Why is Fox News banned in Canada?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-05-13 07:51pm

GrandAdmiralPrawn wrote:
Both. What part of this do you find so difficult to understand? They were not given a broadcast license because the CRTC is quite strict about broadcast licenses. Then we started talking about satellite dishes, which is another subject entirely, and in which there is a huge trade protectionism issue here in Canada. I personally signed a petition against the satellite dish laws when they came out, but it didn't make any difference.
But they're not separate subjects, in the bigger picture. The CRTC deeming something propaganda and denying it a license is censorship based on content.

Actually, that motive is speculation on my part. As far as I know, there has been no official statement about WHY they denied it a license. Nevertheless, the CRTC is not really under any binding obligation to give anyone a fair hearing on whether they get a license.

The trade protectionism law regarding sattelite service just makes it more effective censorship, even if only inadvertently.

The word "censorship" implies that material is being blocked on the basis of its content, rather than being blocked simply because it comes from a provider that isn't paying taxes in the right country.

(Granted the propaganda label sticks pretty well in the cases of FoxNews and Al-Jazeera, but so what? Why shouldn't you have the right to examine propaganda? Who's making this distinction and to whom are they answerable?)

Again, you're merging the two issues into one. The CRTC is not really answerable to anyone, because they aren't obligated to give out licenses unless they feel like it.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-05-13 07:53pm

The Kernel wrote:I know that, but when GWB has the press in his back pocket, it becomes a major concern for people like me that a free and impartial press exists. Hell, we may never have seen the Iraq abuse pictures if they hadn't been leaked and 60 Minutes II hadn't been forced into running the story or lose the scoop.

Your newspaper companies lack the technology to print pictures?

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-05-13 07:56pm

Darth Wong wrote:
The Kernel wrote:I know that, but when GWB has the press in his back pocket, it becomes a major concern for people like me that a free and impartial press exists. Hell, we may never have seen the Iraq abuse pictures if they hadn't been leaked and 60 Minutes II hadn't been forced into running the story or lose the scoop.
Your newspaper companies lack the technology to print pictures?

What? Of course not. But if they had, they would have never been "left out of the loop" for White House Press briefings AND the president's schedule. This has already happened several times to newspapers that tried to break stories the White House found embarrassing and it is a major killer to their ability to report the news.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-05-13 07:58pm

The Kernel wrote:What? Of course not. But if they had, they would have never been "left out of the loop" for White House Press briefings AND the president's schedule. This has already happened several times to newspapers that tried to break stories the White House found embarrassing and it is a major killer to their ability to report the news.

So you're saying that the newspapers are hamstrung in their ability to report the news because the White House just freezes them out?

LordShaithis · Post by **LordShaithis** » 2004-05-13 07:59pm

Again, you're merging the two issues into one. The CRTC is not really answerable to anyone, because they aren't obligated to give out licenses unless they feel like it.

Which sucks! And the trade protection laws make it suck even more, because they close off a potential avenue of circumventing this arbitrary government bullshit! That's all I'm saying, man!

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-05-13 08:01pm

GrandAdmiralPrawn wrote:
Again, you're merging the two issues into one. The CRTC is not really answerable to anyone, because they aren't obligated to give out licenses unless they feel like it.
Which sucks! And the trade protection laws make it suck even more, because they close off a potential avenue of circumventing this arbitrary government bullshit! That's all I'm saying, man!

I already told you I signed a petition against those asinine satellite trade protectionism laws; what do you want me to say?

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-05-13 08:09pm

Darth Wong wrote: So you're saying that the newspapers are hamstrung in their ability to report the news because the White House just freezes them out?

No, if the issue was big enough, they'd take the risk, but they will let anything short of a catastrophe slide. The White House has an enormous amount of influence over the press, they have just rarely excercised it until recently.

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2004-05-13 08:19pm

Darth Wong wrote:I already told you I signed a petition against those asinine satellite trade protectionism laws; what do you want me to say?

Is this petition available on the net?
if we want to see Americans or other country channel its none of the damn CRTCs business.

LordShaithis · Post by **LordShaithis** » 2004-05-13 10:56pm

Darth Wong wrote: I already told you I signed a petition against those asinine satellite trade protectionism laws; what do you want me to say?

Give the licensing bureau a shovelful of the same flaming napalm-like shit we've all been flinging at the FCC, and I'll be a happy man.

And for the record, I was railing against the FCC long before Janet Jackson's titty flew out. That thing about disembowling it was a speech I pretty much foisted on a few co-workers of mine years ago. Naturally they reacted with horror.

White Cat · Post by **White Cat** » 2004-05-14 03:30am

Darth Wong wrote:The penalties are for ILLEGAL SATELLITE RECEIVERS, not specifically for watching FOXNews, moron. It's trade protectionism, not political censorship, you idiot. They want people in Canada to buy satellite signals only from Canadian providers. Not that trade protectionism is a good thing, but you're just bullshitting. What is your agenda? To imply that this law was concocted to target FOX News, which would be the only way for this to be relevant to this thread? Or just to be a jackass?

Early in the thread, you said "You're full of shit; no one is sending cops out to shut anyone down or fine people if they try to watch FOX News." I was pointing out that someone can be fined or even jailed, merely for "trying to watch Fox News" via an American satellite company.

Whether this is deliberate censorship or just an unexpected bonus unintentional side-effect was not my point.

In conclusion, did you even read the article?
Yes, and perhaps I should have worded my rebuttal more carefully in order to avoid letting you squeeze through a loophole in order to continue pretending that FOXNews is being specifically targeted by this legislation.

I never claimed that. Please stop beating up the poor, helpless straw men.

Oh, and should I accept your concession on the part about whether the penalties apply to people who buy American satellite TV, as opposed to only those who steal it?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-05-14 09:40am

White Cat wrote:Whether this is deliberate censorship or just an unexpected bonus unintentional side-effect was not my point.

Since FOXNews did not even exist at the time this stupid legislation was created, you have no point.

Oh, and should I accept your concession on the part about whether the penalties apply to people who buy American satellite TV, as opposed to only those who steal it?

Actually, my POINT (which you are desperately trying to distort in your churlish attempt to change the subject) was simply that FOXNews was not being specifically targeted by this legislation, and the act of watching FOXNews is not in itself illegal. Both facts remain true, despite your blatant nitpickery.