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)
Fox News' Lies Keep Them Out of Canada
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.
|
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. |
 07 January 2016
|
 06 January 2016
|
 08 January 2016
|
 07 January 2016
|
 06 January 2016
|
 06 January 2016
|
 07 January 2016
|
 08 January 2016
|
 07 January 2016
|
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
http://www.tomdegan.blogspot.com
Tom Degan
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.
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
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.”
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.
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.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rqdtZlec0s
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.
There are many such examples, and when you include “distortions,” as opposed to outright lies, it expands tremendously.
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/
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
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.
Poor Mr. Archie, he can't give a reasoned response to resorts to insults.
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??
...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.
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:
Again, not so. Originally they didn't meet the requirement of foreign ownership.
sigh....
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.
Wrong, and wrong again.....
I don't think I've seen so much BS and lies about Canadian news and people swallowing it hook line and sinker.
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.
That would make you more of a troll, wouldn't it?
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.....
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.
On the other hand, truth to a lynch mob mentality is not likely to save the man from hanging.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The fact you can still see Fox lie about everything in USA is irrelevant
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.
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
Regular cable, regular news.
--------------- --------
Quoting mcpogo:
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.
I'll help. Vote Dems and have a chance. Vote GOP and abandon ALL hope!
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.
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"
Not much else is true either, what a sad piece of left wing propaganda.
Very well said!
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
It's also a constitutional monarchy; we don't vote for the executive, just our local member of parliament.
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?
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.
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.
"Canada Inc." and all of you will become corporate soldiers of sorts.
The CBC is available on the net. As, of course is your own DEMOCRACY NOW.
http://ceasespin.org/ceasespin_blog/ceasespin_blogger_files/fox_news_gets_okay_to_misinform_public.html
Quoting ToddLo:
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Only in America, South Africa, Libya, England, Germany, etc.. and the bar down the street.. ^i^
You're just figuring this out??
I wonder what anyone can do about that? Guess it's a matter of TRUST.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/
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.
Good for the Canadians - even if they elect a skunk, they don't then just roll over and play dead.
Quoting Carolyn Taylor:
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.
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.
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.
Yes it was wasn't it? Glad you noticed.. It's miracle you did! garyray
"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."
the reply is: Fox's lies are anything but free of cost.
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.
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..!
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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. [. . .]"
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.
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/
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?
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....
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.
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.
This is a good balance to get sensible, moderate, centrist government. 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.
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.
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!
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)
Really genius? Please tell us then, what exactly is a "physoclogist"?
FAIL
Truth is defined as factual, provable information, none of which Fox offers. Go back to your drawing board.
Hey genius......... .. Did ya lose your mind? garyray
Quoting Drew:
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...
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.
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
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.
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.
Her moniker is intended to mislead.
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
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".
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
True, is your no genius or expert or any thing worth a damn.. Peace on every thing.. gary pierson
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.
your colors are showing Eagle... Nice name.. But given to the wrong person. garyray
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.
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?
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....
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.
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.
Good point.
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.
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?
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!
Oh and by the way, we have to get Harper out of our lives, he is slowly turning us into another American 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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.]
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!
Peace.
Naturally, this is immensely good news for Canadians. We have enough problems without that crap on the airwaves.
سلام مع أنت, أخ
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/
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.
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.
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.
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.
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/Majority+sight+tories+poll/4369266/story.html
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.
“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.”
I now return you to your Daily Pravda, comrades...
So thanks Canada, but no thanks!! I'll keep my Fox News and my remote controll should I choose to use it!!
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.
Thank God we have Freedom of Speach.
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.
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 :)
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.
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.
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.
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?
IOW...everything that your News stations broadcast is 100% verified gospel truth? Nice!
skeptical
So the government is the arbiter of who may say what. What happens when the politicians in power lie?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Canada does not want the corrosive fox news from USA.
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.
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!
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.
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
Too bad the writer didn't do any fact checking and too bad spurious articles such as this are allowed.
http://foxundercover.blogspot.com/
I would not be surprised if there are more like him out there.
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
~ David Jeffrey Spetch
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
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.
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
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
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.
Strange how the left wants to suppress opposing view points isn't it.
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
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.
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.
Obviously from what I've read here they buy into liberal propaganda and lies (the article) with no thought to facts and truth.
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."
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.)
RSS feed for comments to this post