2011-06-23 08:36
Yes your are correct. Canadians all want their news censored to protect them from getting 'confused'. There should be a group of people in government that decide what the 'truth' is and then they will permit the public to view it as news. I like your reasoning Comrade. People lack the intelligence to check news sources and develop their own opinions. We will do it for them.
 
 
+202 # Joanne 2011-07-31 18:05
Barring media outlets from presenting fiction as fact, is not censorship.

I don't know what is more absurd that Fox so blatantly falsifies their news; or that so many people go refuse to see.

I have never seen a story on Fox, 3 seconds of research couldn't disprove or where they purposely obscured the other side of story.

Everything is absolute black and white; no gray areas. The world simply doesn't work that way. Just because someone is unhappy about something doesn't mean they are right.
 
 
+87 # taimie 2011-08-02 21:11
Quoting Gene Poole:
Yes your are correct. Canadians all want their news censored to protect them from getting 'confused'. There should be a group of people in government that decide what the 'truth' is and then they will permit the public to view it as news. I like your reasoning Comrade. People lack the intelligence to check news sources and develop their own opinions. We will do it for them.


I believe the fact that Dennis actually needs 'proof' provided for him that Faux News lies, proves people do truly lack such intelligence. glad you caught that.
 
 
+10 # vkrumins 2013-03-12 16:10
The CRTC doesn't police broadcasts. It must wait for a complaint from the public. It investigates complaints and if it determines a deception has occurred then it sends a letter admonishing the station. If enough letters are sent then then station's licence is reviewed and, when necessary, revoked (but that is really rare ... only one station I can remember had its license yanked and that was because it was not broadcasting anything ... dead air was the problem).
 
 
+1 # Archie1954 2014-03-21 14:22
BS!
 
 
+71 # Craig Blevins` 2011-04-28 21:30
You can't Google "Fox lies"? There is a long list.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rqdtZlec0s
 
 
+94 # Jim H 2011-07-24 12:20
You can read Media Matters any day for a good selection of Fox lies. Oh, I forgot; you can't read Media Matters because it's a creation of the evil Soros. Oh, wait a minute: that's a lie.
 
 
+103 # willm 2011-08-11 08:04
All you have to do is google it. No Matter how loud Fox yells "WE NEVER SAID THAT", you can find youtube clips of their shows on the internet.

One of my personal Fox favorites is when their new shows mislabeled both Mark Sanford and Mark Foley as Democrats instead of Republicans during their sex scandals.

Olberman used to poke fun at O'Reilly and Hannity by showing footage of them saying "I never said X" and then rolling clips of them loudly proclaiming the same X on earlier episodes of their shows.
 
 
+77 # Byron 2011-08-18 15:59
Politifact.com has a whole section on Fox News. They've won several awards for their whoppers, in fact.
 
 
+67 # stev 2011-08-30 06:24
“Obama went to a Madrassa.” Reported as fact on Fox & Friends. CNN then did some actual journalism on the subject and reported the truth.

There are many such examples, and when you include “distortions,” as opposed to outright lies, it expands tremendously.
 
 
+34 # ShakenNot Stirred 2011-08-30 08:11
You should read this to get an idea of the Faux games: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-roger-ailes-built-the-fox-news-fear-factory-20110525
 
 
+15 # Maekong Mike 2012-09-21 04:01
No one is saying that other American media outlets are not at times distorting or misrepresenting the facts. The contrast is in the degree to which FOX opts to forgo any attempt at honest journalism. Rather than do the impossible, which is to enumerate all the examples of false information being offered as fact by FOX in what remains of my lifetime, it would be much easier to enumerate the examples of factual information being offered in a clear and unbiased manner. I will be glad to do so as soon as I encounter any.
 
 
+3 # hobodoc1954 2012-10-20 09:18
Fox-Can-Lie Lawsuit
here are a few things for you to read about the honest and integrity of Fox.

The attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron Rupert Murdoch, argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves.

http://www.foxbghsuit.com

http://todayyesterdayandtomorrow.wordpress.com/2007/06/23/fox-news-reporters-fired-for-truthful-reporting-on-genetic-engineering-in-milk-and-monsanto/
 
 
+4 # vkrumins 2013-03-12 16:19
How about that guy who wanted to sue O'Reilly for slander but was advised he wouldn't win because the spin-meister isn't commonly regarded as "factual" (I.e., he is regarded as an "entertainer" who's utterances are shielded by the same protections afforded to comedians and satirists).
 
 
-13 # justme16 2013-03-13 06:47
Exactly. Just the typical left wing propaganda. They only want freedom of the press and news if it reflects the their own left wing opinion.
 
 
0 # dmillerj 2014-03-21 12:20
Left wing propaganda....w ow....you morons get dumber by the day.
 
 
-1 # Winnie 2014-03-22 08:15
Quoting dmillerj:
Left wing propaganda....wow....you morons get dumber by the day.

The only morons are the people who believe this article. Read snopes. Fox was never banned because of supposed lies, it wasn't allowed prior t0 2004 because foreign ownership rules.

I can't believe so many people are buying into this total piece of crap article.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/foxcanada.asp
 
 
+6 # Archie1954 2013-03-13 12:49
Dennis just check out "Fox News Lies" on the internet for your proof.
 
 
0 # dmillerj 2014-03-21 12:14
Hey there Dennis.....I guess you got your fill of examples of lies that Fox spews. You flat earth types really crack me up.
 
 
-3 # genepoole63 2014-03-23 06:28
Censorship of the News is the only way liberals can retain power. Conservatives would NEVER attempt to suppress Freedom of the Press for political gain. It's a violation of everything our Nation stands for.
 
 
+2 # Archie1954 2014-03-23 17:38
I just love it when the conservative toads on this blog try to tell the rest of us that their warts are wonderful and we need them to be free. It makes for much chuckling.
 
 
-4 # Winnie 2014-03-24 08:23
Quoting Archie1954:
I just love it when the conservative toads on this blog try to tell the rest of us that their warts are wonderful and we need them to be free. It makes for much chuckling.

What makes for chuckling is when the left starts calling names because they have no intellectual capacity.

"conservative toads" I suppose that is akin to left wing raving moonbats.
 
 
+1 # Archie1954 2014-03-24 13:13
Poor Ms. Pooh, can't take the heat even though she loves to mess around in the kitchen.
 
 
-1 # Winnie 2014-03-24 14:59
Quoting Archie1954:
Poor Ms. Pooh, can't take the heat even though she loves to mess around in the kitchen.

Poor Mr. Archie, he can't give a reasoned response to resorts to insults.
 
 
+1 # genepoole63 2014-03-23 06:25
If the US Congress censored news networks we wouldn't be a democracy.
 
 
-276 # rodonuc 2011-03-04 11:01
Hate to break the news to ya...but FOX has been broadcasting on Canadian Sat for years now...Chan 305 on Star Choice...

So...if Canada doesn't allow stations that lie to broadcast and it allows FOX to broadcast does it then follow that FOX does not lie??
 
 
+252 # littlekat 2011-03-04 13:48
It works like this....when you have a dish, you can pick up broadcasts from satellites. Satellites can pick up their broadcasts from just about anywhere. Fox does not broadcast from Canada, you are just able to watch it thanks to modern scientific practices...you know, the ones that Faux news only goes along with to keep their poison spewing.
 
 
-198 # rodonuc 2011-03-04 14:35
Oh...by the way...can you explain how FOX can dupe Star Choice? If so ... please do...I've been in the biz since the 1960's when I worked on the Apollo Space program and have a very good technical understanding of how things work....so please...your reply should be, er, interesting to say the very least.
 
 
+110 # cl 2011-03-05 16:05
I don't understand your comment. littlekat did just respond to you about a dish. How is that "duping" Star Choice?
 
 
-154 # rodonuc 2011-03-05 18:56
I had said that Canadian Sat -- Star Choice -- had FOX News USA on it. The reply seemed to indicate that FOX uses some kind of "modern scientific process" to get FOX seen in Canada...howeve r FOX is rebroadcast in Canada on Canadian Soil to Canadian Satellites and it's not scientific trickery. So I wished to hear about this scientific process...
 
 
+102 # canuck 2011-03-07 12:10
yes we can see fox news on our satellite service, but it's the following that we refused to accept:

...Harper government pressuring the CRTC to give Sun TV News a “mandatory” cable deal, which is...almost unheard-of...

It means that it must be included in at least one tier, or cable package, that you’re probably buying for other reasons. It’s the kind of deal other corporations, fighting for every viewer and every dollar, would bleed themselves with leeches to win.
 
 
-91 # rodonuc 2011-03-07 13:06
Near as I can tell...Sun/Harp er lost the battle and Sun is under level 2 rules and regs...that you refuse to accept some group is of no concern to me as that is your freedom of choice...they probably don't like you either and you probably all hate me...freedom of speech...I accept that and do enjoy the lively debate here...thank ya'll for that...
 
 
-69 # Winnie 2011-03-08 10:01
The Harper gov't. did not pressure the CRTC, there is no evidence of that at all, Neither is there any evidence that the PMO was involved in the CRTC initiative to change the wording on 'false and misleading news'. Kennedy is wrong on all counts. That was a bi-partisan committee from over 10 years ago in response to a Supreme Court decision.
 
 
-1 # Winnie 2014-03-22 08:00
Except that the Harper gov't isn't and wasn't pressuring the CRTC. That was totally unsupported rumour mongering. Besides, why CBC and CTV et al have that right but no other news channel.
 
 
+133 # hahaney 2011-04-23 14:27
The difference is they broadcast Fox News USA. There is no Fox News Canada because to be licensed in Canada they would have to agree to broadcast the truth. They refused to agree to that.
 
 
-19 # peek 2011-08-09 12:31
Quoting hahaney:
The difference is they broadcast Fox News USA. There is no Fox News Canada because to be licensed in Canada they would have to agree to broadcast the truth. They refused to agree to that.


You distort. Fox News is already on Canadian TV. A new Fox News US/Canada blend addition was deemed unnecessary and Canada wants more Canadian sourced stations, not imports. Fox News has been there since 2003. Read the Canadian report:

"In 2003, the Canadian Radio-televisio n and Telecommunicati ons Commission (CRTC) rejected a Canadian Cable Telecommunicati ons Association (CCTA) application to bring Fox News to Canada because Fox News U.S. and Global Television were planning to create Fox News Canada, a combination of U.S. and Canadian news. However in 2004, after a Fox U.S. executive said there were no plans to create the combined channel, the CRTC approved an application to bring Fox News to Canada.[79]

Fox News Channel is currently offered by Access Communications, Bell TV, Cogeco, Eastlink, Manitoba Telecom Services, Rogers, SaskTel, Shaw Cable, Shaw Direct and Telus TV. A notable exception is Vidéotron, Canada's third largest cable company, which has not added Fox News Channel to its lineup:
 
 
-2 # Winnie 2014-03-22 08:18
Quoting hahaney:
The difference is they broadcast Fox News USA. There is no Fox News Canada because to be licensed in Canada they would have to agree to broadcast the truth. They refused to agree to that.

Again, not so. Originally they didn't meet the requirement of foreign ownership.

sigh....
 
 
+147 # oo 2011-03-07 21:09
Look buddy, I worked in the telecommunicati ons business since the early 70s. What the gentleman above said was absolutely correct. So my only conclusion of you sir, is that since you lie about your knowledge you can only be from Fox news or outer space.
 
 
-85 # rodonuc 2011-03-08 09:42
How about we assume my credentials are false...then go Google Shaw Star Choice and a few other things and get the facts. I assume you know how..if not I will send links for you. I am wondering why one who places verifiable info is suddenly a FOX person or from outer space? Occam's razor with a rusty blade?
 
 
-22 # peek 2011-08-09 12:34
I have worked in telecommunicati ons since 1968. You are not telling the truth. Fox News is already on Canadian cable TV. Get over your obvious bias.
 
 
+22 # George V. Williams 2011-03-14 14:58
Excellent response!! Thank you.
 
 
+154 # bobob 2011-03-29 08:33
Fox news is carried as a foreign feed.
We know it to be an American "news"
channel, and so take it with a grain of salt. We treat it as a comedy show like Gerry Springer.
 
 
+163 # just lies 2011-03-04 20:54
Fox News Channel USA version runs in Canada. They blocked Fox News Canada in 2003 because Fox lies to makes its points. They cannot broadcast a Canadian News channel because they are liars.
 
 
-135 # rodonuc 2011-03-05 12:15
Hmmm...lemme see if I have this right. FOX lies and Canada won't let FOX broadcast from Canada because it lies but Canada will let Canadian Satellite Companies re-transmit FOX USA's lies from Canadian soil to Canadian satellites for the consumption of Canadians, but Canada just doesn't want FOX actually opening an office in Canada? The content of the USA FOX is OK, but the act of having an office in Canada is the problem? Yet it appears that Sun News ( A FOX Copy ) will in fact do FOX like stuff on Canadian soil but only with a level 2 license? Sounds like Canada has an enigmatic speech / moral problem on it's hands.
 
 
+31 # J. Lindsay Kellock 2011-03-09 13:23
Sadly, Sun News (Quebecor) has hired Cory Tenecke, former right hand man to Mr. Harper, to launch a Canadian equivalent of Fox News. It may be too soon to rejoice.
 
 
+37 # sdbates12 2011-06-05 22:54
Are you being purposely obtuse? Seriously.
 
 
-74 # Winnie 2011-03-08 10:04
Quoting just lies:
Fox News Channel USA version runs in Canada. They blocked Fox News Canada in 2003 because Fox lies to makes its points. They cannot broadcast a Canadian News channel because they are liars.

Wrong, and wrong again.....
 
 
-93 # rodonuc 2011-03-08 10:24
Winnie...finall y a person of reason.. harder to find here than Diogenes and his lantern looking for an honest man. With that...perhaps I can finally retire from this argument. Hang in there...
 
 
+57 # hahaney 2011-04-09 13:46
As a good Fox "News" viewer, you accept lies as being reasonable.
 
 
+63 # hahaney 2011-04-09 13:45
That statement is true. They were denied a license in 2003. They can not broadcast as a Canadian station.
 
 
+14 # Gene Poole 2011-06-23 08:39
Great reply Comrade, everybody repeat after me FOX NEWS LIES FOX NEWS LIES FOX NEWS LIES. I hope this will prevent any more 'confusion' among the masses.
 
 
-49 # peek 2011-08-09 12:40
I find it absolutely ridiculous that Canada has set itself up as the supposed lie detector of communication. Sounds more like censorship to me. As a news junkie, I have found far more lies on all other news outlets, including this article. RFK is an uber radical idiolog, environmentalis t that flies around in private jets consuming the fuels he lobbies so hard against. He, and John Kerry, also lobbied against wind farms off Cape Cod because they would be offensive to the Kennedy compound sailors. Put them in someone else's backyard (even though they were not even visible from land). Why are liberals so easily lead over the cliff?
 
 
0 # Winnie 2014-03-22 08:03
Fox news was not blocked in 2003 because of supposed 'lies', that's a fallacy.

I don't think I've seen so much BS and lies about Canadian news and people swallowing it hook line and sinker.
 
 
+121 # dnhatch 2011-03-05 10:43
You're correct, FOX News is available on some Canadian cable providers, BUT...
Back in 2003, FOX News applied to the Canadian broadcast agency to create a version of FOX News called "FOX News Canada" that would be a combination of US and Canadian news, and it was THAT application that was rejected because FOX News distorts the truth too much.
 
 
-128 # rodonuc 2011-03-05 12:25
Interesting...F OX applies in 2003 and is rejected in 2011. In 2004 FOX USA is retransmitted to Canadians on Canadian Sats. from Canadian soil. I realize that Canada does not have a First Amendment right ... however if they wish to shut down any news outlet that spins the facts we'll have nothing to watch. Of course there is the argument that one murder is not as bad as another murder because it wasn't as brutal...I always thought folks were smart enough to ferret out the facts...at least the Canadians I know seem to be. By the way...I'm not defending FOX, I am trying to figure out why FOX USA lies are OK and FOX Canada lies are not.
 
 
+99 # heraldmage 2011-03-05 13:25
no you just trying to be argumentative
 
 
-102 # rodonuc 2011-03-05 13:48
Yep..ya got me, but the tree of argument (open discussion) produces the fruit of truth ;-)
 
 
+121 # chasm 2011-03-06 11:29
But only if the participants are honest brokers. You were (and probably still are) being deceptive about your real motives and goals -- pretty much the same way Fox operates.

That would make you more of a troll, wouldn't it?
 
 
-87 # rodonuc 2011-03-06 13:05
Instead of calling me names and the like perhaps you might point out how I'm being deceptive? By the way I am not defending FOX, I'm trying to point out some facts that many here seem to be reticent to believe even though which I say is so easily verified by anyone with the intellectual curiosity and ability to use Google or DogPile or any number
 
 
+64 # Sean 2011-03-07 08:04
There is, of course, the obvious and simple distinction here. Broadcast means just that, a signal sent out to anyone who wants to tune it in. Satellite, cable, XM, Sirius, etc. are not limited by broadcast limitations because they are subscription-on ly. It is certainly disingenuous (at best) to ignore this distinction. Yes, we should apply the same regulations that broadcasters have to go by to all satellite providers that want to get business within our borders. This has not been, and probably will not anytime soon, with the corporatist control of government in North America.
 
 
-63 # rodonuc 2011-03-07 10:27
The argument put forward in RFK's argument was that CRTC rulings would keep FOX/FOX-Like out of Canada...which it hasn't even though it is available on a limited basis. Broadcasting, according to Webster, does not limit itself to general open propagation. FOX does not originate in Canada however it is sent to places like Calgary, Alberta, mixed with everything from Corner Gas to CBC, compressed, encrypted and streamed to Canadian ANIK series satellites from Canadian soil...and in any case, subscribers still don't have to watch FOX..they can, like I do, enjoy Corner Gas re-runs, Canadian History channel etc. Further, Sun News Net seem poised to go on line soon anyway with a level 2 permit, which is also limited in access but WILL originate in Canada. Then of course there is streaming video and audio of nearly all the hated radio and TV stuff on the Web for those who would dare....and you mentioned XM where FOX is also available even though it's not on Canadian soil. Those that want to hear / see will regardless...th ose who don't wanna will obviously not. I'm not defending FOX...I am arguing with RFK's article. Ciao for now ;-)
 
 
-64 # rodonuc 2011-03-07 10:47
Oh...as one who (myself that is) is deeply interested in history and the founding docs of the USA, I think the word "dangerous" should apply to more restrictive societies as throughout history the more restrictive the more oppressive and the shorter their lives as a nation. Open and free speech if left alone will weed out the B.S. assuming folks are open mindedly curious or mildly critical of thought. When the State slowly decides what you can hear, see, read you are on the way to the graveyard of those that have gone before. Of course the State can then eventually kill off or gulag "wrong thinkers" eh....all the hullabaloo about FOX probably increases it's following by folks who wanna see what all the fuss is about...just a guess...

Yeah...I know I speak in long term extremes...but history is history...thar ain't nothing new in the world of governance...ju st heads that either never read it or forgot it or think they are smarter and will get a different result this time.

Back to my Corner Gas reruns.....
 
 
+26 # Jeff 2011-03-21 12:52
There is the other distinction that it's just a legal loophole. They blocked the Canadian wing to Fox News from broadcasting because they don't want the lies that Fox News broadcasts having Canada's name stamped on them. That said, you can still pick up transmissions of television and radio broadcasts that originate in all parts of the world. Heck, you could look up anything you want to (including fox news' website) online.

Also, show me historically where "free" societies have flourished more than oppressive societies. The practice of democracy in the western sense is a fairly young practice.
 
 
+45 # hahaney 2011-04-09 13:52
Wouldn't it be better if they had to tell the truth to begin with? Half the US population believe anything on TV.
 
 
-58 # rodonuc 2011-03-06 13:28
Oh...let me disagree with you on if the participants are honest or not...the dishonest will be ferreted out, as facts and truth will win out in open discussion, if even just one party is intellectually curious enough to seek the facts. Truth is indisputable, though it oft is not believed as the mind that hears or reads something dissonant to what one perceives as truth may still deny that which is, in fact truth.

On the other hand, truth to a lynch mob mentality is not likely to save the man from hanging.
 
 
+43 # josh 2011-04-01 03:47
As an American, i thought you would realize that the truth is possible to ferret out, but only after the lies have wreaked havoc and distorted policy. I think the jury is still out on whether open discourse leads to a more progressive and more advanced society. I mean look at China, one of the most restrictive societies in terms of free speech, is rapidly over taking the U.S. in multiple areas of previous US expertise.

I mean not to get into a large argument about intent and history of ammendments and the law as it would be rather tedious. But frankly when most of a news day for a news corporation comes down to what is generally seen as opinion and not actual news then maybe its time to rethink what business you're in. What happened to listening to events and piecing it together for yourself? I dont need msnbc or fox telling me how to think, and i like it that way. I personally like the fairness doctrine and think its valuable to debate that honestly gets us somewhere helpful, unlike all the bullshitting, lying, and stalling for time through propaganda and lies used by both parties for their own selfish agenda. Congratulations Canada for not falling into a slippery slope of a trap. Maybe you'll be the next beacon of an honest,fair, and progressive western world? God only knows it hasn't been the U.S. in forever.
 
 
+60 # cl 2011-03-05 16:10
Probably because Fox USA lies doesn't affect their country in the same way a media outlet lying about news in their country would.

And I think probably Fox crosses that line for Canada in the way they spin the news. It's not just a matter of leaving out facts or data to tell a particular story. A lot of it is purposely misleading.
 
 
-63 # rodonuc 2011-03-05 18:49
You may be right about Canada or Canadians...I don't find them that un-discerning ... but I am for totally free speech for anyone no matter how much I don't like it...sans the example about yelling "fire" in a crowded theater and the like.
 
 
+79 # BillPatt 2011-03-11 16:39
All FOX does IS yell fire. They've turned the first amendment into a very serious and deadly weapon.
 
 
+94 # Pugulis 2011-03-05 20:51
rodonuc, I think you are a plant. You claimed in a previous post that you've worked in the industry since the 60's. Yet you don't know the difference between Broadcast radio/TV and Satellite transmissions? Since you don't seem to know or forgot, here's your refresher course. Radio waves are broadcast from a ground based antenna (this is what is illegal in Canada). Satellite transmissions are picked up in Canada (totally legal) from US based satellite transmitters. Therefore, if Fox news wanted to have an ACTUAL studio in Canada, where they transmitted the news from (either satellite or radio/tv) they would have to stop lying and making up news. Yes you can watch Fox News in Canada. But it is not transmitted from Canada.
 
 
-71 # rodonuc 2011-03-06 10:16
Despite your condescending description of me, my point is that FOX IS fed to Canada by whatever means and is then REBROADCAST from ground based Sat Stations IN Canada...yes, on Canadian Soil. The various programming is combined and retransmitted to geosyc. satellites owned or rented by folks like Star Choice. Sat signals do not originate in space..they come from the ground. Star Choice like all sat companies recombine programming and beam it up (Scotty)but thanks for the er, refresher. Even in land based transmissions of TV or Radio there is no need for a studio since remote sites ( like satellites in space) are as common as bad Hollywood movies. That Canada may not want a FOX office in Canada is one thing...how signals are distributed is another. I'm sure some folks in Canada get US Sat reception, some in the States also get Canadian Sat...Shaw's Star Choice is in Canada and FOX is on that sat Channel 503, and it's on others and has been since 2004.
If you wish I can describe the nuance between what you call "ground based antennas" and a parabolic microwave dish system...both sending from THE GROUND.
 
 
-61 # rodonuc 2011-03-06 10:24
Oh...as the plant you think I am ... I also have an FCC Communications Engineer License I've held since 1957...I'll be happy to upload a copy of it for you if it is allowed and will make you feel better.
 
 
+30 # likeike 2011-03-08 01:09
ok please upload the copy for all of us to see. thanks for offering.
 
 
-41 # rodonuc 2011-03-08 09:50
Love to...don't currently see a way to post pictures here..however judging by most of the comments here you wouldn't believe it anyway after all you refuse to look up what I've said which is all verifiable...ob viously I cannot trump the intellectually incurious mind. Ta Ta...check out Chan 503 on Star Choice and see where Shaw broadcasts from and how programming is sent to, combined, compressed, encrypted and streamed to ANIK (Canadian Sats)...Ku band...better yet...call or write Shaw Communication and tell them you think I'm a liar. Shaw's main office is in Calgary, Alberta last I checked.
 
 
-43 # rodonuc 2011-03-06 10:34
No condescension intended but I'm guessing you are not Canadian and have a layman's idea of how communications work...so to be fair, I'll get you what I can find on how this all technically works from another source if you like.
 
 
+30 # yonder 2011-07-24 14:52
I don't think that someone who can't figure out how to use imageshack or any of the other dozens of other image hosting sites and then paste a simple URL has any right to condescend about how communications work. Any five year old can figure out how to upload a picture and then paste the URL that they're given.

You haven't done a single thing here except argue without recognizing an ounce of truth. The best way to end a legitimate debate on Shakespeare is to argue about the alphabet. People need to quit feeding you.
 
 
+55 # TheeBigJC 2011-03-08 22:46
rodunuc says "I am trying to figure out why FOX USA lies are OK and FOX Canada lies are not."

That's easy. The Canadian government rightfully doesn't care about the US. They care about Canada. They are not in the business of protecting a foreign country from itself. They are in the business of protecting Canadians. Who cares if Canadians believe weird stuff about the States, the US is as foreign a country as China, and we believe all kinds of weird stuff about China.

I am glad that Fox is not allowed to make up fake news about Canada for Canadians. But I couldn't care less that they do that in their own country, or that we can see that foreign fake news by the awesome power of satellite.
 
 
-37 # rodonuc 2011-03-08 23:54
Actually what I said was that if Canada doesn't permit lies to be transmitted from Canada, then why is FOX retransmitted from Canadian soil via sat. companies there when the Gov. could block sat. companies from getting a FOX feed with it's lies instead of letting them send it to your ANIK sats from Canadian soil. It's the irony of RFK's argument to me. Whether you have disdain for the USA or FOX or me is another matter in which you are fully entitled the freedom to do. I try to not argue with opinions, everyone has one and everyone is sure theirs is right and I've no desire to quibble on that level.
 
 
+33 # liberal in tx. 2011-04-03 20:37
Let me try to break this down for you. They have seen Fox USA, therefore they see how FoxUSA lies 24/7 about USA affairs and they would rather not have FoxCanada lying about Canadians affairs. So they refuse to lift the no lying about the news rule. As a result Fox corporate chooses not to participate in the nightly newscast.
The fact you can still see Fox lie about everything in USA is irrelevant
 
 
+17 # sdbates12 2011-06-05 22:55
Yes, it seems you are just trying to be Obtuse.
 
 
-41 # rodonuc 2011-03-05 13:09
Oh...regarding American First Amendment vs. Canadian Charter of Rights...the Charter has the ability to curtail speech under certain circumstances if you look at it closely and the history of the interpretation of the document by the state.
 
 
+41 # cl 2011-03-05 16:11
The USA also curtails free speech. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater, or incite riots. Even in the US, free speech is not totally free.
 
 
-28 # rodonuc 2011-03-05 18:46
You are correct...there are a very limited number of things you can't do with speech in the USA...however, we do allow lying...if we didn't we'd have no politicians.... ;-)
 
 
+15 # radickle 2011-03-18 19:10
Rodonuc:

I am Canadian, and I fall more to the left than to the right, politically.

I think you may have hit the contentious point above. Your comments have been interesting thus far, however, as a Canadian, I could see only one thing creating friction for a new broadcaster seeking to settle a central office in Canada: the Charter vs the First Amendment.

Freedom isn't assumed in speech in Canada. It's earned with the acceptance of fellow listeners, fellow Canadians.

The mechanics are much different for you lovely neighbours (Canadian spelling!). You value individual rights much more highly in speech and the written word.

It is possible that SUN wasn't able to make the case, in the same way that so many other networks were delayed or outright denied broadcast privileges in Canada: Al Jezeera, a few Italian broadcasters, and so on. I no longer have the list of them, but preserving Canadian sovereignty is much more important than the worry of tainted news coverage. It happens all the time up here!

Fox might not be everyone's bag (it certainly isn't mine), but I doubt the denial was because of it's "style" of journalism. Upholding the Charter (or proving they could do it) would be a greater hurdle to overcome.
 
 
-59 # Joe Schmidt 2011-03-05 17:21
Quoting rodonuc:
Hate to break the news to ya...but FOX has been broadcasting on Canadian Sat for years now...Chan 305 on Star Choice...

So...if Canada doesn't allow stations that lie to broadcast and it allows FOX to broadcast does it then follow that FOX does not lie??

I am so sorry to hear that we will not have fox news north in Quebec! I have been waiting for so long now! It is sad that we don't have the same opportunity that other Province have. Please if someone have the power to do something about it and to give us the choices of chanels we want, that would make me very happy. Thank you for explaining so well how things works in broadcasting in Canada or USA.
Joe
 
 
+12 # beccy 2011-03-06 17:27
Exactly... Starchoice sat.

Regular cable, regular news.
 
 
+14 # peter-in-canada 2011-03-07 11:40
Actually, we allow Fox television programming, but I can never remember watching Fox News in Canada. They broadcast sitcoms or some such in the "news" slot instead.
 
 
-31 # rodonuc 2011-03-07 12:53
Peter muh man...chan 503 Star Choice all FOX NEWS 24/7 and exactly the same as FOX USA...the actually only difference I can see it that Star Choice FOX arrives here 5 seconds before it dose on Direct Dish...you can check Shaw's Star Choice Programming....
 
 
+8 # Winnie 2011-03-08 10:02
We do have Fox News Live, I have it along with MSNBC, CNN et al. FNL does not broadcast in Quebec.
 
 
+27 # RobertT 2011-03-07 11:46
Al Jezeera broadcasts in Canada as do stations from all over the world. FOX does not have a Canadian station in Canada. They can not do in Canada, what they do and transmit from the U.S. You must be a Harperite.
 
 
-19 # rodonuc 2011-03-07 12:56
As Al Jezeera is piped in and retransmitted to ANIK sats, so too is FOX New USA...that's a fact..that FOX has no office in Canada is probably correct. I've been called a lot of things but never a "Harperite" but I'll ad that to my resume...thanx
 
 
+55 # grizzelda 2011-03-07 11:54
i am a canadian with satellite tv. yes, fox is available to watch. how else can we know how corrupt and ridiculous it is? i get my daily dose of fox programming from jon stewart.
 
 
-32 # rodonuc 2011-03-07 12:58
Exactly...free speech...let FOX in and if they are liars, point it out that's what it's all about....I watch Jon too, and Bill Marhr who is not a FOX fan either...but I prefer Corner Gas re-runs....;-)
 
 
+25 # mcpogo 2011-03-10 11:43
Anyone who believes a thing the right wing jackasses on FOX say deserves to live in the USA - Going to Hell in a Right-Wing Handbasket!
 
 
-31 # rodonuc 2011-03-10 12:55
This post below is the prefect example of why we have free speech as this post says so much more about the poster than any of the poster's subject matter.
--------------- --------
Quoting mcpogo:
Anyone who believes a thing the right wing jackasses on FOX say deserves to live in the USA - Going to Hell in a Right-Wing Handbasket!
 
 
+40 # clarinetman 2011-03-28 13:07
Mr. R,
Your opinions in no way reflect the reality of how many Americans feel about Faux news. To this point your minuses are well over 1,000. You are using the same tactic that Faux news uses to spread their propaganda.

The US would be well advised to stop the lying on its airwaves.
 
 
+20 # Edujustice2005 2011-03-17 04:05
Edujustice2005: @ rodonuc; I can see you are for fox and therefore it would make you a liar also! I would not listen to fox if I was dying and they would save my life if I listen to them. They (ones on fox) will lie to you if you ask them their name. So as for me, tell all those at fox to go back into that damn hole they came from! The USA would be better and some one else could use the air and spaces they are now using.
 
 
+20 # Leonard Evans 2011-03-22 12:17
The issue is 'over the air' broadcasts. Satellite and cable are PRIVATE networks, not the PUBLIC airwaves of the citizens. Notice there is no radio coverage either for these liars! What do you say to that?
I'll help. Vote Dems and have a chance. Vote GOP and abandon ALL hope!
 
 
+12 # brenner 2011-03-26 02:43
rodunuc; Satillilte is not considered "broadcasting". Not legally anyway, so the same rules do not apply.
 
 
-42 # rodonuc 2011-03-04 11:29
Sorry....Star Choice 503 is FOX News...right numbers, wrong sequence....
 
 
+10 # Robert F Jaeger 2011-03-14 10:41
The Airways belong To The Public and Fox News Should have To Be Accountable For Their Lies while Useing The Air Ways to do It And That Should Apply Across The Board---The Republicans In This Country Like The Lies On Fox news Because They Could Not Survive Without Lieing to The Middle Class----Someth ing needs To Be Done In The US leslature--But That Wont Happen While We Have A Republican Majority---The Democrats Should Have Corrected This Problem While They Had The Majority---So They Have To Bear Some Of The Blame Too
 
 
-13 # Buddyfreedom 2011-03-24 11:07
Let me get this straight. Liberalism is truth, honesty, integrity. Conservatism is Lying, distortion, deception of the truth.
Shouldn't any news agency and their reporters, present both sides of the issue, then let an intelligent public make up its own mind. Shouldn't this be the same for America or Canada.
 
 
-15 # peek 2011-08-09 12:17
Typical RFK gobblygook as he flies around in his private jet. As usual, RFK is full of bunk. Fox News is in Canada and has been since 2003. The rejection was for a new Fox US/Canada blended show, a redundancy. Cable stations have decided that they want Canadian based shows, not more imports.

From news Canada:
"In 2003, the Canadian Radio-televisio n and Telecommunicati ons Commission (CRTC) rejected a Canadian Cable Telecommunicati ons Association (CCTA) application to bring Fox News to Canada because Fox News U.S. and Global Television were planning to create Fox News Canada, a combination of U.S. and Canadian news. However in 2004, after a Fox U.S. executive said there were no plans to create the combined channel, the CRTC approved an application to bring Fox News to Canada.

"Fox News Channel is currently offered by Access Communications, Bell TV, Cogeco, Eastlink, Manitoba Telecom Services, Rogers, SaskTel, Shaw Cable, Shaw Direct and Telus TV. A notable exception is Vidéotron, Canada's third largest cable company, which has not added Fox News Channel to its lineup"
 
 
0 # justme16 2013-03-13 06:49
Except that it he does and this is. The whole piece is fiction and you all are lapping it up as if it's truth. You should get the facts before applauding this piece that Lenin would be proud of.
 
 
0 # Cindi 2013-11-09 20:13
Except it's not true. Fox News has been in Canada for years and is not banned, never was.

Not much else is true either, what a sad piece of left wing propaganda.
 
 
0 # genepoole63 2014-03-23 06:23
Censorship of FOX is a tactic to suppress freedom of the press by leftist ideologues. It is an insult to Freedom loving people to have a elite group censor their news to prevent 'confusion' of the masses. Those who use such tactics are no better than dictators that retain power through control of the media.
 
 
+318 # Jay & Lucia Weinroth 2011-03-01 11:06
Oh, Canada! Thank you. Would you please send some of your news programs south?
 
 
+88 # Wotan 2011-03-01 11:50
Jay and Lucia
Very well said!
 
 
+126 # DaveW. 2011-03-01 13:19
Jay and Lucia, "Political dialogue in Canada is marked by,civility,mod esty, honesty,collegi ality, and idealism that have pretty much disappeared on the US airwaves." But Canadians still elected a "George W.Bush mini-me known for having mounted a Bush-like war on government scientists, data collectors, transparency and enlightenment in general." Further,"He is a wizard of all the familiar tools of demagoguery; false patriotism, bigotry,fear,se lfishness and belligerent religiosity." If a guy with Harper's rather "dubious credentials"can get himself elected to the top political job in the Canada WITHOUT the assistance of the pernicious and ubiquitous right wing smear/hate machine that operates 24/7 in the US...well, methinks a bit of "airwave pollution" from down South is making its noxious way up North. How many "dishes", I wonder, do our friends in Canada possess. In any event, anyplace Fox "News" is denied is a victory for somebody.
 
 
+55 # Philly 2011-03-01 19:41
DaveW, We, Canada didn't elect Harper to be to be Prime Minister....he was elected as a simple member of parliament. It happened that he was a member (or the leader) of the conservative party of Canada and was therefore issued the office of p.m. Harper could quit tomorrow and the conservatives would pick some other dude to be p.m. Also, Harper doesn't fully run this country...nothi ng happens here unless the Governor General says so...the G.G. being a representative of the Queen of England in her absence. Our p.m. is NOT allowed to even welcome foreign leaders on this soil...that has to be done by the Governor General or the Queen, herself.
 
 
+39 # Dave in Kelowna 2011-03-01 20:28
Uh, Philly, you may live in Canada but you are clearly out of touch with the way the country is run. Here in Canada the prime minister DOES indeed run the country, and the anachromatic office of Governor General makes no policy whatsoever, makes no decisions whatsoever, and neither does the Queen. You should come out from the rock you've been under for the last 50 years.
 
 
+5 # DaveW. 2011-03-01 22:51
Dave in Kelowna, When we down here in the lower 48 get news about Canada it more often than not involves something the Prime Minister has said or done. I "assumed" he was the head honcho. You imply I am basically correct. Philly gives me a tongue lashing. A further explanation of how things "really" operate in Canada would be welcome. I simply found Kennedy's article to be rather ambivalent.
 
 
+23 # Tim B 2011-03-02 08:58
DaveW., you are right. The Queen and her representative, the Governor General, are merely figurehead leaders. They have no say in any policy. In Canada, just like in England, the Queen is only a tradition and is purely ceremonial. The monarchy had been slowly ceding power since the Charter of Liberties (1100) and the Magna Carta (1215), until the overthrow of King James II in the Glorious Revolution of 1688-1689. That was the accepted start of England's parliamentary democracy. So today in both countries, the Prime Minister and Parliament run the country.
 
 
+23 # DaveW. 2011-03-01 22:46
Philly, You and Dave in Kelowna below you seem to be in a bit of a disagreement. I don't believe the Queen is making ANY political decisions at any level, anywhere, unless its something to do with the catering at the next "royal" wedding. I admit not having a full knowledge of the exact duties,or lack thereof of the Prime Minister and the Governor General. My intent was not to denigrate Canada merely to suggest that Kennedy's article gives a somewhat "Utopian political viewpoint" despite the fact that the "highest ranking official"in Canada's government is basically equated to a right wing ideological dirtbag. My apologies if I've offended. We Americans don't have a helluva lot to brag about nowadays in a political vein so I was not pointing the finger at the workings of a foreign government in a disrespectful manner.
 
 
+5 # Wolfchen 2011-03-02 11:25
So then...perhaps it might be worthy of further analysis the quandary presented by Canada having given the Conservative Party the mantle of power. It might also be of benefit to analyze why Canada continues to subject itself to British royalty. Even many Brits question the wisdom of maintaining the costs of such a system of government.
 
 
-36 # Graeme 2011-03-02 17:22
The Queen is Queen of Canada, as well as being Queen of the United Kingdom, Australia, etc.

It is not British royalty. The Crown is a Canadian institution. Perhaps if you Yanks were intelligent, you would have kept it. The Crown is a force for stability. The Queen, or Governor General, protects our constitution from tampering by the politicians. Frankly, it works quite well
 
 
+37 # DaveW. 2011-03-02 21:40
Graeme, "Perhaps if you Yanks were intelligent..." "The Crown is a force for stability." The Queen is a figurehead with no political power whose family siphons off ENORMOUS amount of wealth from the citizens of the United Kingdom for basically doing nothing. By your inane supposition NO Yanks are deserving of the moniker of the intelligence which you have no doubt bestowed upon yourself. Ethnocentrism is NOT a desirable attribute. We're mighty screwed up politically in America at this moment but at least we don't engage in the farce of bestowing fealty upon the "royal" family. The Crown's only force is the continued usurping of tax dollars from those who seem rooted in antediluvian thinking. Thanks for letting me know that parochial attitudes and churlish insults are not exclusive to your neighbors to the South. If you study a bit of WWll history you'll see that there would be NO crown whatsoever if not for the military intervention of the United States. So, whilst you bask in the self-anointed glow of superiority, do try and get over yourself a bit. I'm sure there are MANY well informed and well mannered Canadians. Two lists your not likely to attain.
 
 
+14 # Winterhawke 2011-03-05 10:36
For your information, the Queen pays full taxes on her income, at HER request! And if YOU knew your history, you would know that she does a tremendous amount. She has a workday that would fell a younger person, and she never takes a day off. Will you be able to do that when you are 80 something? She deserves more respect than the likes of Stephen Harper, who is a petty dictator and right wing religious fanatic.
 
 
+17 # Lady-Light 2011-03-03 09:40
Dear Dave & Philly,

I’m a Montreal / Canadian and I agree with both your points.
I, personally, never voted Harper in… I’ve been cancelling my vote for 14 yrs now, because I don’t know what devil to vote for. They don’t give you much choice O_o. Philly is correct though, he really never got voted in, it was convenient at the time (ongoing), to have him there and he truly has no power …. Just a face that represents a bigger “BIG GIANT HEAD” ….. the only difference between the US and Canada is that in the US, they rob you/rape you/lie to you … in YO face ….. Canada, well, they’ll do it with a passive aggressive streak …. Candy-coated with sugar plums & fairies ….. in the end, the skeletons will eventually fall out of the closet … but I won’t be here to see it.
 
 
+3 # Winterhawke 2011-03-05 10:32
You don't know your Canadian history! The GG is a *figurehead* only. She has NO real power. When Harper prorogued parliament the last time, he would have done so even if the GG had tried to say no. Read a current Canadian history book! Harper's asking permission is just a courtesy. He can pretty much do what he wants unless the House votes him down.
 
 
+7 # Mark In Irvine 2011-03-01 19:56
I think Dave W has a point about the guy being elected.
 
 
+39 # Noir 2011-03-03 02:53
Harper actually has less than 35% of the vote in Canada. There are 4 large political parties: The NDP (socialist), Liberal (centre left), The Conservatives (right), and the Bloc Quebecois (Quebec nationalist party, but they're socialist too). There's also the Green Party, who had one elected member but lost him in the last election; however they usually poll around 8%.

Between 65 and 70 percent of eligible voters in Canada lean left, the problem is that vote is split between 4 different parties, while the right only has 1; they're used to be 2, but they merged in 2004 I believe. Hence why Harper is in power.

Hope that helps you out a little, my Yankee friends.
 
 
+4 # DaveW. 2011-03-03 10:51
Noir, Thanks for more details on your system. One point: If between 65 and 70 percent of eligible voters in Canada lean left...why would their vote be split between "four" parties? You identify only "one" party as being Conservative. Wouldn't left leaning voters be splitting their votes between "three" parties?
 
 
+22 # aCanuck 2011-03-03 11:28
Actually, ALL the other parties are left leaning in Canada (Liberals are closer to central than the others though). So, that means the left vote across the country is split between the Liberals, the NDP, the Bloc Quebecois, and the Green Party (very small party, but does get votes).

A very right leaning conservative party merged with a more centrist conservative party and managed in the last two elections to get elected as a MINORITY government. This is key. They do NOT have the majority of the vote in Canada, but can lead as a minority government right now. Stephen Harper originally led that more right leaning conservative party and now, after getting power, appears more centrist to attempt to persuade the Canadian population to give him a majority government which would give him and his conservatives more power.
 
 
+24 # aCanuck 2011-03-03 11:30
More information: Of note, the party with a majority government prior to the conservatives getting in was the liberals and they are actually the ones mostly responsible for the economic health that Canada now has in this recession (they built the sturdy foundation, although the conservatives take all the credit because they have implemented a stimulus program since). However, there was a political scandal with the liberals that left them on shaky grounds with the general population. The conservatives took advantage of this scandal, thus why they are now in power as a minority government.

Hope this clears some things up. Also, Canadians do have access to Fox news here. And, of note, even our most right leaning conservatives are TAME compared to the US right.
 
 
+7 # Em North 2011-03-17 12:01
Here in Canada even a conservative is, by U.S.standards, a left leaning socialist. We are also taught a great deal about events outside our country, and learn very early on to read and listen to foreign news with discernment and skepticism. In a culture like that is is "safe" to expose the masses to controversial and radical ideas - we know how to sort out the crap. Neither Al Jazeera or Fox have any real influence here, we use them as contrast to better understand real news.
 
 
+5 # astrida 2011-04-14 15:40
Em North, I fear you give our compatriots too much credit. Nobody is safe from lazy thinking, and there's plenty evidence of lazy brain and self-satisfied apathy in Canada.
There's already plenty of crap being offered and accepted as factual in Canadian media. We don't need Fox North to increase the load.
 
 
+22 # Noir 2011-03-03 12:07
It's 4 parties if you include the Greens (which you should because they usually have close to 10% of the popular vote).

Also the Bloc Quebecois seems to play spoiler a lot of the time since their inception in the early 90's (during the Quebec sovereignty referendum). They only run in Quebec which gives them a huge funding advantage, and they tend to take about 60% of the seats for that province (which is also the second largest province with a huge amount of seats). Their

The system works well if one party gets the majority of the seats, so they can govern without interruption. It also works well if the PM, under a minority gov't (less than half the seats), works with the opposition to get legislation passed; as it did in the 60's under PM Pearson. During that gov't we passed the Canada Healthcare Act, got a new flag (what you see today), and passed a bill to allow gays to serve openly in the military (yes, we passed that in the 60s!). Unfortunately our present PM doesn't work like that.

However, our campaign rules are awesome. Parties have $1000 dollar limits on per person donations. That for the most part prevents too much corporate infiltration in the political system. I think that's the most messed up thing about the American system. It's not the number of parties u have, it's corporate $ that fund them
 
 
+18 # Daniel M C. 2011-03-02 06:51
Hello DaveW.

Stephen Harper's predecessor was booted out because the Liberal Party was caught running financing scams. Stephen Hargper became premier more by default than actual merit. The current Liberal Leader is inept and about as convincing as a used car salesperson. Harper will be re-elected more by default than anythnig else.
 
 
+13 # DaveW. 2011-03-02 09:34
Daniel M.C. Thanks Daniel! Your description of the situation in Canada doesn't sound a helluva lot different from that which we are experiencing down here in the states. In other words, it appears leaders of both parties offer a choice between a rock and a hard spot. If that's the case I'm sorry to hear it. Canada's close proximity to the U.S. may indeed be having pestilential effects. Still, from what I understand, your boots are infinitely cleaner than mine. Thanks again for the clarification.
 
 
+27 # H Taggart 2011-03-02 11:57
Canada has a parliamentary system of government which permits more than two parties in government. The liberal Party isn't liberal. The New Democratic Parry is the real liberal party. The party that gets the most votes gets to form the government if it can put together a majority which often means a coalition with one or more other parties. That party's leader becomes the Prime Minister. It's a far more democratic system than the US has.
 
 
-25 # brian 2011-03-02 16:25
GOOD! The U.S. doesn't subjugate it's States and the People to a "democracy". We're a Republic, for as long as we can keep it!
 
 
+33 # DaveW. 2011-03-02 21:47
brian, And soon we'll be a "Banana Republic." For as long as we can keep it. The "we" of course being the fascist bastards who are pulling the puppet strings of our elected officials.
 
 
+37 # DaveW. 2011-03-02 21:44
H Taggart, We have no "system" in the U.S. other than who has the most money and can lie better than his/her opponent. I envy you with a word of caution. DON'T follow our lead. You'll be awful sorry if you do.
 
 
-1 # TheeBigJC 2011-03-08 23:00
DaveW. writes "Canada's close proximity to the U.S. may indeed be having pestilential effects."

The US does indeed send waves of nauseating media across our border everyday, but the random chance of how election numbers pan out here has absolutely nothing to do with whatever the aitch is going on in the USofA. Don't pat yourselves on your swollen heads too much now.
 
 
+4 # Minister Faust 2011-03-03 11:43
DaveW., understand that we have a first-past-the- post multiparty system without instant run-off voting here. So majority parliaments are almost always elected by a minority of the population (and currently, it's a minority government).

It's also a constitutional monarchy; we don't vote for the executive, just our local member of parliament.
 
 
+2 # rrchapman 2011-03-03 20:36
Dave W.,

The Rt. Hon. Stephen Harper was only elected a member of Parliament, not prime minister. He happens to lead the Conservative Party of Canada, which happens to have the most seats in the Commons, so he is the prime minister. But, Harper could resign tomorrow and new elections would not necessarily be needed.

The catch is that the current Conservative government in Canada is in the minority. Harper must find agreement with at least one of the parties in the Commons (NDP, Liberal, Bloc) to pass anything. That includes revoking current law, too.

The repeal wasn't going to happen. If started, Fox News North will have to tell the truth. But then, it would look pretty much like the CBC or CTV.

Maybe Fox News North could show naked breasts?
 
 
+13 # Davin from Canada 2011-03-03 20:59
Quoting DaveW.:
If a guy with Harper's rather "dubious credentials"can get himself elected to the top political job in the Canada WITHOUT the assistance of the pernicious and ubiquitous right wing smear/hate machine that operates 24/7 in the US...well, methinks a bit of "airwave pollution" from down South is making its noxious way up North.


Sorry man, but you're so wrong that it hurts to even read your post. I don't want to sound mean, but the big problem that makes a lot of American's confused about Canadian government is the fact that they think it runs the same way that theirs does. And it doesn't.

I can't stress this enough: elections here in Canada are NOT won. They're lost.

As far as I've been alive in Canada (nearly 30 years) there hasn't been a single election where a party overcame and "won" their spot in power because of a campaign or platform. Every time there's been a change of power it's been because the party in power managed to screw up on something that pushed the wrong buttons on the Canadian public and we've thrown them out of office, not because the other party has a great campaign.

Just thought I'd straighten that out for you. Carry on.
 
 
+5 # mikefriday 2011-03-05 00:00
It should be noted that only 36% of Canadian voters elected the "George W.Bush mini-me." We have three opposition parties in the current Parliament here in Canada (and a fourth, the Green Party, that enjoys considerable support -- all to the left of Harper's Cons ). Because of this vote-splitting (and regionalized support in a first-past-the- post system), Harper has been able to form a minority government with only a third of the vote. A significant majority of Canadians do not support Harper and his policies.
 
 
+9 # pdorland 2011-03-05 08:34
Canada is not quite the paragon of democracy that is suggested by the article, although citizen pressure on the Canadian Radio and Television Commission was one example of a flicker still burning. It is not quite as dark in Canada as it appears to be in the US, but like the US, Canada has been been leaning more and right, (due to the power of corporations) and with the apathy of voters in the 2008 election, which resulted in barely 59% voter turn out, the lowest ever, it was not hard for Harper and his neo-con fundamentalist right-wingers to get a minority government with 36% of the vote. So we Canadians now have a theocractic psuedo-dictator who is secretive and lies, tells his ministers to lie, and uses government resources for partisan politics. His list of audacities is long.

Canadians are as disgusted with politics as many Americans are. Conservatives, like Republicans, are intent on dismantling the freedoms so arduously won over decades and making it even more a free-for-all as long as you are a corporation or one of the wealthy elite. No much different than south of the border, sad to say. Thank heavens the decision made by Canadian Radio and Television Commission helps Canadians to retain at least a hint of democracy.

For information on Harper & his governing style read Lawrence Martin's Harperland, or Marci McDonald's The Armageddon Factor.
 
 
+5 # citicen joe 2011-03-08 12:24
Canadians ... please, don't do like we have been doing since the "Reagan years". Unless of course you want to end up like us ... and rename your country
"Canada Inc." and all of you will become corporate soldiers of sorts.
 
 
+31 # Shelagh Young 2011-03-01 15:43
Quoting Jay & Lucia Weinroth:
Oh, Canada! Thank you. Would you please send some of your news programs south?


The CBC is available on the net. As, of course is your own DEMOCRACY NOW.
 
 
+12 # mia/canuck 2011-03-02 23:00
We are already sending you our actors and comedians!
 
 
0 # Stan Anderson 2011-03-04 01:46
Seriously, what Canadian news programming can we ask for in the U.S.?
 
 
+132 # kathryn B 2011-03-01 11:27
Wait, it's LEGAL to lie or mislead in broadcast "news"? WTF?
 
 
+103 # ToddLo 2011-03-01 12:08
Fox proved it in court over a news story in FL a number of years back. They'd stiffed some freelance journalists because they didn't like the conclusion the story came to. The journalists sued, but the courts decided that Fox wasn't required to be truthful, because that would violate their right to Free Speech:

http://ceasespin.org/ceasespin_blog/ceasespin_blogger_files/fox_news_gets_okay_to_misinform_public.html
 
 
+43 # shyrl 2011-03-01 13:26
why didn't someone/some group appeal the decision? "Freedom of speech does not give the right to falsely yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre"...Oliv er Wendell Holmes

Quoting ToddLo:
Fox proved it in court over a news story in FL a number of years back. They'd stiffed some freelance journalists because they didn't like the conclusion the story came to. The journalists sued, but the courts decided that Fox wasn't required to be truthful, because that would violate their right to Free Speech:

http://ceasespin.org/ceasespin_blog/ceasespin_blogger_files/fox_news_gets_okay_to_misinform_public.html
 
 
+36 # zoltan eudoxia 2011-03-01 13:58
Quoting shyrl:
why didn't someone/some group appeal the decision? "Freedom of speech does not give the right to falsely yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre"...Oliver Wendell Holmes

Quoting ToddLo:
Fox proved it in court over a news story in FL a number of years back. They'd stiffed some freelance journalists because they didn't like the conclusion the story came to. The journalists sued, but the courts decided that Fox wasn't required to be truthful, because that would violate their right to Free Speech:

http://ceasespin.org/ceasespin_blog/ceasespin_blogger_files/fox_news_gets_okay_to_misinform_public.html


but as a.j. liebling noted, "freedom of the press is only guaranteed to those who own one". and murdock owns 1 of the biggest.
 
 
+21 # Kimc 2011-03-02 00:36
Quoting shyrl:
why didn't someone/some group appeal the decision? "Freedom of speech does not give the right to falsely yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre"...Oliver Wendell Holmes


They didn't appeal it because they didn't know what grounds to appeal it on. Our Constitution doesn't say anything about public honesty, having assumed it. I will now give you the grounds to appeal it on:
Lying is theft. When you lie to me you steal my ability to make decisions based on reality.
 
 
+8 # jackiemearound 2011-03-03 16:43
I fear the founding fathers assumed that there would be honor and honesty in fourth estate. Their bad. Make no assumptions that crooked lawyers can twist to suit their rich clients.
 
 
+2 # cl 2011-03-05 16:19
Do you know if there has been any discussion about regulating the media in that regard, i.e. making laws so that if one were to call themselves "news", they should make attempts at presenting the truth?

We already have regulations here in the states for what can constitute as "organic" when it comes to food. Seems like there should be some discussion about accurate labeling of the media.
 
 
-20 # Jeff Haley 2011-03-01 13:48
Yes, an it is OK for our lawmakers and President to lay to us also!
 
 
+17 # DaveW. 2011-03-02 09:37
Jeff Haley, Lied to, if we must be, is quite sufficient thank you. I certainly don't want to be "laid" by our lawmakers or President!
 
 
-31 # forparity 2011-03-02 11:10
True enough. We had one of those during the Enron era. Lying, sex in the oval office with a very young unpaid volunteer worker, a decade of millions of deaths from conflicts (worst since WW II) and historic greed and fraud. Thank you Pres. Clinton.
 
 
+36 # X Dane 2011-03-02 16:38
Forparity, Clintons behavior was low class and S T U P I D. (Particularly considering , that he wanted to be president since he was a boy) His affair wit a rather slutty intern, (showing her underwear to the president??) Did not get anybody killed.

Bush lied, to get us into war. Thousands have been killed, it is far from over, and he is still lying, so in my book Bush's lies are D E A D L Y, Clinton's were stupid
 
 
+14 # DaveW. 2011-03-02 17:16
forparity, "Kenny Boy" was emblematic of the "Enron Era." We know who gave him the nickname and it wasn't, no matter how hard you try to imply, Bill Clinton. The "millions" of deaths you refer to were not due to the overt actions of Clinton anymore than Bush was overtly responsible for the Russians actions in Georgia. Bush, in my opinion, and the "educated opinion" of the Association of Engineers and Architects of America was complicit in the 9/11 attacks that killed over 2,700 fellow Americans and launched us into two wars that have killed hundreds of thousands, perhaps more than a million,besides displacing millions from their homes and bankrolling debauched industries such as Halliburton, Lockheed-Martin , Bechtel and many others. Clinton sold Democratic ideals down the river just as Obama is doing right now. Bush was a "puppet" making ridiculous proclamations of "mission accomplished" then "hiding"out on the ranch in Crawford shivering at the thought he might have to face Cindy Sheehan. Clinton, in acquiescence with Sen. Phil Graham and other Conservatives began the orgy of "historic greed and fraud" with the abolishment of Glass/Stegall and the implementation of NAFTA. Bush and the "wrecking crew" finished the job and left the country in the worst financial condition it had been in since 1929. Thank you Presidents. Clinton...Bush. ..Obama.
 
 
-19 # forparity 2011-03-03 18:00
"Kenny Boy" was emblematic of the "Enron Era."

As often is the case, my previous attempt to respond was banned..

Shorter version. Yes - I'd noted. Lay is indeed emblematic of the "Enron Era," i.e., the late 90's, which is emblematic of the Clinton era. Not only did Enron get favored treatment from Commerce Dep't (first Brown, then Daily - Obama's new guy) but got $billions in government guaranteed loans from the Clinton admin - which the Bush admin, refused to renew when they came into power.
 
 
+19 # Gary Ray Pierson 2011-03-01 13:55
Quoting kathryn B:
Wait, it's LEGAL to lie or mislead in broadcast "news"? WTF?

Only in America, South Africa, Libya, England, Germany, etc.. and the bar down the street.. ^i^
 
 
+22 # Capn Canard 2011-03-01 14:06
Of course kathryn! And not only is it legal it is Standard Operating Procedure. Lets keep in mind that Propaganda was an American invention started on that famous Avenue of lies: Madison Avenue. Re-telling a story until the outcome fits the preconceived outcome. Most people call this advertising, marketing, branding and re-branding, among other euphemisms. But NOW it is a NEW! and IMPROVED! form of deception meant to part you from your money with more AMAZING SATISFACTION POWER!
 
 
+10 # Nanna 2011-03-01 20:49
Quoting kathryn B:
Wait, it's LEGAL to lie or mislead in broadcast "news"? WTF?

You're just figuring this out??
 
 
0 # Ms. Jacque 2014-01-19 05:20
yes #Nanna, i too was surprised to hear this..It is not illegal to lie when one reports news. Often it is a lot of work to FIND the REAL news....

I wonder what anyone can do about that? Guess it's a matter of TRUST.
 
 
+97 # GeorgeNJ 2011-03-01 11:31
If our good friends to the north can have a law like that, why can't we in the United States? Aren't we the heirs of our founding fathers who wanted (as Lincoln said it) a government of the PEOPLE, by the PEOPLE and for the PEOPLE?
 
 
+21 # jersey joe 2011-03-01 12:40
These are regulators that did this. In the USA we believe in de- regulation.
 
 
+44 # raine51 2011-03-01 13:09
we used to. reagan's administration gutted it.
 
 
-4 # forparity 2011-03-02 11:12
Well, take a little look at PBS's Frontline production titled, The Warning..

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/
 
 
+1 # forparity 2011-03-03 12:44
Why do so many people here object to an education? thumbs down? The documentary stars Brooksley Born.
 
 
+14 # Jawbone Grouch 2011-03-01 15:29
Quoting GeorgeNJ:
If our good friends to the north can have a law like that, why can't we in the United States? Aren't we the heirs of our founding fathers who wanted (as Lincoln said it) a government of the PEOPLE, by the PEOPLE and for the PEOPLE?


HOW IN HELL COULD OUR POLITICIANS OPERATE if they were hogtied like that during campaigns and in The House and The Senate where they lie every day.

Come ON! give 'em a break!

Besides they'd be tongue tied with that facing them.

Nice thought, though.
 
 
-179 # Robert Eagle 2011-03-01 11:39
So let me get this straight, the lying legislators on both sides of the isle, particularly Pelosi, Reid, Frank and Dodd are ok by you? Very good reporting!
 
 
+142 # Carolyn Taylor 2011-03-01 12:30
So let us get this straight, R Eagle: Do you get your news exclusively from Fox? Whatever the explanation, you're showing the effects of a Fox-like fomenting at the mouth, agenda-driven, and ignoring the issue at hand: This story is not about politicians lying (which they do on both sides of the aisle - not sure which "isle" [sic] you're on). This is about the media lying. It's their job to be guarantors of truth-seeking information about all sides. News organizations of all stripes fail us in this regard, alas, repeatedly. But Fox News doesn't even try. It hopes to dupe listeners with a mantra of "fair and balanced" that they don't really even pretend to apply. They are the epitome of self-righteous and unbalanced. The proof is that other media organizations regularly debunk and expose both sides of the aisle (e.g., MSNBC has been ruthless in holding Obama's feet to the fire). The fact that Fox never blasts its rightwing gods fuels, apparently, a listenership that is thirsty to believe it's on the side of the saints -- and to believe that the reason Fox never investigates and exposes their preferred leaders' sins is because sins are all on the other side of the aisle (or, as you prefer, isle). Heaven help us.

Good for the Canadians - even if they elect a skunk, they don't then just roll over and play dead.
 
 
+21 # Oliver Tanguay 2011-03-01 14:46
I'm with you up to "they don't then just roll over and play dead." In this case I think it was point-and-click democracy that defeated Harper's latest move. Sadly, it takes an awful lot to get us onto the streets. I mean, we not only elected him -- we *re*elected him! Granted, the opposition hasn't much to offer, but this man is an autocrat and for the most part nobody gets too worked up. God help us if an election is called this spring.
Quoting Carolyn Taylor:
stripes fail us in this regard, alas, repeatedly. But Fox News doesn't even try. It hopes to dupe listeners with a mantra of "fair and balanced" that they don't really even pretend to apply. They are the epitome of self-righteous and unbalanced. The proof is that other media organizations regularly debunk and expose both sides of the aisle (e.g., MSNBC has been ruthless in holding Obama's feet to the fire). The fact that Fox never blasts its rightwing gods fuels, apparently, a listenership that is thirsty to believe it's on the side of the saints -- and to believe that the reason Fox never investigates and exposes their preferred leaders' sins is because sins are all on the other side of the aisle (or, as you prefer, isle). Heaven help us.

Good for the Canadians - even if they elect a skunk, they don't then just roll over and play dead.
 
 
-51 # forparity 2011-03-02 11:33
Caryolyn. I watch MSNBC every day. I watch Fox every day. I watch CNN every day.

Fox has numerous varieties of shows (not unlike the other outlets: news, panel discussions, and one pure opinion show (Beck)).

Fox's hosts,correspon dents, etc., have never been shy about pounding on the R's.

While Fox's angle does come from the conserative side (representing more than 1/2 of the country), they do host Democratic and socialist guests on a constant and regular basis.

MSNBC, on the other hand, generally does not entertain the concept of having conservatives on their shows to be interviewed.

I find that some of the most entertaining and informed, discussions on Fox involve the likes of Dennis Kucinich, Bernie Sanders, Charlie Rangle (always have a good time in their frequent visits).

Studies (inc some from liberal orgs/journalism schools) have shown that Fox News is no more to the right of center than CNN, etc. are to the left.

MSNBC is extremely far to the left of center, and in general shows little respct for the truth - while demonstrating daily doses of hateful divisive name calling, suggestions of death for those on the other side, use of out of context quotes and/or edited clips, vile disgusting descriptions of women, etc.

In fact Maddow has had a very bad streak with the honesty problem.
 
 
+29 # X Dane 2011-03-02 17:18
Forparity that is B S. MSNBC has asked and does have a number of Right wingers on the various programs; but a some R W don't have the guts to go on, for they know they will not get the softball questions they get on Fox.

Rachel Maddow is one of the sharpest reporters, and you are full of it, for she is HONEST and when she makes a mistake she comes on later and corrects it. Your beloved Fox sure doesn't do that.

Fox is not right of Center??? What are you drinking? CNN at times sounds rather foxy, they are not left wing.
 
 
+24 # DaveW. 2011-03-02 17:23
forparity, What "studies", be specific about your nonsense. Maddow "regularly invites those with opposing viewpoints on her show. She does it on the air. Explain to us all why Obama will, and has, appeared on Fox, but Bush NEVER appeared on MSNBC? The fact of the matter is...is that Bush NEVER appeared ANYWHERE except in front of handpicked, scripted crowds or military bases where his subordinates wouldn't dare speak up.
 
 
+7 # RickyD 2011-03-03 08:50
Unfortunately, your comments lack the same level of honesty and integrity as we find on Fox News. Fox is the only station that employees politicians to provide "unbiased" commentary. Newt, Huckabee, Palin, Santorum who are on their payroll and sell their books. To say that "Maddow has an honesty problem" is a fiction without facts to back it up. And if MSNBC may not have enough Conservatives on their programs, it is because they don't want to be fooled by the facts and Maddow will ask the tough questions. She has invited many Conservatives on her show and they have declined. Sarah Palin has used Fox to line her own pockets and she is the one that has a mean streak and disregard for the truth.
 
 
+17 # Carolyn Taylor 2011-03-03 10:45
Whose definition of "center" do you go by? Sounds to me like you use Fox's definition. If, instead, you take the latest Wall Street Journal poll as an indication of "center" - see http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704728004576176741120691736.html -- you'll find that 77% of Americans support collective bargaining for public employees, only 18 and 22% want any cuts to Medicare or SS, respectively, only 35% want any social program eliminations (while 59% want either to raise taxes or postpone deficit reduction), 82% support raising taxes on millionaires, 74% support eliminating tax credits for gas/oil industry, 68% support phasing out the Bush tax cuts. So just where is the "center" and how does Fox come anywhere close to center? It's far more (Fox-promoted) myth than reality that Americans have moved the center anywhere near as far to the right as you suppose.

Meanwhile, only one "pure opinion" show, you say? What do you call O'Reilly? Your description of Fox vs. MSNBC sounds exactly like the portrayal Fox itself makes, self-servingly. I'd say your claims about MSNBC apply to Fox instead. And, btw, I have indeed seen Maddow take on conservative guests in extended face-to-face, one-on-one dialogues many times.
 
 
+5 # jackiemearound 2011-03-03 16:56
Horsefeathers! This just shows that you chose to believe what you want to believe and will defend your nonsense tirelessly. In Canada, they haven't gutted the education system with dumbed down learning "curriculum". They teach English, History, and Civics, not Self Esteem, Reading, and Social Studies. They will run rings around most Americans, intellectually. And they can hold their beer better too.
 
 
-2 # Gary Ray Pierson 2011-03-01 13:57
Quoting Robert Eagle:
So let me get this straight, the lying legislators on both sides of the isle, particularly Pelosi, Reid, Frank and Dodd are ok by you? Very good reporting!

Yes it was wasn't it? Glad you noticed.. It's miracle you did! garyray
 
 
+12 # DaveW. 2011-03-01 23:01
Robert Eagle, Nice going! 115 thumbs down!
"The Eagle has Landed!" Just a tip: There aren't ANY thumbs down listening to Rush, Savage, Hannity and the rest of "the cabal of cretins" I'm presuming you listen too. The Bald Eagle is a magnificent bird. But I've yet to meet one named "Bob."
 
 
+90 # Robert Lipton 2011-03-01 11:40
To those Fox News fans who would disingenuously (and with no sense of irony) say: "But what about free speech?"
the reply is: Fox's lies are anything but free of cost.
 
 
+90 # fredboy 2011-03-01 11:43
Please send me immigration instructions. It would be amazing to live in a civil, caring society again.
 
 
+14 # lexx 2011-03-01 19:24
Stay where you are. fredboy. You're always welcome but need to stay where you are to implement that society you crave.
 
 
-1 # Kimc 2011-03-02 00:41
It's too late for America. We're sunk.
 
 
+89 # Betsy Johnson 2011-03-01 11:47
You can hear reasoned discussions on NPR - but the Republicans want to defund that as well. It's the only news outlet I know of in this country that attempts to present unbiased, truthful and non-hysterical news coverage.
 
 
+38 # Rusty G 2011-03-01 13:19
Quoting Betsy Johnson:
You can hear reasoned discussions on NPR - but the Republicans want to defund that as well. It's the only news outlet I know of in this country that attempts to present unbiased, truthful and non-hysterical news coverage.
Betsy J, I listen to NPR, but couldn't get past their ombudsperson on the issue of why they would not air any interviews or programs about a Medicare-for-Al l option during their extensive "horse race" coverage of the health care reform legislation. Canadians have this universal coverage -- we don't. As others here say, it sure would be nice to have Canada's regulations regarding OUR public airwaves so we might have this discussion...
 
 
-23 # Oliver Tanguay 2011-03-01 14:49
Quoting Rusty G:
Quoting Betsy Johnson:
You can hear reasoned discussions on NPR - but the Republicans want to defund that as well. It's the only news outlet I know of in this country that attempts to present unbiased, truthful and non-hysterical news coverage.
Betsy J, I listen to NPR, but couldn't get past their ombudsperson on the issue of why they would not air any interviews or programs about a Medicare-for-All option during their extensive "horse race" coverage of the health care reform legislation. Canadians have this universal coverage -- we don't. As others here say, it sure would be nice to have Canada's regulations regarding OUR public airwaves so we might have this discussion...

Well, universal apart from dentistry and prescriptions ... and physiotherapy ... If you need expensive medications or dental work and you don't have a good plan through your place of employment, it's not universal. Also, it's effectively two-tiered now since Canadians with money go to the U.S.
 
 
+36 # m 2011-03-01 18:37
LOL..!!!

Thats why Nations with Government Run BASIC Health Care Systems for ALL also have thriving Health Insurance Industries.

The Dental aspects of healthcare you speak of barely exist as benefits in America anymore with our private/corpora te run model... TENS of Millions of Americans have absolutely no Dental Insurance coverage whatsoever, so-- LUCKY CANADIANS !

The 'monied' citizens of Canada do not flee in droves to America for better health care. For one, because our health care system , doctors and technology, etc., is not better than Canada's or many other developed countries. And two, because they mostly buy SUPPLEMENTAL HEALTH INSURANCE to gain better coverage over and above their National Health Care's bottom line, just like millions of Medicare recipients do in America.
Same in Britain.
Same in most wise Nations with National Health Care Systems which have Governments less run for the benefit of the 2% wealthy corporate class as America is, and much more for the collective health, safety and benefit of their entire citizenry as THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO DO..!
If we had a National Healthcare System, I guarantee you that Health Insurance Providers would not only survive, they would thrive after adjusting their Corporate Model to fit THE FAR BETTER NATIONAL REALITY OF BASIC UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE FOR ALL AMERICANS..!
 
 
+6 # Kimc 2011-03-02 00:43
Canadian health care is very different depending on which Province you are in, as each has its own.
 
 
-21 # forparity 2011-03-02 14:20
Very interesting point.

Our constitution protects the right for our states to do that as well.

I think that you also ( I believe that you did) raise an interesting point.

I think that each state could provide a safety net of basic care facilities. Actually a former Gov of Texas, Bush, proposed just that when he was gov.

Of course, here again, here in LA we have had nothing but problems with government run health care facilities - like the county hospitals, etc., well, with the ones that the health care regulators haven't closed down yet.
 
 
+19 # DaveW. 2011-03-02 21:59
forparity, "Our constitution protects the right for our states to do that as well."
It's called Federalism, or by its more infamous name...states rights, and its been a shining example of the inequalities that can be foisted upon people when the wrong state legislators and governors get into office. Nixon invented "the Southern Strategy" which was merely code for the enforcement of draconian laws aimed at minorities and the exclusion of same for educational, job and living standards. Yeah, its worked real well...for some.
 
 
+9 # cydfan 2011-03-03 08:44
Yeah, forparity, and I'll bet you're also one of the ones who says,"Look, Texas gets along fine without collective bargaining, why doesn't WI follow its lead?" You are obviously not from Texas or you'd never be able to make that statement with a straight face. I am, therefore, I think, allowed to speak up for at least some of us who can say that GW cared more about spending money on his precious death row(during one year of his governorship he averaged one death per week, or 50 trips to death row) than he did on public health care. If we left it up to governors like Bush, no one in the US would have any coverage. However, if you had been watching the news, Obama put forth an interesting proposition to a meeting of the governors the other day...offering them a chance to come up with their own form of universal care. The only catch was that they HAD to come up with a plan. It seemed they could agree with everything but having to work on their own program. Either they're too lazy or disingenuous about finding a solution. It won't affect them, so why should they care? By the way, county facilities aren't run by the Federal government...th ink about it.
 
 
-20 # forparity 2011-03-03 11:04
Yes, you are apparently allowed to speak whatever you wish.

It was my understanding that most all of the death row issues for which Gov. Bush was given so much flax from the national media, and the far left activists, was in regards to that which he inherited from his predecessor, Ann Richards, D., and over the existing laws in Texas, which he inherited, which greatly limit the Gov's executive power in regards to pardons, stays, etc.

Was born in SA. lived in TX for 10 yrs. LA for 10 yrs. CO for 16 yrs, and on the communist west coast, Los Angeles for 23 more. And Bush did support the idea of establishing a state-wide health care clinics.. and acted as President:

Con't (if the moderator will allow)
 
 
+12 # Carolyn Taylor 2011-03-04 04:04
"communist west coast"? Wow, you've really drunk the koolaid.
 
 
-17 # forparity 2011-03-04 13:09
Really - I have numerous friends (several are educators) and friends of friends who are not shy about stating that they are communist.. and want change. Not a secret around here.
 
 
+19 # Carolyn Taylor 2011-03-05 12:41
wow again: What a basis you have for generalization. You have "numerous friends," therefore it warrants calling the entire west coast of the US "communist." Where did your own education stop?

I've been a teacher much of my adult life, largely in California and in Illinois. I've never met - as student or as prof - anyone who was "communist"* in either state. The conclusion you draw is unfounded and, frankly, nuts. Straight out of LimbaughBeckLand.

*Even the use of "socialist" - which is a far cry from "communist" - is vastly misused in this nation's political rhetoric. Even avowed socialists like Bernie Sanders are 'democratic socialists' who advocate something that is a capitalistic sort of socialism. Safety nets get red-baited as socialism by hysterics. The nonsense that labels Obama as 'socialist' is pure ignorance of what socialism is. Not to mention that the chief beneficiaries of anything "socialistic" have been (bailed-out) mega-corporatio ns who have passed through stages of being government-'sup ervised' as part of their bail-out, or thrived off tax rewards for their campaign contributions, only to then slap the hand that fed them and ramp up their take-home at the expense of national economic health.
 
 
-11 # forparity 2011-03-03 11:06
Con't..

2009 - The hallways smell of new paint at Valley Community Clinic — one of the signs that change is on the way.

The Valley's first clinical program devoted to adolescent medicine is about to open, and much of the credit goes to a man who wasn't exactly deemed a champion of health care: former President George W. Bush. Bush freed up federal funding to help community clinics across the nation, including Valley Community.

"We sort of turned up our noses at his policies, but this funding was huge," said Paula Wilson, president of the North Hollywood clinic. "It offered us a chance to gain stability. With that stability we were able to expand and grow to the needs of the community."

has risen to 47 million and health care remains tattered, Bush left office having delivered billions of dollars toward the expansion and creation of community health centers. Some 1,200 clinics expanded or were built from 2002 to 2007 within rural areas, according to the federal department of Health and Human Services.

In Los Angeles County, community clinic organizations added 27 clinic sites from 2003 to 2008. Another 11 are awaiting approval of federal funding grants."

There's so much you don't know, complements of our national media's censorship skills.

One spoke in the wheel. Not a bad one.
 
 
+8 # cydfan 2011-03-03 12:29
My FATHER worked for TDCJ(or the Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice in Huntsville on Bush's deathrow) and I am a disabled person living in Texas, thank-you-very- much, Mr. forparity. Having seen it from both sides, which I don't think you can say, I believe there is much more YOU know nothing about. Let's trade stories...bette r yet let's not. I doubt you've evr had to use the facilities of which you speak. My guess is that your objection is that you don't like the people who use them not the fact that they are used.
 
 
-18 # forparity 2011-03-03 21:02
Yes, you have a point - I've not spent much time in jail (on the other side, as you suggest.)

I'm sorry to hear that you are disabled - I don't know why you thanked me for that; I don't recall that as being a Texan custom?

I don't know why you refer to Death Row in Texas as "Bush's Death Row. All US presidents (I'm not too sure about the current occupant) supported the death penalty. The Gov (Richards) prior to Bush supported it, as does the current one.

Bush was only Gov. from Jan 1995 to Dec. of 2000 (+/- a month).. so 6 years, or so. The average time from conviction to the sentence being carried out in TX is just over 10 years, so it'd be with rare exception that more than a couple were convicted and sentenced and executed during his term. In fact the big rush of death sentence convictions occurred prior to the Bush term.

And once again, Texas Law (per Wikipedia - Richard's site) says: Under state law, Texas governors do not have the power to commute death penalty sentences,

Now - you may go on smearing others assuming that they "nothing about," whatever you you wish to project.

As far as collective bargaining goes - between a government and it's state employees - true, I still agree with FDR and George Meany and the Democratic party view of many decades - it doesn't belong there - it's a double whammy.
 
 
+9 # Carolyn Taylor 2011-03-04 02:49
forparity,

First, the Governor of Texas is widely known to be a "weak governor" - It is the Lieutenant Governor who has more power to influence policy. However, the Governor does appoint the members of the Texas Board of Pardons and Parole. Bush's power over clemency as Governor lay in the fact that he chose the members of the Board.

Second, no Texas governor has ever overseen as many executions annually as Bush did -- During Ann Richards' tenure, there were an average of 12 per year. Under Bush, there were 26 per year. Under Perry, there have been so far an average of 22 per year.

Check your "facts" -- and, third, also don't 'select' your facts. You quoted Texas law - by your own account - on Ann Richards' wikipedia site - but you only quoted the part that suited you. The full statement is:
Under state law, Texas governors do not have the power to commute death penalty sentences, only to briefly postpone an execution pending further review by the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles (most members of which are appointed by the governor — including the chairman, who according to the Texas Administrative Code serves "at the pleasure of the governor" (RULE §141.1)). Bowing to the reality of the pro-death penalty Texas legislature, Ann Richards was not a vocal critic of the Texas death penalty law while governor.
 
 
+9 # Carolyn Taylor 2011-03-04 03:12
If you agree with FDR, then the only thing you don't condone is going on strike against the government by public employees. FDR supported the other aspects of collective bargaining for them. His statement on this was:

"The desire of Government employees for fair and adequate pay, reasonable hours of work, safe and suitable working conditions, development of opportunities for advancement, facilities for fair and impartial consideration and review of grievances, and other objectives of a proper employee relations policy, is basically no different from that of employees in private industry. Organization on their part to present their views on such matters is both natural and logical, but meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government. [. . .]"
 
 
-16 # forparity 2011-03-04 13:24
Carolyn - there's a limit to the number of words here.

As I stated most all of those sentences carried out during the Bush term, were convicted and sentenced prior to his term - perhaps a large portion of them during the Richards term.

I don't see any more reason to discuss Bush, in regards to the death penalty, any more than hundreds of other governors, presidents, etc.

The fact that the left and national media decided to make hay out of him over it, was pure politics.

Why not make hay over the fact that President Jimmy Carter and the Dalai Lama are opposed to abortion?

That's a rhetorical question, of course - as the reason is, that he left likes them. It's that simple.

Unions have a place in US history - no question about that. In the moment they have created an economic disaster - as well as horrible work ethics. There is simply no way for the private sector (where all of the tax revenue comes from) to continue to pay for the load that has been accumulated. We need to start by raising the retirement (pension) age of all government workers to match that of SS recipients - and end all double/triple dipping. I am opposed to raising the SS retirement ages, by the way.
 
 
+11 # Carolyn Taylor 2011-03-05 13:22
My goodness, forparity, where did you get the idea that governors have anything to do with convictions or sentencing?

You protest even discussing Bush and executions but then you keep making irrelevant or uninformed protestations on Bush's behalf in this regard.

The only role governors have any 'say' in is that of capital punishment and whether executions happen under their watch or not. And through his appointments to the Texas Board of Paroles, Bush exercised that power - as has Perry since him - and they (Perry demonstrably) have chosen hardliners who have erred on the side of executing innocent people (see the case, under Perry's watch, Cameron Willingham). Bush himself turned a deaf ear (through his staff or himself directly) to a confession that should have freed to wrongly sentenced men from Death Row. A confession letter written directly to him as Governor produced zero response from him, which at the least said something about his concern for justice being served. I agree that this is now very old news, but if you still hold to the views about it you do, it seems you'd be served, even belatedly, by reading, for example, http://www.salon.com/news/politics/feature/2000/10/13/texas/index.html
http://www.thejusticeproject.org/texas/christopher-ochoa-and-richard-danziger/
 
 
+14 # Carolyn Taylor 2011-03-05 13:29
As to issue of unions and health care, it seems you take a very Fox-like stance. Do you condone the massive subsidizing of mega-corporatio ns that allow them to reap billions in net profit? And do you fail to see that that is crippling our revenue? ... And to do hold this blind spot in order to claim it's the unions at fault for lack of money to sustain basic safety nets for the middle class??

Unions are NOT the ones who have "created an economic disaster." The unions in fact are the only ones now taking stances to cut back their salaries (and public employee wages were not as high as private to begin with) and benefits in light of a recession economy. Why don't they get your kudos for that? And why isn't your focus instead on the mega-corporatio ns who are only turning ever-greater profits and milking the public treasury to do so?
 
 
+8 # billy bob 2011-03-17 08:09
forTEAparity's whole function on these threads seems to be changing the subject. The actual article can be about the environment, and his response will be about monica lewinsky. It's a lame tactic. I'm not sure what purpose it serves.
 
 
+15 # Kimc 2011-03-02 00:46
NPR is now funded partly by big corporations, just like the commercial networks. this means it has started to lean more to the right. Haven't you noticed? Maybe they are warming the water slowly enough so the frogs won't jump out....
We told you when it was last cut in funding that we should all pitch in and pay for it ourselves, but no one listened....
 
 
+32 # Capn Canard 2011-03-01 14:16
Betsy, I too listen to NPR but let's face it, NPR is beholden to it's biggest contributors. For me, this is a problem. They are still the best News source in the U.S.A. but they are still a distant second to the CBC or BBC. Let me say that again: in America NPR still has the most IMPARTIAL NEWS REPORTING. NO QUESTION.
 
 
-28 # Meridian Hutchins 2011-03-02 18:39
Wow. That is a joke if I ever heard one. NPR is a shill for the left; their calm, soft tones belie their obviously slanted reporting. The problem with you lefties is that you believe that NPR is the center--when it is not. In reality, there is no one who presents news honestly and objectively--it is probably impossible to do so. At least the right-wingers are honest in their bias; the left try to pull the wool over your eyes and say they are unbiased.

AND yes, WHAT ABOUT FREE SPEECH?!? To silence debate is to destroy the foundations of this country. I'd rather here the lies of both/all sides (since both do lie), than the honesty of just one.
 
 
+39 # Steve Thomson 2011-03-01 11:49
This would be a god law to have here
 
 
+16 # Steve S 2011-03-02 13:12
We had such a law, titled the "fairness doctrine. It was in place from the beginning of broadcasting until Reagan killed it.
 
 
+66 # Jerry Caldwell 2011-03-01 11:53
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.

Tip of the hat to Canadians for forcefully exercising good common sense. In better times I found FAUX NEWS to be amusing comedic relief. Now it is quite alarming.
 
 
+61 # muffy75 2011-03-01 11:59
Good for the Canadians for going against the scumbag Right wing prime minister. Wish we had the representatives with the guts to get rid of Fox and their disgusting lies in the U.S.
 
 
0 # lexx 2011-03-01 19:28
Many of us disagree wholeheartedly with Prime Minister Harper but respect he has his own vision of what Canada should be. The fact that he has led a minority government for two terms speaks of the voters' sense of balance.
 
 
0 # Tim B 2011-03-02 09:14
I agree. While I dislike Harper, I find the Liberal alternative to be even more frightening. The minority government is a good compromise. We get the good parts of a right wing party, like not catering to every bleeding-heart that squeals. And by having a minority govt, they are kept from doing anything too crazy by the constant threat of the other parties bringing the Tories down.

This is a good balance to get sensible, moderate, centrist government. Or at least as good as its going to get!
 
 
+1 # astrida 2011-04-14 15:55
You Quoting Tim B:
Or at least as good as its going to get!


I'm sorry to hear that you're willing to settle for such a heavy-handed balance.

I was silly enough, when Harper got his first minority, to reassure friends that it couldn't be so bad, because it was 'only a minority'.

Have a look through http://www.shitharperdid.ca/
and tell me how sensible and moderate you think the 'Harper Government'TM has been.
 
 
+53 # CL38 2011-03-01 12:01
Now we just have to implement plans and tactics in the US to eradicate "lying" on broadcast news!
 
 
+17 # Leonard Neidhold 2011-03-01 17:11
Maybe we could get the Surgeon General to require a health warning like is now on tobacco products...Quoting CL38:
Now we just have to implement plans and tactics in the US to eradicate "lying" on broadcast news!
 
 
+31 # restore2america 2011-03-01 12:06
Plaudits to Canada for retaining some integrity, but why do we focus so much energy on Fox? If you skim the "other" blogs and newsletters (yes, I subscribe to a wide range on purpose - keeps my eyes and ears open; and I don't believe everthing I read from anybody), "they" think Al Jezzera kills Americans with lies. Sorry "they", I read Al Jezzera too... and I don't buy the argument. That said, It gets silly hearing each "side" holler that the "other" press is propaganda and lies. All we're doing is preaching to the choir. Let's focus on cleaning up government, bringing corporations under control, and protecting our freedom from both government and corporations by reducing the excessive size and power of both. And deal with Fox by asking local restaurants / stores and friends to Turn Fox Off.
 
 
+22 # snowcampandrea 2011-03-01 13:44
Al Jazeera has among the best reporting anywhere in the world. It also has the best world-wide coverage of any news broadcast AND does not waste time on the latest "crises" movie stars might be having. i wish the US had a comparable journalistic standard.
 
 
+16 # X Dane 2011-03-02 20:26
restore2america . From the beginning of the Iraq war Al Jazzera was banned from our TV, for they showed, in very graphic detail, the the enormous suffering of the Iraqi people from our bombs and our forces, also dead American service members. Neither could be tolerated. The fact that we had unleached so much death and destruction could not be shown. Americans might rise up and protest (as MANY did before the war !!) This did not square with, as we were told, THAT WE WERE LIBERATING THE IRAQIS?????????
 
 
+35 # robhood 2011-03-01 12:07
Viva Canada!!
 
 
+19 # Drew 2011-03-01 12:16
Obviously Canada has better laws than the USA, but if they're so enlightened how did a jerk like Harper get elected in the first place ?
 
 
+12 # David Steele 2011-03-01 12:41
Canada's electoral system is appallingly bad. A multi-party parliamentary 'democracy' without proportional representation, Canada's system routinely - and almost exclusively - 'elects' people who most people did not vote for. Harper was elected on the basis of a little over a third of the vote.
 
 
+5 # Tim B 2011-03-02 09:18
Yes, its called a minority government and its about as balanced as a government is ever going to get. All parties have to compromise because the opposition can force an election quite easily if the PM gets too extreme.
 
 
+1 # astrida 2011-04-14 16:20
So goes the argument - and then the PM can blame the opposition for spoiling the party, and then he can try to rile the electorate against the opposition parties, and try convince them that the only way to keep from having to slog through an election every other year is to elect a 'strong and stable' majority.

We need to bring in proportional representation, and we need to encourage media literacy, and we need to minimize the creep of sleazy Fox-style pseudo news that Harper has adopted as his personal communication style.
 
 
+14 # Linda Anderson 2011-03-01 13:06
He got elected because we still have to work on our election laws.
Harper is in a minority government which continually tells us that we don't want another election (that might defeat him). Only 35% of voters actually voted for his party.
Oh well, Canada doesn't have it all great, either!
 
 
+7 # Oliver Tanguay 2011-03-01 14:50
I'm afraid in the next election he might come in with a majority. Ignatieff's smart but he's no politician. Layton ... um. Not so much.
 
 
+2 # michelle 2011-03-01 13:29
That's my question too. How does this keep happening???
 
 
+4 # lexx 2011-03-01 19:31
Drew: I'm a million miles from where Harper stands and but would never in a million years call him a jerk. That bitterness is the core of so much, too much.
 
 
-3 # Philly 2011-03-01 19:54
Harper wasn't elected by the people as prime minister...he was elected as a simple member of parliament. His conservative party was elected and he just happened to be the leader of the conservative party. He could quit tomorrow and they would just pick some other dude. He doesn't even really run this country - the Governor General does...who says what happens...in the absence of the Queen of England. Harper cannot even order us to war without the Governor General saying so! Quoting Drew:
Obviously Canada has better laws than the USA, but if they're so enlightened how did a jerk like Harper get elected in the first place ?
 
 
+3 # Tim B 2011-03-02 09:20
Wrong, but I don't think explaining it to you will help.
 
 
+50 # Holly Andrews 2011-03-01 12:23
Once upon a time I was a landed immigrant in Canada -- wish we had found a way to stay. What a lovely, civil country. Bravo for keeping out Faux News! Shame on American media for all they do to propagate lies about our neighbor to the north. Desperately miss the CBC...
 
 
+45 # Steve Carlson 2011-03-01 12:23
Why can't we re-innitiate the Fairness Doctrine? God bless Robert Kennedy Jr.! Great story!
 
 
+29 # cake eater 2011-03-01 12:23
Mr. Kennedy,

Run for president, already. We need a moral, sane and rational person at the helm during this war of the rich against the poor. Millions would flock to your campaign, standing with you (and around you, should the vicious right attempt to repeat history)
 
 
+3 # SGLiZard 2011-03-02 14:01
I should say the man's ok where he is! Throwing bricks at them from behind the curtains!! Let's keep one Kennedy name alive!!!
 
 
+20 # David Steele 2011-03-01 12:32
You can find quite a lot of Canadian broadcasting online. E.g., http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/TV_Shows
 
 
+14 # snowcampandrea 2011-03-01 13:46
i watch all my news online nowadays. Sick of the pablum on US "news" broadcasts. For decent news coverage, watch Deutsche Welle, New Dehli TV, and Al Jazeera. The only way to get fair and balanced reporting is online. That way i don't have to waste time hearing about the antics of Lindsay Lohan and Charlie Sheen for hours. How is that news??
 
 
+30 # vicky c 2011-03-01 12:38
it is hard to underestimate the damage that Fox news hath wrought...from the wins of the Republicans in the last midterms,to the gun control battles,to the spreading of the Acorn and Planned Parenthood smears, to the Tea Party's promotion of the deficit as the root of our unemployment,an d now to the vilification of unions as on the taxpayer dole. In short,they have divided this country so deeply by misinforming millions.
 
 
0 # Sarah Greene 2011-03-04 11:02
Don't you mean to say "overestimate?" it would be very easy to underestimate Fox news damage.
 
 
-96 # genius_and_expert_on_everything 2011-03-01 12:56
It is a sad day when others make decisions that limit the people to FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND FREEDOM OF PRESS. This is crucial yet canada is so naive that they feel they are going to be able to determine what is truth and what is not! There have been centuries of philosophers, physoclogists, intellectuals, spiritual advisors, leaders, free thinkers, socialists, democrats, libertarians, nazis, etc etc etc who have tried to define TRUTH, yet canada feels it is so easy to just define it? Follow the money trail and you will find the TRUE reason FOX is being BLACKLISTED. It has nothing to do with TRUTH but everything to do with corruption, lies, deceit, power and greed!
 
 
+42 # Ken Hall 2011-03-01 13:14
I agree with your last line, FOX "news" is corrupt, it lies and is deceitful, it supports the powerful and greedy with complete disregard of facts.
 
 
+32 # ApocalypseSuperSale 2011-03-01 13:28
Quoting genius_and_expert_on_everything:
There have been centuries of philosophers, physoclogists, intellectuals...


Really genius? Please tell us then, what exactly is a "physoclogist"?

FAIL
 
 
+16 # Todd Williams 2011-03-01 18:02
I love the way Genius etc. lumps Nazis in with all those other folks. What a fool!
 
 
+40 # michelle 2011-03-01 13:31
Dear Genius,
Truth is defined as factual, provable information, none of which Fox offers. Go back to your drawing board.
 
 
+26 # cydfan 2011-03-01 14:42
Why go back back to his drawing board? He's obviously using Beck's. Tell him to get away from that drawing board and latch on to a new one for his own sake--and for ours. So we don't have to put up with all that nonsensical blather.
 
 
+40 # snowcampandrea 2011-03-01 13:49
No it has everything to do will telling lies, and allowing crazy hate-filled war mongers and corporate @$$ kissers like Beck to have an audience to spread their lies and hate. That is Faux News. All Canada is asking for is journalistic integrity -- a concept apparently foreign to some...
 
 
+15 # Gary Ray Pierson 2011-03-01 14:01
Quoting genius_and_expert_on_everything:
It is a sad day when others make decisions that limit the people to FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND FREEDOM OF PRESS. This is crucial yet canada is so naive that they feel they are going to be able to determine what is truth and what is not! There have been centuries of philosophers, physoclogists, intellectuals, spiritual advisors, leaders, free thinkers, socialists, democrats, libertarians, nazis, etc etc etc who have tried to define TRUTH, yet canada feels it is so easy to just define it? Follow the money trail and you will find the TRUE reason FOX is being BLACKLISTED. It has nothing to do with TRUTH but everything to do with corruption, lies, deceit, power and greed!

Hey genius......... .. Did ya lose your mind? garyray
 
 
+14 # Capn Canard 2011-03-01 14:33
TRUTH is not FACT. FACT is not TRUTH. Okay? TRUTH is subjective, FACT is objective. We can all have our own TRUTH, but we can't all have our own FACTS. FACTS are above the argument. FACTS are events and happenings that we argue as to their importance in determining the TRUTH. Don't make the mistake of equating scientific proof with any Court/Law/Legal determined "TRUTH". Totally different animals. Your last sentence concerning POWER and GREED is important in that POWER(esp associated with wealth and GREED) will INVENT TRUTH that is then SPREAD FAR AND WIDE, regardless of any evidence in support of it. Truth is important, but more important is whether you support the story that the facts tend to reveal
 
 
+15 # Drew 2011-03-01 20:26
Canada isn't the only country with news broadcasting standards. The other Western democracies also have similar laws and standards. In fact, the USA is the ONLY one that dropped it's bar (thanks to Ray-Gun) back in the 1980s. Strange coincidence; it's also the only one without a universal health care system too.
 
 
+1 # Dawn Birdsong 2011-03-02 02:09
The free enterprise answer is for anyone who has been "harmed" by the lies to sue Fox News. That would include anyone who ever made any decision on the basis of the lies.

Quoting Drew:
Canada isn't the only country with news broadcasting standards. The other Western democracies also have similar laws and standards. In fact, the USA is the ONLY one that dropped it's bar (thanks to Ray-Gun) back in the 1980s. Strange coincidence; it's also the only one without a universal health care system too.
 
 
+3 # m 2011-03-01 20:48
LOL...

FOLLOW WHAT MONEY TRAIL...?

COME ON... TELL US... WHAT MONEY TRAIL..?

The only 'truth' I see from and about 'Fox News' is that any business endeavor in America can call itself just about whatever it wants whether its name relates to or reflects what its business is all about or not.

I can think a lot of better names for it...
 
 
+41 # Tom in Texas 2011-03-01 12:58
I don't want to get rid of Fox News any more than I want to get rid of PBS.

I just want a law that states that if the network in question (in this case, Fox) does not report the news truthfully (which apparently they do not do so on a consistent basis), then they cannot present their broadcast as "news", but most advertise their content as commentary instead.
 
 
-56 # lnason@umassd.edu 2011-03-01 13:54
Tom:

Your position is, I believe, correct and insightful. Conservatives listening to PBS can see that PBS does not cover stories that don't "fit their storyline" just as FOX does not cover stories that don't "fit their storyline". Bias is a basic human characteristic and cannot be avoided. Conservatives will say that PBS is lying by not presenting facts that are pertinent but support a conservative view and Progressives will say that FOX is lying by not presenting evidence that is pertinent but supports a more socialist view.

Truth is indeed a malleable concept.

Our best solution is to let everyone say whatever they will and to respond with criticism when we believe that a situation has been misrepresented. Poor Canada will continue to be ill-informed due to the regulated lack of opposition commentary. That is sad but there is little we can do to help them. If people willfully deny the opposition any public voice, they will deserve the ignorance that results.

Lee Nason
New Bedford, Massachuseetts
 
 
+15 # Gary Ray Pierson 2011-03-01 14:22
Quoting lnason@umassd.edu:
Tom:

Your position is, I believe, correct and insightful. Conservatives listening to PBS can see that PBS does not cover stories that don't "fit their storyline" just as FOX does not cover stories that don't "fit their storyline". Bias is a basic human characteristic and cannot be avoided. Conservatives will say that PBS is lying by not presenting facts that are pertinent but support a conservative view and Progressives will say that FOX is lying by not presenting evidence that is pertinent but supports a more socialist view.

Truth is indeed a malleable concept.

Our best solution is to let everyone say whatever they will and to respond with criticism when we believe that a situation has been misrepresented. Poor Canada will continue to be ill-informed due to the regulated lack of opposition commentary. That is sad but there is little we can do to help them. If people willfully deny the opposition any public voice, they will deserve the ignorance that results.

Lee Nason
New Bedford, Massachuseetts

Legal lying???? Ok.... Bush didn't steal the first election.. eh? Damn Lee, umassd.edu.. You wasted your money if that's the way they teach.. Would you want to be lied to every day? You already have. gary ray
 
 
-25 # forparity 2011-03-02 16:39
How'd Bush steal the 2001 election? They counted the votes, he won. Then the other guy sued - all over the place. Lost most his challenges, one might do well to remember.

Gore (David Boies) also argued against the FL Supremes when they argued for ordering a statewide recount of the ballots - which they did anyway. But Gore was correct in his arguments - there was no basis in the law for the Fl Supreme court to order that, and the USSC stopped it.

Besides "all" of the recounts conducted by the national media, in their determined effort to show that Gore would have won, .they found that under the rules in place at the time (the rules that the Fl Supreme Court ordered the recounts to be conducted in compliance with) Bush won anyway.

Bush won. The looser, Gore, sued to overturn the election in the courts. Gore lost that battle, as well. Had Gore prevailed in his legal efforts to overturn the election and had the recounts supported his claim, than one could claim that the courts decided the election - and, of course, that Gore stole it.
 
 
+12 # Dogsbody 2011-03-02 21:12
Actually, they didn't (and never did) count all the votes. That's the problem.
 
 
-11 # forparity 2011-03-03 12:41
Dogsy.. seems you have the same problem that the all of the thumbs folks have - not being able to read my comment.

Who's they? (the numerous news consortium's which did their recounts, or the state?)

And, to be fair, both sides were trying to not count votes of some groups; R;s didn't want to count votes of felons (course that was the law), D's didn't want to count votes of military men and women who were abroad - becaue of technical issues.)

In Oregon, the Secretary of State went on National TV and promised that he'd deliver the votes to Gore. That's politics - The R's simply don't pocess the talents and machinery that the D's have here.
 
 
+1 # billy bob 2011-03-17 08:07
Lee isn't a teacher. She's a construction administrator in charge of things like making sure all the toilets are in proper working order.

Her moniker is intended to mislead.
 
 
0 # lnason@umassd.edu 2013-09-01 12:05
Billy Bob:

I am actually a retired Director who, yes, was responsible for janitor services and making sure the toilets were unplugged but also for managing the largest budget at the university (construction projects). I also taught intermittently but my schedule was too busy to do so regularly.

As to my "attempt to mislead" this is the second time you have accused me of this and your accusation is untrue. The email address is an assigned address that I had no control over. I have never made a secret of who I am and anyone can google me if they want. You, on the other hand, do not reveal your identity. Wonder why....

Now please get a life and instead of attacking me with name calling and unjust accusations, please address the issues I raise.

Lee Nason
New Bedford, Massachusetts
 
 
+39 # Jim Rocket 2011-03-01 14:32
Sorry, Lee, but truth is NOT a malleable concept.. by definition. Lying is a deliberate act intended to mislead. If you disagree with someone it doesn't mean that they are lying. They may have information that you don't have or that you really "can't handle the truth".

Canada's mainstream news orgs are much more professional and open to all viewpoints than their American counterparts. For now anyway. The far right is pushing hard to change that. Enlightenment is the mortal enemy of the "conservative movement".
 
 
0 # lnason@umassd.edu 2013-09-01 12:12
Jim:

I do think that there is always an objective reality beyond the wall shadows but I am certain that none of us can see it clearly. We all have biases and we all have slightly different sets of facts at our disposal. Journalists must choose which sets of facts to cover and which sets to jettison.

The best way to do this is with a robust free press. Canada, unfortunately, has laws that limit the press and enforce political correctness. This means that Canadians, for all the quiet professionalism of their journalists, do not get to see a lot of stuff that would challenge their generally liberal worldviews.

E-mail me if you want me to cite examples.

Lee Nason
New Bedford, Massachusetts
 
 
+25 # cydfan 2011-03-01 14:52
Malleable means something that is capable of being shaped and changed. Truth is not changeable. One's perception of truth is. If FOX says the sky is a color it is not it is telling a non-truth or a lie. That is not malleable. If enough people believe it, their perception of the truth is changed therefore it has become malleable. FOX has a way through misstatement and deception of distorting truth. That makes them liars. You have made a false premise.
 
 
+11 # Ken Hall 2011-03-02 03:34
"Poor Canada"! Wow, a US citizen accusing our northern neighbors, who are generally more literate and discerning than the average US populace, of being ill-informed. That takes the cake! I, as a US citizen, apologize to all you "ill-informed" Canadians. There is a a lot of ignorance south of your border, and it has gotten us into our current mess.
 
 
+6 # Kimc 2011-03-02 00:55
"commentary"? How about "fiction"?
 
 
+22 # ckgreen 2011-03-01 12:59
WAIT!!! Free health care! They don't wage war to "fight for their freedom" and now you tell me they have a law that doesn't allow lying in the news? Dang! I they can play hockey?
 
 
+32 # Archie1954 2011-03-01 13:13
Canada like all countries has its share of problems but our form of government is not one of them. The current right wing prime minister is held in check by his parliamentary opposition. He and his finance minister are the reason Canada is not in the economic mess that the US is in. On the other hand, men do not live by bread alone and the Prime Minister's greatest failing in m y mind is his attempt to alter Canada's foreign policy from one of mediation and peace keeping to that of a juniour partner in American empire building. That cannot be allowed to happen and will hopefully be kept from happening by the loyal opposition.
 
 
-82 # genius_and_expert_on_everything 2011-03-01 13:15
This just in..... canada bans all religions except Islam claiming they are not true!
 
 
+10 # Gary Ray Pierson 2011-03-01 14:05
Quoting genius_and_expert_on_everything:
This just in..... canada bans all religions except Islam claiming they are not true!

True, is your no genius or expert or any thing worth a damn.. Peace on every thing.. gary pierson
 
 
+10 # cydfan 2011-03-01 17:13
This, my friends, is just one example FOX news at its finest. Remember the argument about "malleable" truth?
 
 
+30 # capnDave 2011-03-01 13:24
Go Canada ! You are why I wear a Maple Leaf pin when I travel, in self defense. The Bush Administration was a shame and an embarrassment.
 
 
+22 # photojack53 2011-03-01 13:25
Isn't this what our FCC is supposed to do? Keep broadcasting and particularly the news open, honest, above board and serving the people? I have blogged and commented widely that FOX should lose their FCC license for violating the public trust! Take the likes of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and O'Reilly off the air for lies and deceit, NOW! Bravo to Canada for standing firm for fair, truthful enforcement of common sense protections for their citizens.
 
 
+20 # ruth mckenney 2011-03-01 13:31
WHATTA SHAME THE USA HAS BEEN TRANSFORMED INTO AN OLIGARCHY OF THE WEALTHY 2% OF HER INHABITANTS! WE CAN LOOK NORTHWARD FOR INSPIRATION TO HELP US SEE MORE ENLIGHTENMENT. AMERICANS: LOOK & LISTEN, THEN VOTE FOR THE MOST GREED-FREE PARTICIPANTS IN PUBLIC LIFE WE CAN DISCERN. NOT AN EASY TASK!
 
 
+19 # kingbird 2011-03-01 13:32
40 years ago I left Canada. I became a citizen because I wanted the right to speak my piece not as a visitor but as someone who made a deliberate choice. I have never looked back.
I spend some time during the winter in Florida and have come away with the feeling that the US is heading towards a type of Mussolini corporate fascism.
The sad news is that although I voted for Obama, he isn't the man for these times of the wealthy and corporate takeover of the country and its politicians.
At other times when a similar situation arose, it was the two Roosevelts, who took on the privileged and the wealthy.
Obama is a good man; he is not the right man for these times.
 
 
-67 # Robert Eagle 2011-03-01 13:39
So let me understand this correctly, all you proud Americans want to go to Canada because of this truth law in journalism? Go for it and hope you don't get sick. The Canadians flock to the US for our health care (before ObamaCare will get fully enacted). Oh, and why are there so many Canadian entertainers making a living in the USA? I really enjoy skiing in Canada, but would not choose to live there for many reasons including their price of fuel, and really cold weather. It is a beautiful country to visit, but I much prefer the liberties of America, including free speech. Oh, and by the way, I wonder how many of you actually listen to FOX, I do listen to NPR and CNN to name others, but you really need to do your homework before you spew your misinformation.
 
 
+6 # Gary Ray Pierson 2011-03-01 14:10
Quoting Robert Eagle:
So let me understand this correctly, all you proud Americans want to go to Canada because of this truth law in journalism? Go for it and hope you don't get sick. The Canadians flock to the US for our health care (before ObamaCare will get fully enacted). Oh, and why are there so many Canadian entertainers making a living in the USA? I really enjoy skiing in Canada, but would not choose to live there for many reasons including their price of fuel, and really cold weather. It is a beautiful country to visit, but I much prefer the liberties of America, including free speech. Oh, and by the way, I wonder how many of you actually listen to FOX, I do listen to NPR and CNN to name others, but you really need to do your homework before you spew your misinformation.

your colors are showing Eagle... Nice name.. But given to the wrong person. garyray
 
 
+35 # S. War 2011-03-01 14:27
I don’t know where you live Mr. Eagle but live close enough to Canada to go there for dinner. They do occasionally come to the US for health assistance but all Canadians I know truly like and depend on their system. They not only enjoy the same freedoms we enjoy, they are free of outright lies and the hateful bias that feeds of them from their news broadcasts. This is something the FCC called the Fairness Doctrine. In 1987 the policy of the Fairness Doctrine was made law but Ronald Reagan, in his inspired “de-regulation mind-set” vetoed the law. I don’t care what station you listen to, but I think you, me and everyone else in this country ought to insist that the “news” we get be honest and without taint or without malice. People lie when they fear the truth and no matter how bad the news, we (individually and collectively) cannot make a valid, comprehensive and good decision (like going to war) WITHOUT THE TRUTH!
 
 
+24 # Lisa Y. 2011-03-01 16:56
Actually, the Fairness Doctrine went into effect in 1949, and its basic rule was that both sides of an issue had to be presented on the same program, be factual, and present to any listener enough reliable information that he could make some kind of sensible decision about what he heard. It wasn't censorship.

The Fairness Doctrine was abolished by the Reagan administration in 1987, and in 1988 Rush Limbaugh's radio show went national. And that was all she wrote.
 
 
+11 # Capn Canard 2011-03-01 14:39
Kinda ironic that you should ask US to do our homework. If only you would require the same of FOX. Rest easy folks, I won't hold my breath.
 
 
+1 # Ken Hall 2011-03-02 12:31
Same old silly misinformation. I've never yet met a Canadian that wanted to swap their healthcare for the US model. I bet you heard the "...flock to the US..." disinfo while listening to conservative stations such as FOX.
 
 
+7 # kb carter 2011-03-02 14:50
Don't apply for a broadcasting license in Canada.

That "truth" thing, ya know? They'd shoot your application down in a heartbeat.

Canadians "flocking" to the US for healthcare, huh? See how FOX rots your brain out?
 
 
+2 # kb carter 2011-03-02 15:19
"Canadians flock to the US for our health care" is the example of the kind of lie FOX perpetrates.

No doubt some DO go to the US, but I can assure you people in the US also go to other countries for health care.

How many US citizens purchase their RX/drugs from Canada? Quite a few - to a FOX viewer this would be "proof" Canadian healthcare must be better.

I'll bet FOX viewers even think Canada's healthcare system is "socialism".

FOX News is proven to rot out your brain from watching - how do I know? Why, I saw it on FOX, so it HAS to be true....
 
 
+7 # Gringaryan 2011-03-03 15:22
Let me try and correct just one of your misconceptions Robert Eagle. Canadians won't even cross into the US without first buying a special insurance to protect themselves from our outrageously costly health care system.
 
 
+6 # jackiemearound 2011-03-03 17:16
In Canada, I would not be in pain 24/7 because I would have waited a whole 9 months to get knee replacements and here in the good 'ol US of A, I will wait till hell freezes over because they cost more than my HOUSE for God's sake. Being too old to get insurance, but too young for Medicare is a bad age to be... Have you ever noticed that not everyone has all the comforts you do? Or do you begrudge other people if they want health care? One thing all the Conservative have in common is a disdain for those hurting in some way, a loathing of other races, and a self serving condescending attitude that precedes them into every discussion.
 
 
+3 # oldweesie 2011-03-09 17:22
Bullshit!

http://tinyurl.com/4j6f3sy

Take a look at that pie chart at that website. I've got lots more, too, if you are really interested in truth.

The vast majority of Canadians who seek health care in the US do so because they happen to be in the US (vacations, business, visiting relatives, etc.) when they get sick.
 
 
+16 # jefffillmore 2011-03-01 13:53
I would like to say, "THANK YOU CANADA!"
Not just from me in America, but from the whole World. It's no wonder that my cable service does not have a Canadian channel even though I'm in a border state.
 
 
-51 # Bert Williams 2011-03-01 14:17
Is this for real? If so, this is the most one-sided hackneyed excuse for a news story I have ever seen! Fox lies? What does Mr. Kennedy do? Nothing more than pass his ideological viewpoint off as "truth"! Don't agree? Read again: " 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." So I'm to believe that the only truth is "liberal" truth. Mr. Kennedy loves the idea of a Fox-free Canada because he can breath easy knowing that his thoughts and ideas aren't challenged in that atmosphere. But in truth, the words that come from his mouth in the name of "truth" lean so far to the left, I'm surprised he doesn't fall over.
 
 
+1 # Canadian 2011-03-01 14:37
I live in Canada and we get Fox News, so I'm not sure what this article is about. Had it for a couple of years now.
 
 
+12 # Oliver Tanguay 2011-03-01 14:53
Quoting Canadian:
I live in Canada and we get Fox News, so I'm not sure what this article is about. Had it for a couple of years now.

Good point.
 
 
+4 # Jooge 2011-03-02 10:10
The article is misinformation gone wild.

1. Fox News is available in Canada - has been for a number of years.

2. The ruling by the CRTC does not bar broadcasters setting up in Canada.

3. Sun News, oft referred to as Fox News North, has received its approval to launch and will do so this spring.

4. Its generally advisable to do your research before you comment on the politics etc of a foreign country.
 
 
+5 # aCanuck 2011-03-03 15:30
While Fox American news is available in Canada through US networks... just like any other US programs, Canadian National and local news is what is at discussion here. How is OUR OWN news broadcast to us and using what standards.

So yeah... that's what this is talking about. Whether Sun News is set up as a Canadian News network has nothing to do with it. It's about WHAT they are allowed to do in terms of their news broadcasts.... in this case, NOT intentionally lie, present both viewpoints, all that good journalistic integrity stuff. This is about OUR news.... not the news from the US networks.

So, perhaps you are misinformed?
 
 
+13 # ripperruss 2011-03-01 15:08
In Canada, for just about all of my life, I have met Americans who eventually get around to asking "When are our two great countries going to join together/" My answer has been and remains "Never!". As for an influx of Americans into Canada... I dread the thought. Most of those that have already made such a move have, unfortunately brought with them the ingrained philosophy that all Americans have been programed with from birth. Unless an individual has some kind of significant emotional event, once programed, they will never change. Some say that scratch a Democrat or Republican and you will find an American. That is to say they all believe the "Big Lie" (ie: The US of A is the greatest country on earth. Far from it. The topic of truth in news reporting exposes one of the reasons Americans are so misinformed. They have limited access to the truth. Or do they? You can read online newspapers from every country on earth and from the collected knowledge maybe you can glean the truth. Try it, you may find it rewarding. My advise is that the people should take possession of their own countries future rather than moving to another. The education curriculum in public schools would be a good start. Maybe exchange some of the time used to relive American History with World History and Foreign affairs.
 
 
+39 # ripperruss 2011-03-01 15:21
Yes, we get Fox News on cable in Canada, as well as a lot of other propaganda from the States, but we also get CBC and BBC etc. We have a choice and mine is not to watch news from CNN or Fox. Have you not notices that the "news" we get from the States is not really news at all but rather some sort of weird reporting of so called celebrity, or reality events (eg: all of this currant nonsense about some drugged out nut case (Charlie Who? or who was the best or worst dressed at the latest Academy fiasco)). It's the old ploy... most notably used by the Romans... of keeping the folks attention diverted at the Arena while the rest of the country spirals down the drain. From here it looks like the decline and fall of the American Empire. so sad, that such a once great nation has come to this.
 
 
+9 # Drew 2011-03-01 22:12
You've nailed it, ripperruss. I think Canada can expect quite a few new residents in the coming years and I just might be one of them. This place has become a moral and intellectual dump.
 
 
+4 # lulubird 2011-03-01 15:54
How hard is it to immigrate to Canada?!!
 
 
-1 # Tim B 2011-03-02 09:47
Sadly, if you are white, speak English, and are university-educ ated, its quite difficult. This view is my personal observation from friends in the US and UK that have tried and failed. Balance in immigration is definitely a problem.
 
 
+4 # bobzaguy 2011-03-08 12:07
Just ask the geese, they do it every year.
 
 
+25 # Jim Rocket 2011-03-01 16:15
Fox News is available in Canada on most cable systems but only as a pay channel.
The issue is that a new Canadian news network called SunTV is launching in Canada soon. People weren't too concerned until it came out that our Prime Minister and his spokestwerp quietly met with Murdoch and Ailes. Shortly thereafter spokestwerp leaves the Prime Minister's office and becomes president of SunTV. Not a bad gig for a 35 yr old. The license is for a pay station. They lobbied to bend the rules to get on basic cable and the big pay out. Avaaz.org launched a petition to stop the rule bending. Spokestwerp's friends hacked the petition and got caught. Spokestwerp got a spanking.
In other words: same scum - different bag!
 
 
+16 # becca 2011-03-01 16:20
As a Canadian I can tell you, as far as broadcasting with intelligence is concerned, the best source is still BBC. Most Canadian news is so focused on selling it's citizens a plastic identity you wouldn't know there was a world out there. Shudder ... because more people know about Justin Beiber than Julian Assange.
 
 
+11 # Guy 2011-03-01 16:47
Although I find this a win for us Canadian citizenry, we must not forget that we have a big elephant in the room.It spills over whether we like it or not. Much of our news is slowly being parceled up, just like the USA media ownership. I do listen to CBC, CTV but I find that Al Jazeera has the most credible and all encompassing world view.
Oh and by the way, we have to get Harper out of our lives, he is slowly turning us into another American state.
 
 
-4 # TheeBigJC 2011-03-08 23:33
I like many of your comments, Guy - except the whole "other American state". Canada has 10 provinces and 3 territories, all very unique. Most are bigger than any single US state, and together they are all larger than the entire US. So, you could say Harper is turning us into another US, but not another state.
Also, "America" as a name is misused. The title has been stolen by the US. At least in English anyway. Most of Latin America calls itself America, as it should. America goes from the tip of Canada to the bottom of Chile. The problem is the US has no name, just a description of its land mass. Canada could have called ourselves the United Provinces of America, but we wanted a name.
 
 
0 # cndlover 2011-03-12 07:41
This has bothered me for years. FACT: America is the land mass from the Arctic to the Antarctic. North America is the CONTINENT that encompasses Canada & The United States of America.
 
 
+2 # General Mayhem 2011-03-13 00:44
cndlover,
It's been a minute or two since my last geography class. Please bear with me.
America is the land mass as described. It is sub-sectioned. North America is the Continent that includes Canada, The USA, and some Latin American folks.
North America, Central America, & South America...hmmm.
 
 
+1 # TheeBigJC 2011-03-08 23:40
Quoting emo:
Someone needs to remind baby RFK that Canada economically is to the right of the USA as rated by the OECD, kills baby seals and produces dirty oil


Nope, our oil is some of the cleanest (your sources are about 10 years old) and baby seals?!? Do you know how few are killed. Way, way, way less than hundreds of other animals. Mainly by the Inuit. Should they be eating genetically modified beef from a massive US slaughterhouse and shipped the 4000 KMs north to their territory?
I tell you, Yankee buddies, it's tough to hear this from a citizen of a country that eats more meat (and more in general) than any other nation.
 
 
+3 # Denver Mike 2011-03-09 23:21
It has been fascinating reading this multi-level thread, and I've wanted to jump in many times. Your statement, TheeBigJC (!) that few seals are killed is what got me to write.

Go to this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seal_hunting . Check the figures. Sources are quoted. Google "canada kills baby seals" for more, different sites for backup verification.

You are clearly wrong, as 67,000 seals killed in 2010 is not "few". Also to be considered -- the seals are clubbed to death. How horrid. People scream and cry when a dog is killed instantly by a car -- clubbing brutally inflicts pain before death (hit yourself lightly on the head with a bat to get an idea...).

To add to the absurdity of this activity, anyone witnessing this slaughter can be arrested by your marine officials (are they called Coast Guard?) or Navy, and have their boat or ship impounded -- for Witnessing! Much worse if you attempt to interfere.

Pretty strange, eh?
 
 
-21 # William LeGro 2011-03-01 16:51
Is this for real? Or am I missing something? Canada actually has a law that preemptively prohibits lying on TV news? That's censorship. Canada is going by past performance to censor future performance. Canada cannot know that Fox will lie - being a pretty good bet isn't sufficient when it comes to freedom of speech and press.

The remedy for lies is truth, and prosecution and lawsuits, depending on the nature of the lies. That's how it happens with print media, and for the most part it works.

Other media have the duty to counter Fox's lies, which they don't do nearly enough; and viewers have some responsibility for educating themselves - that's what schools are for, especially Civics classes (That's where I learned how to be a responsible citizen. But...um...do they even have Civics classes anymore? The evidence of elections says no, resoundingly.)

Following this law to its logical conclusion, news media that don't correct Fox's lies are themselves guilty of lying by enabling lies, and should then be prevented from broadcasting. Can anyone see a slippery slope here?

And what does Wisconsin have to do with it? Saying "north of the Wisconsin border," Kennedy implies that Wisconsin borders on Canada. It doesn't. Is Kennedy lying? If so, how did this article get published?
 
 
+4 # Carolyn Taylor 2011-03-02 12:20
I read your chief point as being that the Canadian anti-lying "law" is naive - and I think your point is well taken. (I also hear your last ¶ as being sardonic, not suggesting Kennedy might be lying but rather, to the contrary, as illustrating how naive it is.)

While it sounds to me like the Canadian PM's motivations for trying to undo the law are self-serving ones, I do see your point that lying is a case-by-case matter for monitoring and no one can truly legislate it out of existence, especially in advance. My sense is that others have realized too late that an organization like Fox was in fact not monitored or its lies debunked from the get-go and allowed to become a sort of institutionaliz ed lying machine. (They came into existence at a time when the rightwing was vilifying the MSM, who became afraid of their own shadow.) And the will is to keep that from repeating itself. But in fact, since any media can be guilty of lying (even the NYT -- "Grey Lady" of journalism -- being guilty of lying by omission -- complicitly keeping the government's secrets from the populace even when they would have been absolutely relevant to a Presidential election, in 2004 -- is but one salient example). And I frankly don't know how we the people get better served and shake the media into wakened responsibility for "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."
 
 
+2 # William LeGro 2011-03-02 12:35
Quoting William LeGro:
And what does Wisconsin have to do with it? Saying "north of the Wisconsin border," Kennedy implies that Wisconsin borders on Canada. It doesn't. Is Kennedy lying? If so, how did this article get published?


Well, I'm replying to myself since nobody's addressing my argument beyond giving it thumbs downs. My wife says the above quote may be throwing people off. It was flip to make a point: it's impossible to know in advance whether someone will lie, despite a history of lying. Who's to say what is truth and what isn't? As others here have noted, facts and truth are not the same; you can cite facts to support a false conclusion. And who gets to judge whether something is a lie or a mistake? "Misleading" is even worse; what is misleading to one can be crystal clear to another. What if other news media than Fox also lie, often or less often? The New York Times lied/misled just the other day about the CIA contractor in Pakistan by concealing facts the Times knew. Is every news broadcast to be submitted to a government panel for pre-approval? Who appoints that panel? To ask these questions is to answer them, and I'm amazed no one else here is doing that.
 
 
+2 # Dogsbody 2011-03-02 21:33
Do you agree with laws that prevent a salesperson telling unfactual "truths" to a customer? If you do, why?

According to your thinking it should be up to the customer to unearth the real "truth".

CAVEAT EMPTOR!
 
 
-1 # William LeGro 2011-03-03 10:33
Quoting Dogsbody:
Do you agree with laws that prevent a salesperson telling unfactual "truths" to a customer? If you do, why?

According to your thinking it should be up to the customer to unearth the real "truth".

CAVEAT EMPTOR!

You're confusing commercial fraud with political speech. The point of freedom of speech is to prevent government from suppressing citizens, from whom the power of government is derived.

Here is the exact language of the American freedom: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

There are limits to free speech - obscenity, time and place (like blocking traffic), inciting violence, libel and slander, fraud. These are not what Fox News or the Daily Worker do.
 
 
-1 # Carolyn Taylor 2011-03-03 12:01
The equivalent of your analogy, dogsbody, would be to prevent someone from becoming a salesperson in the first place because some salesperson somewhere else who reminds you of him has been a chronic liar about his products. Is that a system you'd want to live in?

As I said above, I do see the point of this thread, despite my stated views about Fox itself in a prior thread above. If we (or Canada) had an enforced Fairness Doctrine, that would take care of most (but arguably not all) of the problems, because any media would be required to have the alternate point of view represented and they would presumably debunk the lies of the other side. A problem comes when, on some matters (e.g., covertly rewarding CEOs because both sides have been 'bought off' via campaign funds), the two sides are complicit and then some ombudsperson-fo r-the-people is needed. And that role tends to get filled by non-mainstream media investigative-r eporter types, to the extent they can survive and are funded.

What we in the US need, first of all, is our Fairness Doctrine back again. It is demonstrably only because Reagan sacked it that the rabid radio like Limbaugh and cable like Beck was able to perpetrate their brainwashing frauds on too many American minds. They serve only as demonizing echo chambers and disserve the informational needs of democracy.
 
 
+2 # Denver Mike 2011-03-10 08:49
William --

If I say that your last post includes "The apple is blue, and William wrote about the FBI in India", odds are it's not a mistake, an oversight, or a misinterpretati on. If I say that, I'm either delusional or I'm lying ("misleading").

Without getting into the rightness or wrongness of Canada's preemptive law, one can often catch America's FOX News manufacturing information. It's not always a simple case of disagreement, different slant, or contrary belief (which has no place on a news show, of course). Sometimes it's as simple as an intentional blurring/crossi ng of the clear line (that should be) drawn between News and Commentary.

[BTW -- I gave you a thumbs up, raising your negative score to -15.]
 
 
+12 # Eric Booth 2011-03-01 16:57
The Canadian law seems like a very good framing for progressives in the U.S. Propose a law that forbids lying on news programs, and has an FCC bi-partisan panel to determine intentional lying.
 
 
-1 # gymlock 2011-03-01 18:17
Nice accusations. ... no 'proof' offered, of course.. .but great accusations!
 
 
+4 # DIAMONDMARGE 2011-03-01 19:58
Bravo to Carolyn Taylor! Thank you so very much.
PS: I am SO glad I am a bona fide, dues- paying member -as of yesterday-of RSN. What a marvelous news organization you are!
 
 
+4 # Gary Ray Pierson 2011-03-02 08:21
Quoting DIAMONDMARGE:
Bravo to Carolyn Taylor! Thank you so very much.
PS: I am SO glad I am a bona fide, dues- paying member -as of yesterday-of RSN. What a marvelous news organization you are!
Marge, you are a Diamond, thanks for helping Marc and his crew with your donation... I've sent some change in myself anomalously a couple times cause I'm skeptical of our NSA and friends.. Keeping a list of those who do not approve of what's happening to America and it has dominoed... I'm a slightly shot up Vietnam Veteran and am not on any compensation, I've never asked for any and I was drafted.. I own my own business which is going out of business, mostly because of souvenirs left in my body from Vietnam, it's still trying to kill me and my fellow Veterans... But, I'm not going to stop sending what I can to RSN... Next time I send some change though,it'll be in my name... You guys are great Marc.. Thank You.. Once again, formally Cpl. Pierson, 101st Airborne, Vietnam and Son of the American Revolution and Cherokee Nation.... I'm an American thru and thru... More than most except for Native Americans, God Bless them and you Diamond........ ...... You too RSN, God Speed. garyray
 
 
+16 # Drew 2011-03-01 22:07
Canadian friends,beware of this guy: RUPERT MURDOCH. He's the main reason the U.S. news media is so messed up. Ultra conservative fascist who buys up newspapers and TV networks; virtually owns the media now and delights in how his trained puppets (like Palin, Walker, etc) 'complain' about the "liberal media". WHAT liberal media ? He owns virtually everything ! He's trying to buy some Euro holdings now and is running into some trouble there. If he rears his ugly face in Canada, contact your M.P. as quickly as possible and demand that he's banned from doing any business in your country.
 
 
+7 # GM Vancouver 2011-03-02 00:19
We are aware and have him under surveillance.
Peace.
 
 
0 # barnacleboy 2011-03-01 23:31
Fox News is satire; unfortunately some people believe it to be true. They rewrite history, change maps and any other devious thing that may cross those dangerous minds. It’s too bad that Canada will not be able to enjoy the humor, dishonesty and completely unreliable news.
 
 
+1 # GM Vancouver 2011-03-02 00:18
Nicely said, Bobby. I listen to your show on weekends on KPTK Seattle. Just enough signal to pick it up here in Vancouver on a good day.
Naturally, this is immensely good news for Canadians. We have enough problems without that crap on the airwaves.
سلام مع أنت, أخ
 
 
+3 # Jeff 2011-03-02 02:13
Now there's a good idea. why don't we place legislation into the Congressional hopper that would hold licensees of the public airways responsible for veracity. Or is lying, manipulation and distortion to manipulate the public a "free speech" issue?
 
 
+1 # corey 2011-03-02 07:57
REVISITED: Court Rules Fox News Get Okay To Legally Lie To The Public: http://ceasespin.org/ceasespin_blog/ceasespin_blogger_files/fox_news_gets_okay_to_misinform_public.html

Fox News gets okay to misinform public, court ruling

"But in my heart I do believe that democracy was harmed by my network and others on November 7, 2000. I do believe that the great profession of journalism took many steps backward." ~ Roger Ailes, President of Fox News Channel and Chairman of the Fox Television Stations Group Committee on Energy & Commerce Oversight Hearing: Election Night 2000 February 14, 2001

=-=-=-=

Broadcast Blues - Sue "Blues" Wilson's documentary examining the history and impact of broadcast media policy changes, the rise of "Hate Radio", imbalance of political points of view and media domination by the Right Wing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQoGiTtLlgY

=-=-=-=

Hidden Danger in Your Milk? JURY VERDICT OVERTURNED ON LEGAL TECHNICALITY -Fox BGH Suit: http://www.foxbghsuit.com/home.htm#FOX/
 
 
-22 # Fitzhugh Havens 2011-03-02 10:15
Funny how the left is always braying and bleating about how Fox lies. But when ya ask em to name one example, they continue to bray and bleat in a stuttering manner and can't seem to come up with anything.
 
 
+10 # Sneakerface 2011-03-02 15:23
actually, when you ask for one example, it is so hard to stop at just one. In one week of viewing the Daily Show, they will usually provide at least 5 examples of FoxNews' lies, backed up with specific clips that objectively show they are lying. I recall at least 5 times when there was a relatively obscure (at the time) congressman involved in a scandal, who was a Republican, they "accidentally" put "D" or Democrat on the screen. Then there was the claims made up about attendance at "Tea Parties' in which they tried to see that footage of the crowd proved it...and then it came out this was footage from a different rally ! The repeated the "death panel" lies about health care, made up claims about global warming being a "hoax," last week when polls came out showing that Wisconsinites (and the nation as a whole) opposed the Gov's efforts to get rid of state employee collective bargaining, they read the numbers wrong (they did later go back and correct that), Bill O'Reilly conjured up a non-existent "War On Christmas," then there was the female FoxNews anchor who claimed that she watches her station every day, and they NEVER compare people they disagree with to Nazis (Jon Stewart provided several examples just from THAT DAY, as well as a previous example from HER SHOW !) I could go on and on, because overt lies on FoxNews are virtually a daily event, but I'm out of room to writ
 
 
+3 # cydfan 2011-03-03 09:13
How about Beck, Hannity, Barbour, Palin, Coulter and Huckabee(all either members of the FOX team or regular contributors in one way or another) spewing nonsense about our president being born in Kenya? Or perpetuating the LIES about WMD? not bad starts? Then there was a question about Death Panels which there are none. Hmmm, how about global warming is a farce, when it is scientific fact? How about denying the speech is incendiary one day while removing same speech from one's website the same day to prevent further incidents of violence? How misrepresenting polls that give an idea that Americans are against collective bargaining when, in fact they support it 2 to 1. There are examples and I'm sure people have come up with them for you but if you are anything like the neocons I know, you ignore those arguments and never hear them, preferring to believe that no one has ever busted your bubble of FOX's perfection. Better open those eyes a little wider.
 
 
+1 # Jooge 2011-03-02 10:22
A CRTC proposal that could make it easier to broadcast false or misleading news has prompted confusion and criticism among opposition MPs and consternation in at least one of the unions that represents Canadian journalists. It has also led to allegations of interference by the Prime Minister’s Office and a hastily called investigation by federal politicians, who were caught off guard by the move.

A little-watched committee of Parliament has been pressing the Canadian Radio-televisio n and Telecommunicati ons Commission for many years to do something about a regulation that bans the broadcast of false or misleading news because the wording appears to contravene the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Andrew Kania, the rookie MP who is the chairman of the joint committee for the scrutiny of regulations, said on Monday the committee has been asking the CRTC about the regulation for a decade.

Government officials said the problems with the ban were noted as early as 1996 – four years after the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel that the right to freedom of expression meant a person could not be charged for disseminating false information.
 
 
+1 # William LeGro 2011-03-02 13:09
Quoting Jooge:
...the wording appears to contravene the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Andrew Kania, the rookie MP who is the chairman of the joint committee for the scrutiny of regulations, said on Monday the committee has been asking the CRTC about the regulation for a decade.

Government officials said the problems with the ban were noted as early as 1996 – four years after the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel that the right to freedom of expression meant a person could not be charged for disseminating false information.


Finally someone else gets to the heart of the issue. I don't know which side you favor, but at least your post addresses what matters here: freedom of speech.
 
 
+10 # Dogsbody 2011-03-02 21:37
Freedom of Speech does not include freedom to mislead.
 
 
+1 # William LeGro 2011-03-03 10:20
Quoting Dogsbody:
Freedom of Speech does not include freedom to mislead.

Yes, it does. That's the basic fact about freedom of speech that almost nobody in this discussion seems to comprehend. And believe me, they'd all be screaming if Canada said that Rachel Maddow lies and therefore cannot be broadcast in Canada. Freedom of speech means you can go on TV and claim that black is white and 2 is 4 and the sun is the moon. You can claim there was no Holocaust, that the Clintons had Vince Foster killed, that Obama is a Nazi. That's your freedom.

What you cannot do is shout "fire!" in a crowded theater when there is no fire. Everybody in this thread should learn the distinction. It's amazing to me that they haven't and that they're so easily willing to censor speech they don't like. I'm as liberal as anyone here, if not more so, but you all give liberal a bad name.
 
 
+5 # cndlover 2011-03-12 08:10
I'd rather be slightly censored by ethics that constantly lied to. News should be facts presented to you for you to form your own opinion.
US news channels are mis-leading by claiming whatever they say as "news". People believe them because the TV told them so. I find US news channels = to the National Enquirer! You give the general population to much credit to be able to decipher what's being presented to them as fact vs what is fact. Hence the opponence to ObamaCare and the Obama has no birth certificate. (Really? Health care for everyone isn't fair or a good idea? Really? Do you really think Obama would have been allowed to run for election by the courts if there was really any question to where he was born?) They believe these lies and that's what FOX is counting on. It is a sneaky and weak way to drum up support for a government (who is feeding FOX) that has nothing to give to it's supporters but lies about their opponents to hide their true intentions.
NEWS should = Fact. period.
 
 
+4 # BillPatt 2011-03-12 16:24
If you don't think FAUX news makes its living SCREAMING "fire" all day long, you're smokin' something.
 
 
-18 # AJ Quin 2011-03-02 15:26
I'm glad Mr. Kennedy respects the Canadian media, too bad he immediately falls into the US habit he criticizes, in his attack on the very popular Prime Minister of Canada.
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/Majority+sight+tories+poll/4369266/story.html
 
 
+1 # Jim Rocket 2011-03-04 12:27
Say, what! He's very popular with 1/3 of the people. The rest don't trust him at all. His numbers have barely moved in 5 years. There is currently a bump going on but will probably subside as 4 of his top operatives have been charged in an election funding scam. True right-wingers - Tough On (other people's) Crime!
 
 
0 # astrida 2011-04-14 16:45
have a look at this and then tell me about the former Prime Minister of Canada and his popularity:
http://www.shitharperdid.ca/

less and less popular. i don't pay attention to polls. i do my best to pay attention to the media, and try to get a sense of the bigger picture.
 
 
+7 # Kim 2011-03-02 21:05
Walter Lippmann defined a journalists truth and news well.
“function of news is to signalize an event, the function of truth is to bring to light the hidden facts, to set them in relation with each other, and make a picture of reality on which men can act.”
 
 
+2 # Robyn 2011-03-03 01:01
This is why I have so much respect for Canada. They take their democracy seriously. Here in Australia, we have Fox news but I don't think that many of us here watch it. The presenters on Fox News such as Beck, Hannity and O'Reilly are actually quite alienating to most Aussie who are not used to these kinds of rabid antics.
 
 
-17 # Jubal Early 2011-03-03 06:37
RFK Jr's Uncle staunchly opposed Kruschev and Castro. He'd be rolling over in his grave if he knew his nephew was proudly wearing the hammer and sickle.

I now return you to your Daily Pravda, comrades...
 
 
-15 # Robb 2011-03-03 07:08
I'm so glad all of you enlightened Canadians have taken the time to straighten out us poor hillbilly's from the U.S. Newscasters are like poloticians, just slant your pitch towards your target audience and you will get re-elected or higher ratings!! If you don't like the way Fox presents it's self, change the channel to MSNBC, BBC, CNN, or any other channel!! But accusing one of lying or making the facts to fit the desired ending is disengenious!! I've watched news broadcasts in Europe, the Mideast, and Asia during my time and all could be accused of "not be factual" at one time or another. But to not allow someone speak because you don't agree with their point of view (or think they might be lying) goes against what we in the U.S. call "FREE SPEECH"! We may have our faults down in the states, but everybody gets to have their say. Even stuff that you Canadians classify as hate speach, Ann Coulter comes to mind, is tolorated!
So thanks Canada, but no thanks!! I'll keep my Fox News and my remote controll should I choose to use it!!
 
 
+1 # BillPatt 2011-03-12 16:18
You're being duped, hard to tell from here why. Sad.
 
 
+3 # Spectemur Agendo 2011-03-03 10:00
This string is incredible. The whole idea is about truth. Then you notice that the article starts out with mis-direction. It was not Fox news that was applying but a different entity. Then it wasn't being applied against any recent issue, but it has been out there for 10 years.

Someone then cites a case out of Florida regarding Fox that was again a misdirection. The suit was that Fox was lying. The ruling was that freedom of speech was guaranteed even if someone is lying. It never said that Fox was lying.

This all sounds like a bunch of high school kids seeing who can make up the biggest story to justify a bad action.

Until left, right, in between, get rid of the vitriolic verbiage, these conversations at best can be described as childish.
 
 
+3 # Gloria 2011-03-03 10:08
Robb your right on Target!! I couldn't say it any better. No One is perfect!!!
Thank God we have Freedom of Speach.
 
 
-7 # emo 2011-03-03 10:23
Someone needs to remind baby RFK that Canada economically is to the right of the USA as rated by the OECD, kills baby seals and produces dirty oil
 
 
-22 # Sophie Maele 2011-03-03 10:37
As an American, I am delighted that for the first time in over a half century there are no Kennedys infesting our Congress. Instead, we have the coke-addled RFK Jr blathering about Canada! Thank God he has turned his vomitous musings away from the U.S.!

Now, instead of having to listen to FoxNews (as I'm sure they would be forced to do), Canadians can listen to the lies of their own traitorous, socialist politicians who know a thing or two about lying! Telling the truth to a leftist has the same effect as holding up a crucifix in front of a vampire.
 
 
-20 # Truth 2011-03-03 10:42
LOL at first I thought this was a joke, but then I saw it was some liberal writting so I understand their removal from reality.

Well Mr. Kennedy Jr. its amazing you managed to write a lengthy piece about Fox News being disallowed from Canada without bothering to find out that Fox News has enjoyed the same success here in Canada since 2004, I know it breaks your poor little liberal heart that you just have no monopoly over the flow of information anymore.

What with the internet, bloggers, and real news sources like Fox, your alphabet soup networks just have no more power to brain wash the masses...awe, here have a tissue :)
 
 
-19 # Sophie Maele 2011-03-03 10:42
BTW, Bobby, if lying on TV was illegal in the U.S., you and your cousins would never have been born unless our Federal penitentiaries allowed conjugal visits.
 
 
0 # bigkahuna671 2011-03-03 11:54
I'm as guilty as anyone about griping how far to the right this country has gone and how far our Stupreme Court has gone in abrogating our rights in favor of the big corporations and the wealthy. Face it, nothing's going to change, no matter how hard we huff and puff and complain. Our government's been bought and paid for, both parties just as guilty, and all our so-called leaders care about is getting reelected. Our lower level courts try to follow the Constitution as was written, but our Stupreme Court overrides them every time those decisions get in the way of the right-wing agenda. That court is no more fair and impartial than Faux News is fair and impartial, both making a mockery of that phrase. The best thing that could happen to this country is for the little people to get just as sick and tired of all this garbage as the Libyans and Egyptians have done, and like them now, and as our forefathers did in the 1700s, overthrow all these hacks and throw them in prison where most of them belong...politi cos for lying, taking bribes, and extorting money, the Stupreme Court and some federal judges (like the ones who say Obamacare is unenforcible) for the same, and those Wall Street crooks for stealing from the government and from us. What was that Jefferson said about a little blood being shed every now and then in defense of Democracy being a good thing? Man the barricades!
 
 
-15 # JEFFCSTEELE 2011-03-03 16:25
WEHAT ABOUT ALL THE LIES OF THE FAR LEFT WING MEDIA THAT IS SPEWED OVER THE AIRWAVES IN CANADA AS WEL IN THE UNITED STATES. I THINK ROBERT KENNEDY JR. HAS A LEFT WING AGENDA AS WELL. I CONSIDER THE MASS MEDIA OF TODAY TO BE PARTISAN AND WON'T TELL THE WHOLE STORY.THEY SPEW LEFT WING COMMENTS WITHOUT CONSEQUNCES.
 
 
+1 # Popsgt 2012-08-25 18:14
The difference is they (liberal media) spew truth as opposed to Fox News, which spews hate, racism and lies.
 
 
0 # Ronv 2011-03-04 20:21
This might be the time to say: “The GOP and FOX News are not your father's conservatives.” There use to be the same sort of public discourse in the States that there is today in Canada. Consequently, those swayed by the facts for a particular perspective sometimes sided with the conservatives and other times with the liberals. This is to some degree the way things are in Canada today. That said, it seems that as a country becomes more wealthy (and Canada most certainly has become much more wealthy over the last 15 years), then efforts by those who have the most are intensified to undermine the very infrastructure which made that country rich in the misbegotten premise that they can get more and more for themselves, damn be the rest of the populace. Alas, in the end, they will lose everything: with home values plummeting and an economy sputtering, the U.S. is the very model of what Canada should not be, but what many of its wealthy envy.
 
 
+5 # Snow White 2011-03-05 00:24
Just because the News is not Fox News, does not mean it is TRUE.
 
 
+5 # mikefriday 2011-03-05 00:35
You Americans know that for many years you had a similar "no false news" requirement in the US, right? It was repealed under the Reagan administration (of course).
 
 
+3 # pdorland 2011-03-05 08:48
An example of false news on Fox is the clip shown recently that was purportedly showing demonstrators in Wisconsin yelling, shaking fists, etc, with palm trees in the background.
 
 
+4 # Winnie 2011-03-06 08:17
Except that he did make it up, his article is full of errors, there is just about a lie in every paragraph. In fact it's bat crazy.

We know Fox News is in Canada, but he probably means SunTV, a proposed Canadian Conservative news channel which has allready been approved, so either way he's wrong.

Our PM had nothing to do with our CRTC proposing to change the wording of the broadcasting act (not radio act). It was a bi-partisan committee which has been requesting the change for over 10 years, to be in line with our constitution.
 
 
+3 # Undertoe 2011-03-06 20:56
A little more detail on Fox in court. The two reporters mentioned were required to rewrite their story several times because the story wasn't slanted enough for Fox NEWS. This process culminated in the two reporters being let go.
They then sued Fox for wrongful termination, and WON.
Fox then appealed the decision, based on the argument that, as a US News Organization, they have the right to lie to the American public. Using this pernicious argument, Fox NEWS WON THE APPEAL.

An interesting postscript is that this story got no coverage from the other major broadcast companies, showing that while Fox maintains its right to lie and call it news, the other major news broadcasters do not object to this approach either.
 
 
+5 # Undertoe 2011-03-06 21:10
The notion of the right to free speech, and the guarantee of a free press were specifically to prevent the rather common practice by governments and rulers of clamping down on what is reported, or even worse, turning news into propaganda.

It should be noted that this is exactly what Rupert Murdoch has explicitly admitted that his organization does. Of course, you won't find stories about that on Fox news, nor on the other "consolidated" news agencies. How strange...

The theory is that an unrestrained press is necessary for a "well informed public". THIS is the ultimate goal. When news agencies lie on a regular basis to the public, that creates a misinformed public, which is harmful. It is perhaps not as easy to see the harm done over the long term as it is to see the harm from shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre, but the harm is just as real, and generally more damaging in the final analysis. If you insist on making distinctions, at least acknowledge the capacity for harm exists in both forms of speech.
 
 
+11 # adegg 2011-03-07 12:43
restricting lying is not censorship. Lying is slander and can be illegal. The Nazi used news to lie..lots and lots! There should be law against lying in jounalism. Of course it has to be proven through due process...but make no mistake...lying is never right.
 
 
-9 # FOX-666 2011-03-07 22:46
...in numerology (the real religion of most of the globalists, anyway- as someone like Mr. Harper should know)

If Canadians are Fox-starved they can just use the internet or catch it from across the border anyway.

What's the big deal about trying to put them on 24/7 in Edmonton, just like in St. Louis?
 
 
+4 # robosama 2011-03-10 08:22
...so...you guys up there in the frozen wastelands of Canada have some kind of "Truth Panel" that verifies all news that's broadcast from Canadian soil? How does that work? How do you handle part-truths? What if something is only 98% true?

IOW...everything that your News stations broadcast is 100% verified gospel truth? Nice!

skeptical
 
 
+6 # cndlover 2011-03-12 08:17
frozen wasteland? That shows how ignorant you are.
 
 
-2 # Tom M 2011-03-10 11:46
No First amendment in Canada.

So the government is the arbiter of who may say what. What happens when the politicians in power lie?
 
 
+8 # BillPatt 2011-03-12 16:07
A lie is like porno... you know it when you see it. It doesn't take a whole lot of time to "see" that FOX actively lies and distorts to push their corporate agenda, regardless of how many times they say "Fair and Balanced". In fact, hat should be your first clue.
 
 
-1 # KittatinyHawk 2011-03-10 18:45
Thanks for all the insight and otherwise nosnsense from the GOP here.

I would enjoy intelligent, truthful Reporting. I thought that was purpose
or a Reporter. Most remind me of Tabloid crap..Fox especially.
But I like to read lot of news, it balances the info. I feel sorry for those who believe all they read or hear, they are the problems in the World.
 
 
+6 # racetoinfinity 2011-03-11 02:49
Canada is still a civilized country. The end of the fairness doctrine is another legacy of the corporate takeover (attempted) stemming from the Reagan Devolution. Thank you, Bobby, for including the word "enlightened" in your post. That's an important value and state of being that we are fighting the corporate plutocrats for.
 
 
+7 # Lonnie 2011-03-13 18:01
A couple of years ago fox fired two reporters because they refused to lie on air. They sued for wrongful termination. Fox's defense was that THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO LIE TO THE PUBLIC. Fox won the case.
Those bastards lie all the time. I would not even trust Fox Weather. When Rick Santorum was in office he tried to pass a law prevent NOA from passing weather data to the public. He wanted all weather data to go through a republican company AccuWeather.
 
 
+2 # lkach 2011-03-16 04:53
Broadcasting - which transmits information through a limited spectrum owned by the public to receivers designed to receive broadcasts - is subject under the firs amendment (Red Lion case) to content regulation unlike satellite or cable which is both available on demand at a price and less limited than the broadcast spectrum.
The condition for using the broadcast spectrum by licensed broadcasters was fairness. The public has an interest in not having its own spectrum used by its licensees for propaganda. That was until the election-riggin g supreme court adopted money talks as a first amendment requirement and Reagan soon after abolished the fairness doctrine.
Now what was illegal before 1976, Faux news and its like, is legal in the US but not yet fully legal in Canada, which is always a step behind in the US march toward fascism.
 
 
-7 # watchdog 2011-03-17 06:29
the thing I don't get is HOW or WHAT FOX news has ever lied about? Nobody gives specific examples of that....why?
And when I ask, NEVER get a response. Don't you think if they lied all the time, they wouldnt be on the air? Don't you think they'd be sued by the people they lie about for slander? Or they would have zero credibility? Not be the #2 cable network in the USA?

If ANYBODY can list some examples...spec ific examples...how about just one, of how fox lies...I'b be curious.

Isn't it more possible, that they are jsut conservative, and most of you lefties can't stand that?? They are not politically correct, they are old school and lean to the right, when hollywood, and every other news network leans to the left?? And they are popular...well cause most Americans (hidden behind PC) also lean more centered right??

So any examples of how they "lie" would be apriciated, cause I'd just like to know and be more educated.
 
 
+6 # seeker 2011-03-17 06:59
Quoting watchdog:
the thing I don't get is HOW or WHAT FOX news has ever lied about? Nobody gives specific examples of that....

So any examples of how they "lie" would be apriciated, cause I'd just like to know and be more educated.


Here's just a few examples of Fox' lies. If you go to the Media Matters website they have a lot more articles showing how Fox twists the truth.

http://readersupportednews.org/off-site-news-section/68-68/5303-fox-news-union-busting-crusade
 
 
+10 # kritik1 2011-03-17 15:20
Canada can do better without fox news.
Canada does not want the corrosive fox news from USA.
 
 
-3 # coffinsurfer 2011-03-20 11:16
You know it is very funny that some little pi$$ant tries to claim somebody lied when his own grandfather and great grandfather were confirmed racists (his great grandfather wanted to work with Ms.Sanger for the sterilization of the disabled and minorities. And his grandfather supported Hitler and was a bootlegger just like Al Capone) Teddy murdered a woman by letting her drown and one of his cousins beat a neighbors daughter to death with a golf club. Not to mention that he has another cousin that is so disliked that he had to move to another state where he was not known to even run for congress. Not to mention another cousin who was so arrogant that he flew a plane that he was not rated for and killed himself and two other people.All of this is fact and documented and yet you want to listen to these inbred morons? The US will be 1000% smarter and the world will be a better place when the whole family goes the way of the dodo bird.
 
 
+2 # Roger H Green 2011-03-22 13:21
Good news that at least Fox can't be a Canadian broadcaster, even if our cable & satellite providers send us Fox's US channel. It is never on in our house and if it is on when I am visiting someone, I pointedly leave the room and if asked I say why.
 
 
+5 # AnneePea 2011-03-24 12:49
When "SUN NEWS" comes to Canada, will they be able to say they are "news" and not in any other way have to label themselves as conservative orientated views? I'm just curious how Canada will handle that. Personally, that's the only problem here in America, the label "news" makes people think it's factual but if the channel were called "FOX Conservative News and Views" like it actually is, I don't think there would be all these arguments and debates. Look at MSNBC for example "Lean Forward" is the moto. They aren't pretending to be 100% bi-partisan in reporting. Saying "Fair and Balanced" is pretty much lying so why not just stand behind what you believe and tell the truth? It's really weird.
 
 
-7 # conservativelibertine 2011-03-24 15:25
When we have a law that prevents politicians from lying, then we should consider a law that controls their rebid partisans.

Let;s start with Obama.....
In his 2002 speech opposing the Iraq war, Obama insisted that though Saddam Hussein "butchers his own people to secure his own power," the war was unjustified.

Hussein, he pointed out, "poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors" and "can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history."

In 2008, we saw debates between Obama and his rival contenders. Now we are seeing a debate between Obama the candidate and Obama the president.
 
 
+1 # Betty M. 2011-03-26 09:48
I turn to Fox News in the U.S. from time to time, just to see what rumors they're putting out or what sort of spin the latest propaganda is trying to foist on its viewers.
It's clear Canadians are much more discerning in their viewing tastes than some Americans.
For the life of me I can't understand why Canadians would even want a "News" channel inapable of orrectly reporting a story, financed by an Australian billionaire who could care less about them or anything but his profits and powers.
You are so much better off without Fox. You can never tell when some Canadian wing nuts will fall for their line and try to take over the country with lies, distortions and endless repitition of inflammatory dialog.
Go CanadaD!
 
 
0 # dlestes 2012-03-15 06:29
I assume you get all your "news" from media matters, msnbc etc?? I too tune in to multiple networks and get different views on the same stories - and if I have a particular interest I GO AND DO MY OWN RESEARCH. I will agree the different networks put their own 'spin' on stories but Fox doesn't LIE.
 
 
-13 # maxiBell 2011-03-30 23:06
Don't listen to the lies from the Left! They are full of lies, saying whatever will please their agenda at the moment. Do you think FOX News would be the most listened to Cable Network if it lied? Do you believe Do you think Rupert Murdoch would allow lies on his Network? Of course not! Ask anyone who tells you FOX lies to cite an example or several examples because they don't lie! Don't allow them to brainwash you into believing FOX lies. They DON'T! They give ACCURATE NEWS STORIES, the biggest news stories of the day. The Democrats (Obama is Head Honcho Hypocrite-in-Ch arge and a Muslim who is trying to hurt the United States in every way he can). That's the reason he won't allow drilling in our waters for oil. He wants His People in Muslimland to become wealthy by making EVERYONE DEPENDABLE on their Petroleum Products. He has all his papers under lock and key. Why? What does he NOT want US to know? Everything should be out in the open, especially when you are President of the United States. Since when has the POTUS supplied weapons to the Rebels? This is what the Progressive Left wants.
 
 
-1 # Jen Rockwell 2011-05-03 18:05
If anything is a lie or a misrepresentati on of the truth, it is this article. Shame on you Mr. Kennedy. Fox News is currently offered on several networks in Canada. Access Communications, Bell TV, Cogeco, Eastlink, Manitoba Telecom Services, Rogers, SaskTel, Shaw Cable, Shaw Direct and Telus TV, just to name a few. It seems Vidéotron, while the 3rd largest cable company in Canada, is the lone duck who won't offer Fox News.
 
 
0 # Murph 2011-12-12 19:13
Hey Jen,
Not sure Wikipedia is a reliable source for fact checking. You might consider looking elsewhere. You copy/pasted the list of cable companies directly from the site.
 
 
+2 # dlestes 2012-03-15 06:24
Hey Murph - maybe YOU should check your facts - the copy paste from Wikipedia was a copy paste from the CRTC (Canada's FCC) - http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2004/pb2004-88.htm
 
 
-3 # Gene Poole 2011-06-23 08:32
It is wonderful that the leftists in Canada have decided what their citizens will hear over the media networks. We don't want the people of Canada to get 'confused' over the issues. Now repeat after me one hundred times Comrade; 'FOX NEWS LIES' FOX NEWS LIES'FOX NEWS LIES' . This simple exercise will help keep your mind clear and organized. Please tune in to our network www.wecontrolyou.ca for all your news and information. Stay tuned and don't get 'confused' comrade.
 
 
-5 # Neil Campbell 2011-07-01 19:17
This RK cannot be real I just watched a documentary on this family how did they get away with it all.
 
 
+5 # TeamGray 2011-09-04 13:09
As an American about to move to Canada, I always notice the huge difference in the quality of news coverage in Canada compared to the States. Canada takes a 'world view' of things and news is news and not a venue of simply opinionated entertainment. Thank you, Canada for your continued common sense!!
 
 
-1 # pantera 2012-01-07 23:43
Not Foxnews, but Sun News. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_News_Network, now a interesting series of articles:1) http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/09/01/15216861.html 2) http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/billionaire-soros-threatening-to-sue-sun-media/article1711183/ and finally 3) http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/09/20/kevin-libin-the-third-party-no-one-talks-about/ Hmm, NY activists (USA) , funded by moveon (USA) funded by G Soros! my my my.
 
 
0 # celticheart 2012-01-12 13:56
News in the United States should never be taken literally. Standards set years ago are no longer met. A great deal of it is hearsay or blown out of proportion. Whether a station is into the ratings or not, news stories should be backed up by facts and not opinions. My experience with Fox is that opinions prevail. All others want to get the story first and don't wait of facts to be revealed. Sadly a great deal of the populace don't read newspapers and take whatever is on the internet or on TV as literal truth without truths to back them up.
 
 
+1 # Susie 2012-01-14 19:59
HELLO HELLO! I think I hear an echo.... because there is nothing between the Liberals ears but.... SPACE! All of you who have read somewhere that FOX isn't aired in Canada, most likely by Robert F Kennedy, JR..... well, YOU have been "LIED" to! Lies of omission are STILL LIES! But, of course you want to believe the worst of FOX, because it has the most viewers of any news station in the country! But, back to FOX and Canada. Canada has cable and anyone in Canada who has cable can watch FOX already! So, I don't know what Canada's deal is, but I have to burst your FOX-HATING bubble!
 
 
+2 # johninnc 2012-02-04 22:34
did someone find this column in an old garbage can or in a landfill ? Fox new is in Canada.
This column is almost a year old and has been refuted almost a year ago. Great job ??? Good one Bobby - Bobby is an idiot.
check this out- How stupid are you people ?
http://www.dailyadvance.com/opinion/letters/column-misleads-public-fox-news-canada-345791
 
 
-1 # johninnc 2012-02-04 22:35
Apparently you can make this stuff up and some idiot will read it a year later and believe it.
 
 
+1 # dlestes 2012-03-15 06:20
really?? Maybe one should pull the actual info from the CRTC - http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2004/pb2004-88.htm Fox News was approved and currently provides programming through most of the cable outlets.
 
 
+1 # Winnie 2012-12-25 07:03
Quoting dlestes:
really?? Maybe one should pull the actual info from the CRTC - http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2004/pb2004-88.htm Fox News was approved and currently provides programming through most of the cable outlets.

Too bad the writer didn't do any fact checking and too bad spurious articles such as this are allowed.
 
 
-1 # Winnie 2012-12-25 07:03
P.S. except it's not FOX news and never was, it's SunTV.
 
 
+2 # Popsgt 2012-08-25 18:09
Even in the USA Fox News is not considered real "news". It is listed as "entertainment" , although lies are allowed in news reports. Nearly everything the GOP says regarding Obama and his record are lies!
 
 
-3 # holidaytradition 2012-12-22 11:23
From an intelligent point of view, it is considered entertainment. However there are millions of people out there, from immigrants, to the less educated, to conservative sheep who just follow because they are told to, who cannot distinguish between Fox and reality. This local "reporter" has done more damage than good and still is convinced and has others convinced that he is actually worth trusting when the guy breaks into schools.

http://foxundercover.blogspot.com/

I would not be surprised if there are more like him out there.
 
 
+2 # Winnie 2012-12-25 07:02
This whole article is fiction as far as Canada, PM Harper, CRTC and the new Sun News channel. I'm still surprised that Americans are still buying into the lies over this.
 
 
-3 # David Jeffrey Spetch 2013-03-12 15:05
"repeal a law that forbids lying on broadcast news." Forbids lying?

Homosexuals are getting their genital mutilated just to deceive thus discriminate heterosexuals for our sexual orientation then call heterosexuals bigots, discriminators, haters and the media encourages this openly before the public while the government funds it! They are encouraging homosexuals to make guinea pigs out of heterosexuals and if you are a heterosexual who gets offended by these sick deceptions then then label you as a homophobe! Canadian media is the biggest bias bunch of liars of all time!!!

and this is just one issue

What the @#$%

/ David
 
 
-3 # David Jeffrey Spetch 2013-03-12 15:31
To better understand my last comment "if you are a heterosexual and you stand against homosexuals deceiving thus discriminating you for your sexual orientation that makes you a hater says the bigot himself!"

~ David Jeffrey Spetch
 
 
0 # vkrumins 2013-03-12 16:33
Actually, it wasn't a repeal of the regulation (regarding content) but a change in its wording: the regulation prohibits "knowingly" broadcasting falsehoods and Harpo tried to change it to "believing" a falsehood was broadcast (which would force the CRTC to demonstrate that broadcaster did NOT believe it was truthful ... if that makes any sense).
 
 
0 # SpenceThomas 2013-09-01 01:15
Proud to be Canadian!

As you can see by the number of comments... media barons have created a jackpot for themselves in the US. Say something to get one side fired up and the debate and cross examinations explode .. all that attention equals high traffic , high viewership and more advertisers for the network. Why would they ever go back to reporting unbiased news .. They have convinced americans real news isnt worth watching. Put aside the moral and integrity issues .. Honestly you have to respect how brilliant their plan was and how well it executed.. I'm sure in a hundred years from now this time period will be studied for how many ridiculous it was
 
 
+2 # Winnie 2013-09-02 11:39
This article is a lie, including the headlines. I suggest you read up on the facts.

The joint committee for the scrutiny of regulations had been asking about this regulations for years, prior to Mr. Harper becoming PM. The particular ruling is questionable since it contravened a ruling on the Ernst Zundel case (2000 ) which said that the right to freedom of expression meant a person could not be charged for disseminating false information.


It is or was only the opposition who tried to tie the pending changes to the SunNews application. Sin then it has been misrepresented by many, including Mr. Kennedy.

The proposed changes were subsequently withdrawn but the pack-mentality journalism is surely represented here. In fact, this particular article would likely fall under the law about disseminating false news.
 
 
+1 # lnason@umassd.edu 2013-09-02 12:47
Winnie

All of your responses are solid sounding. My comments about how Canada limits free speech all refer to your "hate speech" laws which have been interpreted to allow prosecution of those who hold politically incorrect views -- something I disapprove of. I disagree with racists and homophobes, etc. but I think we are all much safer and better informed when they are allowed to voice their views without threat of prosecution.

If you have documentation you would want to share, I'd love to get copies: lnason@umassd.edu

Lee Nason
New Bedford, Massachusetts
 
 
0 # Martintfre 2013-09-04 07:18
FYI : the truth
Canada

In 2003, the Canadian Radio-televisio n and Telecommunicati ons Commission (CRTC) rejected a Canadian Cable Telecommunicati ons Association (CCTA) application to bring Fox News to Canada due to concerns that Fox News U.S. and the Global Television Network were planning to create a combined American-Canadi an news network. In 2004, after a Fox News U.S. executive said there were no plans to create a combined channel, the CRTC approved an application to bring Fox News to Canada.[88]

Fox News Channel is currently[when? ] offered by Access Communications, Bell TV, Cogeco, Eastlink, Manitoba Telecom Services, Rogers Cable, SaskTel, Shaw Cable, Shaw Direct and Telus TV. Vidéotron, Canada's third-largest cable provider, has not added Fox News Channel to its lineup.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel#Canada
 
 
+1 # Winnie 2013-09-04 16:21
Wow, that's pretty old and nothing to do with SunNews which is actually on air, no thanks to those to want to suppress alternative view points.

That article was referring to the actual U.S. Fox News, which is of course now available in Canada, and has been for a few years.
 
 
+1 # Winnie 2013-09-04 16:25
Thanks that was it exactly. Our section 13 of our Human Rights act on 'hate speech'has finally been abolished. http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/06/27/hate-speech-no-longer-part-of-canadas-human-rights-act/

Strange how the left wants to suppress opposing view points isn't it.
 
 
+1 # lnason@umassd.edu 2013-09-04 20:52
Winnie:

Thanks -- I had missed the abolition of the hate speech laws. Good move Canada. Let's hope the implementation goes smoothly.

Lee Nason
New Bedford, Massachusetts
 
 
+1 # Cindi 2013-11-12 08:22
I really don't understand how people with the ability to search almost anything can believe the rot in this article. He talks about lies yet his whole piece is one big lie. In fact, check out snopes
http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/foxcanada.asp
It had nothing to do with Stephen Harper either, a committee had been investigating changes to the CRTC ruyless for 10 years due to a Supreme Court decision. After all this time, he should correct that article, after all, who wants to in Snbopes as an example of lying.
 
 
+1 # judyrita65 2014-01-08 14:23
OK - Fox News tells lies but the liberal media always tells the truth!!! Yes, there are radicals on the right but there are also radicals on the left each wanting their piece of the pie.

Fox News is the only media outlet to call out Obama on his overspending and socialist policies.
OBAMA:
"You can keep the same doctor"
"Your premiums will go down"
"The Benghazi attack was about a video"
"The stimulus will make us shovel ready"
"My administration will be the most
transparent in history"
"We have Al Qaeda on the run"
"We didn't know about Fast and Furious"

Democrats are against "paying for" the continuation of unemployment pay. This is becoming an entitlement instead of a "temporary" solution.

Besides it was the Democrats who had control of the House and the Senate when banks were forced to give loans to people who couldn't afford them. Bush tried dozens of times to control this approaching "bubble" but was constantly rebuffed by the Democrats (Barney Frank, Chris Dodd to name a few) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac insisted they were solvent until the day they almost went under. Democratic leaders making millions in bonuses while they were faltering.

George Bush was pilloried by the press and Obama has been given a huge pass with no hard questions about anything.

I listen to some Fox broadcasters who give REAL new and fair/balanced coverage with people for both sides of the issue.
 
 
-1 # bigkahuna671 2014-01-09 10:48
Judy, you list all these things that the Prez 'lied' about. The problem is, a lot of what you have on your list is confused info perpetrated by Faux News and you bought it hook, line, and sinker. The 1st one I've heard and have never heard anyone say they lost their doctors. The 2nd refers to insurance that meets the mandates of the ACA. A lot of people rushed out, bought 2nd-rate policies that were cheap but had huge deductibles and protected only as far as a band-aid could. The 3rd was just proven to be TRUE by the LIBYAN Govt. which investigated and found that the original info released by Susan Rice and the CIA was correct, IT WAS NOT AN AL-QAEDA sponsored attack. The stimulus worked, check out who the top 2 car manufacturers in the world are again...and GMC is one of them while Chrysler has paid back its stimulus loans and is in the black. Now the 4th, if only Congress would approve a stimulus for infrastructure which is what that remark refers to. We need it and everyone knows it, so next time you bitch about poor highways and ramshackle bridges, blame yourself. The 5th, NO, this admin. is not the most transparent in history, but it's a lot more than we got from Bush, who is the Prez who is responsible for the 7th, Fast and Furious. Obama made the mistake of allowing it to continue although to be fair, I don't think with all that's going on in the WH, he probably wasn't aware of FF. Continued below...
 
 
-2 # bigkahuna671 2014-01-09 11:00
However, that doesn't excuse him. He's at the top, he has to take the fall for it, even if it wasn't his program to start with. We did have Al Qaeda on the run, more so than when Bush was in office. Bush even had the gall to say Bin Laden was no longer important, even though he promised that he'd make him pay for 9/11. Obama's military has taken out almost all the top dogs in Al Qaeda without a significant loss of American lives, unlike that unnecessary war in Iraq that was started as payback for Saddam embarrassing Bush Senior in the 1st Gulf War. Finally, if you think unemployment benefits are an entitlement, then you're confused. All workers pay for unemployment insurance while they work so that when they're not working, they'll get it. The reason there aren't all those good-paying jobs out there is because Corporations supported by the GOP shipped all those jobs overseas and what few jobs were left in the US were forced to hire at minimum wage, a wage that can't support a family. As for bank loans, sorry, but the Dems did NOT control Congress when those loans began in the late '90s and early 2000s. My son got a loan from one of those crooked banks in 2003 when the GOP ran the WH AND Congress and he got screwed royally. And by the way, the heads of the banks are NOT Democrats. As for the heads of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac getting bonuses, Bush was in office when all this started in 2005, not Obama, As for Faux News, it's NOT FAIR AND BALANCED, JUST FAKE!!!
 
 
-1 # Winnie 2014-03-22 08:25
The main reason the left hates Fox news is because it has a much larger viewership than other news channels. They kill the opposition in ratings.

Obviously from what I've read here they buy into liberal propaganda and lies (the article) with no thought to facts and truth.
 
 
-1 # c.e. taylor 2014-03-22 11:48
If you think that's the reason liberals don't like Fox news (i.e., if you're not just bloviating), then you are deluded - and quite possibly or probably by Fox news lies' themselves deluding you because that's what they do - It's just the kind of explanation Bill O'Reilly gives - that people are jealous of his ratings. And that just shows how deluded HE is.

Fox lies and ignores facts and makes up its own facts and refuses to recant or revise them in the face of inconvertible fact. Agreed that is has nothing to do with the situation in Canada for Fox. But it certainly does in the U.S. Alas, as I said above 2 years ago, what the U.S. desperately needs is a return of the Fairness Doctrine. It's the only thing that would oblige Fox to deal with what the Bush White House dismissed as "the reality-based world."
 
 
-1 # Archie1954 2014-03-22 14:32
Yes they have a large viewer audience but the main point to remember is the demographics of that audience. They are predominately seniors with the conservative world view that comes with aging. Many of theses viewers gave up forming an independent thought years ago and let the liars on Faux do it for them. Are you one of these Ms. Pooh?
 
 
+2 # Winnie 2014-03-22 08:07
You all might want to check out Snopes and this article = false.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/foxcanada.asp

Fox Chairman and CEO Rupert Murdoch was rebuffed in his efforts to establish Fox News Canada in 2003 due to Canadian laws regarding foreign ownership of print and broadcast media, but the CRTC approved an application to bring the Fox News Channel to Canadian digital television line-ups back in November 2004, and that channel is now carried by dozens of different digital providers throughout Canada. (The claimed distinction that Fox News is only allowed in Canada due to its being classified as an "entertainment" channel rather than as a "news" channel is a meaningless one, as those classifications only apply to Canadian media outlets, and Fox is an American company.)
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN