Post by Valentine Michael SmithPost by George DancePost by Valentine Michael SmithPost by George DanceAfter being "banished from the Canadian airwaves by Federal decree"
the speculation in the National Post this morning is that the CRTC
will stop prohibiting the unaltered broadcast of Fox News in Canada by
Canadian providers.
I'm glad to see your scare quotes around "banished". FN was never
"banished" from the airwaves, by federal decree or anything else. The
CRTC has simply not ruled on the current application; of the past
applications involving FN, the CRTC approved one and turned down one.
The quotes are since I was quoting the article - I would not have used
"banished" since Fox News Channels has always been "banned" it was
never on air to be "banished". Remember the way the CRTC works is the
dictatorial "everything is banned unless permitted by license" - you
cannot broadcast without first getting a permit (or taking your lumps
in jail).
True. And as a result, it is not legal to buy or sell the right to
watch FN in Canada. That's a bottom-line fact that we can agree on;
whether or not we call it a 'ban' makes no real difference to me.
What I strongly disagree with, though, in the Post quote (and in a lot
of other discussion) is the implication that the CRTC took some action
specifically against Fox - with the explicit inference that this
proves that the CRTC is politically or ideologically biased.
They have explicitly included Fox News Channel by name among a small
group of companies they have not permitted to be re-broadcast in
previous rulings. They have explicitly called up the protection of
Canadian sources and cultural interests as the rational for this.
They then allow CNN to be re-broadcast when it is much less popular
than Fox News - and have given highly preferential treatment to
Newsworld. This gives evidence that this is ideologically based - they
want to control content
Post by George DancePost by Valentine Michael SmithThe time your thinking it was 'permitted' was actually a license only
for some of the Fox News Channel content to be used to "enhance" a
Canadian content news channel by Global - after misleadingly called
the Fox News Channel despite the fox content being regulated to a
small minority of the content. It's like saying if the cbc can show
the odd Mickey Mouse cartoon then that becomes the Disney Channel.
All right; but that type of service - a 'Canadian' news service, which
I think the CRTC calls a Class 2 service - was exactly what CanWest
applied for, with Fox's approval. They weren't conditions that the
CRTC imposed on the Fox license specifically (like the special
conditions they imposed on Al-Jazeera) - they're the general
conditions for Class 2 licensees; CanWest and Fox knew those
conditions, and applied for that type of service. All that the CRTC
did in that case was grant CanWest the license that CanWest had
requested. Period.
They wanted more in the original request - this was all they got. It
was so little they decided it was not worth it.
They got the same deal every class 2 service in Canada gets; no
different Cancon requirements from everyone.
Look, would you say that MSNBC is banned in Canada? It's an identical
situation except for one difference: MSNBC has never been approved,
while "MSNBC Canada" was approved (with the same restrictions as FN
Canada); since it turns out MSNBC Canada is not financially viable on
digital, there is a new application before the CRTC to carry the
original feed, which has not been ruled on.
The only difference is that MSNBC Canada is currently broadcasting,
while FN Canada is not - which was solely a the decision of the
licencees, not of the CRTC.
So: has the CRTC banned MSNBC?
Post by Valentine Michael SmithPost by George DancePost by Valentine Michael SmithThis service also never got off the ground.
Probably a failure to sell advertising or whatever; not the fault of
any CRTC action against Fox.
How do you sell Fox News when it is not Fox News ?
I suggest it was the crippling of the content that made it un viable.
Maybe not - but then since Fox remains banned we don't know - yet.
In fact, no one will never know if FN Canada was commercially viable
or not, since it was never offered for sale (though not, I'll repeat,
as a result of anything the CRTC did). You're simply treating your
speculations as fact, and inferring more speculations on top of them.
Post by Valentine Michael SmithPost by George DancePost by Valentine Michael Smithhttp://www.crtc.gc.ca/archive/eng/Decisions/2000/DB2000-565.htm
As a matter of formal policy the CRTC does not want 'foreign' based
news services in Canada. From the application on their website where
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/archive/ENG/Notices/2004/pb2004-45.htm
"As stated in Public Notice 2000-173, the Commission intends to assess
the current requests against the background of its general policy
which, among other things, generally precludes the addition to the
lists of eligible satellite services of new non-Canadian satellite
services that are either partially or totally competitive with
Canadian specialty or pay television services."
On this basis previous applications to get the ban lifted got turned
down - I believe there are actually two.
I'm aware of one, which was rejected for that reason - but it wasn't
FN that was being rejected, but the fact that it was bundled (by the
applicants, not by the CRTC) into one all-or-nothing package with a
whole group of other services - and the CRTC rejected the bundle
because of some of those services, not because of FN. In this case,
as well, there is no evidence of any CRTC bias, or even of any CRTC
action specifically directed, against FN.
Take a look at the CRTC's explicit words I posted on their policy.
Their explicit words mention a "policy [which] precludes the addition
... of new non-Canadian satellite services that are either partially
or totally competitive with Canadian specialty or pay television
services."
That's a "bias" toward Canadian ownership, sure - one that's mandated
in the Broadcasting Act. But you know very well that we're talking
about ideological bias here, and that's what I meant when I said "no
evidence of bias."
Post by Valentine Michael SmithPost by George DancePost by Valentine Michael SmithI note I can watch CNN - so for some channels they made an exception.
IIRC, CNN was allowed as a class 3 service before CBC Newsworld was on
the air; so there wasn't any competitive Canadian service - but I'd
have to look it up.
The point being that, if that's true (and I haven't looked it up, as
you've not disputed it) there was *no* exception made for CNN,
contrary to your allegation.
Post by Valentine Michael SmithPost by George DancePost by Valentine Michael SmithIs Fox the only one banned - no. Is it banned - yes (ok use the
CRTC's own words "precluded" if you prefer).
I don't care whether we use the word 'banned' or not; the fact is that
FN is not allowed in Canada; whatever one calls that, it doesn't
answer the factual question of whether it's because of some
government action directed against FN or not. If there's none,
there's no evidence of CRTC bias against FN.
I said CRTC. Look at their policy above .....
Once again, when I wrote "no evidence of CRTC bias" I meant "no
evidence of CRTC ideological bias" - I thought that was sufficiently
clear in the context, but if not, I hope it is clear now.
Post by Valentine Michael SmithPost by George DancePost by Valentine Michael SmithIf in doubt then look at
the existence theorem and ask why the application to get the ban
lifted now if there is no ban ?
Ummm ... if it's an application to 'get the ban lifted', then there
has to be a 'ban' to lift.
So you agree there must be a ban ..... ?
I would have to 'agree there must be a ban' in order to answer your
original question at all - all you've done here is try the logical
fallacy of compound question (or the "Have you stopped beating your
wife?" fallacy) to trick me into agreeing that there was a ban.
Purely semantic trickery, to win a purely semantic point; as I've
already said I don't care whether you call the mere fact of
non-approval a 'ban' or not.
What I do care about, though, is whether there is a political or
ideological bias at the CRTC. Whether it is is an objective fact,
which doesn't depend on my ideological preferences (which you know
very well; I don't agree that gov'ts should be regulating broadcast
content), but on the evidence. Purely semantic debates around the
meaning of the word 'ban' are not evidence. And claims like the one
from the Post that you originally quoted (and I objected to), that FN
was "banished from the Canadian airwaves by Federal decree", are
nothing but attempts to push the semantic envelope, equally based on
no evidence. In fact, there has never been any such "Federal decree".
Post by Valentine Michael Smith...........
So now as I'm leavn' I'm weary as Hell
The confusion I'm feelin' ain't no time can tell.
The words fill my head and fall to the floor
If God's on our side - he'll stop the next war.
Robert Zimmerman 1963.