Should Lying Be Illegal? Canada's Broadcasters Debate

[n2doc]

Honesty seems like such a no-brainer of a requirement. But it's caused a great deal of controversy in Canada over the past few weeks--controversy heightened by the upcoming launch of a new, politically conservative Canadian television channel called Sun TV.

The controversy centered on Section 1.1, Subsection 3 of Canada's Broadcasting Act of 1986, which specifies--among other things--that:

A Licensee shall not broadcast ... d) false or misleading news.

At first glance, it seems such an obvious, common-sense requirement that I was a little surprised that the Canadians had felt a need to put it in writing, or that anyone could possibly argue against it. But with a little more thought, I realized how profound the stricture really was. I also began to wonder why we don't have a similar requirement here in the U.S--and how different our public discourse might be if we did.

more

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/0...

[ZombieHorde]

1. I don't know how the Canadian legal system works, but lying may be difficult to prove.

We don't want to lock up journalists for honest mistakes.

[Cleita]

3. I don't think proof would be required, but a challenge

to explain their position or to apologize if they misinformed. I don't think anyone would have to be locked up, just made to tell the truth if there is someone out there who wants to challenge their facts.

[Canuckistanian]

8. If Fox were operating in Canada

They'd be spending 3/4 of their air time making corrections.

Our CRTC can and has pulled broadcasting licenses for infractions.

[Cleita]

2. I always thought so, but I know I'm in the minority here.

I always thought that when people speak from a position of authority, they should be required to tell the truth to the best of their ability and to correct any disinformation as quickly as possible if it happens. I mean journalists should be required to tell the truth when they publish, whether in print or on the air as should politicians when they are under oath addressing their legislative bodies.

[wtbymark]

4. This is why Faux news is banned in Canada

and I'll bet my left nut that Rupert is behind this 'Sun' TV

[applegrove]

10. Neocon Prime Ministre Harper had lunch with Ailes& Murdoch in NY in 2009.

http://impolitical.blogspot.com/2010/06/harpers-lunch-i...

The neocons in Canada have a newspaper, the National Post, which doesn't make a profit yet they keep publishing it. Even when its owners go bankrupt it keeps being saved.

They have moved in christian evangelical churches to Canada over the last two decades.

Alberta & its oil, with its "Calgary School of Economics" (neocon), has been infiltrated with Americans for decades.

Apparently the Koch own 1/4 of the Alberta Tar Sands oil exported to the USA.

It is happening here for sure.

[Night Crawler]

5. That would certainly eliminate any quotes from or

interviews with a politician.

[Canuckistanian]

6. There's no controversy

The Harper government tried to overrule the CRTC, our version of the FCC. The attempt failed.

At any rate, after tomorrow, the Harper government is dissolved and we're having an election.

[robinlynne]

7. how I wish it were.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

9. Major difference between "lying" and "false and misleading"

Lying requires intent. There is always a lot of false and misleading information when something big breaks like Fukushima, Flight 103 etc. that was published as it was received...if broadcasters have to wait until everything is confirmed the public would just be hearing about the end of WWI.

[JoeyT]

12. Intent is easy to prove in some cases.

When a guy says "I am not a racist." and a news organization cuts the word "not" from the speech and runs it on an endless loop for two weeks while talking about how terrible it is that the guy admitted to being a racist, you've got pretty good proof of intent.

See also: Shirley Sherrod, Acorn, Planned Parenthood, and everything else Faux was handed by O'Keefe and Breitbart.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

14. That is not what is being discussed according to the OP

But I agree, spin, lying etc is often easy to spot.

[JoeyT]

11. You wouldn't even have to make lying illegal to put an end to Fox's nonsense.

Just make it a little easier for public personalities to sue for defamation when they can prove they lied.

It wouldn't be hard prove intent when they cut every third word out of a speech to make the person say the opposite of what they really said.

[SoCalDem]

13. There are lies and then there are LIES..

News venues should be about FACT...The Joe Friday approach..show us what happened, tell us where it happened and when it happened and to whom it happened. WE will decide what to think about it.

There is plenty of excess airtime/newspaper-magazine space for the cutesy/fun infotainment shit....but please carve out a space that is ONLY news, and for all the rest, just label them and then have-at.

With so damned many channels available today, why not just GIVE each "side" their own channel and let them analyze-away to their hearts' content... Progressive Channel, a Conservative Channel, a Labor Channel, etc. They would be niche markets, but so much of tv these days is niche market-aimed anyway