Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 17641 Location: Seceded from the Ford Nation
Posted: Thu Jun 10, 2010 10:06 pm Post subject: Quebecor planning cross-Canada Fox North
Oh, puke.
An application to launch a Canada-wide rightwing 24-hour news TV station modelled on Fox News is before the CRTC. And a former Stephen Harper director of communication, Kory Teneycke, is steering the ship. They're applying for a "must-carry" license, meaning it would be included in basic cable packages.
Adding further insult to injury, you'll never guess who they're trying to woo as a host.
Our old pal Ezra Levant.
But he denies it.
Let's hope this does not come to pass. It's not like CTV is a bunch of raving socialists, they right CAN get their news fix just fine.
Quote:
Quebec billionaire Pierre Karl Péladeau is attempting a major shakeup of television news in Canada, with plans to launch a 24-hour cable channel modelled on the right-leaning U.S. network Fox News.
... To operate the upstart news network, Quebecor has enlisted a former senior aide to Prime Minister Stephen Harper to oversee the operations. Kory Teneycke, who served as director of communications to Mr. Harper in 2008 and 2009, has been appointed vice-president of business development at Quebecor Media Inc. and will lead the new project.
... An application for a licence was submitted to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission late last week. Though Quebecor's plans are not yet public, a source said a formal announcement on the venture is “imminent.”
Mr. Teneycke has been working behind the scenes since last summer to investigate the feasibility of a news outlet that would speak to conservative-minded Canadians. The strategy would seek to spawn new audiences in English Canada, while also hoping to steal disgruntled viewers from CBC and CTV. The proposed channel has been informally referred to in political circles as “Fox News North.”
Sources say Mr. Teneycke pitched the proposal to Quebecor last year and has been trying to prove the business case ever since. It's an attempt to mine what Mr. Teneycke believes is a largely untapped market for more right-of-centre TV news, according to people familiar with the plans. The envisioned Canadian station would offer conservative-minded opinion shows – although news and opinion would be clearly separated rather than blended.
... The new channel is also courting a prominent Canadian right-wing pundit. Ezra Levant, a conservative author and activist, is being seriously considered as a host for one of the new station's anchor opinion shows, sources say. Mr. Levant and Mr. Teneycke have worked together as far back as the 1996 Winds of Change conference, a precursor to the unite-the-right movement.
Mr. Levant rejected the suggestion he's in line for a job. “I have no contract with any network whatsoever. I have no offer from any network whatsoever,” he said.
Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 17641 Location: Seceded from the Ford Nation
Posted: Fri Oct 08, 2010 3:44 am Post subject:
Poor Sun TV News. They're scaling down their CRTC application, withdrawing the "must-carry" provision. This after Avaaz launched a bigass campaign against them. That online petition prompted quite the oopsie, after the RCMP was asked to investigate into apparent tampering into it. The oh-so-charming Kory Teneycke resigned at that point.
Quote:
Sun TV News now plans to launch in Canada without any special help from the federal broadcast regulator.
... On Tuesday, after a speech in Ottawa, Quebecor chief executive officer Pierre Karl Péladeau said the company would withdraw its request to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission for an exception to the rules of its licence that would have made Sun TV News available to more Canadians.
It was Quebecor's second shot at special treatment: first, in March, it applied for a rare licence from the CRTC, which would have required cable and satellite companies to carry Sun TV News on their services. That type of licence, known as Category 1 (soon to be Category A), is currently not being granted by the regulator, and it rejected Quebecor's application.
The company then tried again in July, asking for a much more common Category 2 licence to operate a specialty channel. But in that run-of-the-mill application, it included a request for “must offer” conditions – requiring distributors to offer the channel during its first three years, on at least one tier of their services. The company argued this was different from must-carry status because it let consumers decide whether to subscribe.
Speaking to reporters outside the Canadian Club in Ottawa on Tuesday, Mr. Péladeau said it would now withdraw that request, applying for the same Category 2 licence governing many digital specialty channels.
... Mr. Sasseville said the decision to change its request to the regulator “had nothing to do with the Avaaz petition.”
But don't start feeling too sorry for them, becuase in the meantime, seems that in spite of alleged tampering with Avaaz's petition, Karl Peradeau (owner of Quebecor) is threatening the organization with a lawsuit:
Quote:
Dear friends,
Avaaz has come under attack from a major media-mogul.
Huge numbers of Canadian Avaazers recently mobilized against government favours for a new radical-right propaganda network run by the Prime Minister's former spin doctor. The media empire behind the network and its billionaire owner, Pierre Karl Peladeau, has attacked our community with several smear pieces in their own newspapers, and one of their executives admitted insider knowledge of a criminal sabotage of our campaign. Now the mogul has threatened to sue Avaaz if we don't take down our campaign within 24 hours!
This is how big corporate power works to silence people's voices. But Avaaz is a community of almost 6 million people -- together we're far stronger than any corporate bully.
"Crony-media" and its incestuous combination of unscrupulous politicians and biased reporting is a rising threat to democracy in many countries, from Italy to the US to Australia. Let's take a stand, and show them their intimidation tactics will only backfire. They've given us a 24 hour ultimatum: Let's donate to give them our answer and keep the fight alive against crony-media across the world:
Democracy is on the march across the world, but anti-democratic interests have figured out a counter-attack: crony-media. When a political leader teams up with a massive media empire, they become hard to beat at the polls, no matter how bad they are.
In Italy, Prime Minister Berlusconi controls over 80% of the news channels, and has a major stake in leading newspapers, magazines and publishing. Berlusconi is mired in scandal and corruption allegations, but the spin on his networks is always positive. In the US, UK, and Australia, mega-mogul Rupert Murdoch exploits his empire to get sweet deals from politicians, whom he in turn backs for office. His infamous Fox News is the largest cable news network in the US. After President Barack Obama spurned Murdoch and boycotted his propagandistic network, Fox News spawned the radical right Tea Party group, and provided a platform for hate and racism, suggesting that Obama is a terrorist and hates white people.
The idea for a new Canadian crony-media network was reportedly hatched in a secret lunch between Rupert Murdoch and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Harper was George W. Bush's closest ally on climate change and many other issues, and is widely understood to be importing a radical form of right-wing politics to Canada from the US. The new network, dubbed "Fox News North" would transform Canada's media landscape, bringing an unscrupulously biased mouthpiece for a political leader. Avaaz's campaign opposes a special government favour that would force taxpayers to foot the bill for this new network through their cable TV fees. This is an example of how crony-media works -- a billionaire gets government-mandated funding for their media network while pushing propaganda that backs that government's leader.
Many of these media barons are also ruthless in how they achieve their political objectives: pushing opinions that poison people's hearts and polarize our world, threatening democracy and peace. Canada is the latest battle -- let’s make it the battle where people-power begins to turns the tide on crony-media. We have 24 hours to win this one -- click below to donate:
Part of the promise of the Avaaz movement is our ability to work on the issues that cut across all others. The subversion of democracy by the collusion of political leaders and media-corporations is a threat to all the things we care about, from climate change to poverty to human rights. With our global reach, Avaaz might be one of the only organizations that can fight this rising threat to democracy. We've been given a 24 hour challenge -- let's rise to it.
With hope,
Ricken, Luis, Iain, Emma, Alice, Ben, Giulia, Alex and the rest of the Avaaz team.
The former Harper government spin doctor behind a drive to build a right-leaning cable news network in Canada has abruptly quit the project, saying increasingly bitter public controversy over his role has made him a liability to the TV venture.
... Mr. Teneycke’s resignation came one day after Toronto lawyer Clayton Ruby asked the RCMP and Ottawa police to investigate tampering with an online petition against Sun TV organized by global activist group Avaaz.org. The Quebecor Media employee was caught up in this incident.
Avaaz alleged that fraudsters added the names of Canadian journalists without their consent to the petition as well as fictitious characters such as Sesame Street’s Snuffleupagus.
Mr. Teneycke became embroiled in the matter when he used his Twitter account Sept. 3 to announce he’d been in contact with a petition prankster. “Source e-mailed me to say they registered Boba Fett, D. Shroot, etc. Petition lacks basic controls,” he wrote. Mr. Teneycke’s Twitter account has since been shut down.
Avaaz announced Wednesday said data collected on the alleged fraudsters suggests they were based in Ottawa and using a Rogers Internet connection.
... His departure caps months of controversy. Mr. Teneycke publicly derided other news outlets as the “lame-stream media” and lashed out at Sun TV critics, calling veteran TV journalist Don Newman “the Helen Thomas of Canada.” That was a reference to the disgraced White House reporter who recently resigned after saying Israelis should “get the hell out of Palestine” and “go home” to places such as Germany.
Speculation in recent weeks about alleged collusion between the Harper government and Mr. Péladeau included the extraordinary notion that former Mulroney spokesman and long time Quebecor associate Luc Lavoie would be tapped to chair the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission.
Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 17641 Location: Seceded from the Ford Nation
Posted: Mon Nov 29, 2010 5:31 am Post subject:
Now the CRTC has approved the scaled-down application, dammit.
And they've confirmed they've hired our buddy Ezra Levant as a pundit, too ... but no, they're not really imitating Fox News, not at all.
I see they also hired Dave Akin. I thought better of his standards, frankly.
Quote:
Quebecor Inc.’s bid to create a new 24-hour news channel in Canada has taken another step toward the TV dial. On Friday, the federal broadcast regulator approved the license application for the Sun TV News Network.
The approval had been expected since last month, when the Montreal-based company adjusted its application to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, to request a standard license for a specialty channel.
Sun TV is now set to launch in mid-March, said Luc Lavoie, the head of the project.
... “When people made the comparison, calling us Fox News North, they were totally mistaken,” Mr. Lavoie said on Friday. “The philosophy behind this was not to be Fox News ... it was to be an offshoot of the Sun Media culture.”
... But Mr. Lavoie acknowledged the channel did take some inspiration from Fox News in its mix of reporting and punditry. The channel plans news reports during the day, with more commentary in the prime time hours, beginning at 5 p.m.
Sun TV has already hired conservative activist and Sun newspaper columnist Ezra Levant; former Canwest (now Postmedia) reporter David Akin; current Corus talk radio host Charles Adler; and former CBC reporter Krista Erickson, among others. More hiring announcements are on the way, Mr. Lavoie said.
... The channel will now focus on reaching distribution agreements with cable and satellite companies on its own. Sun TV is required to reach at least one deal before the CRTC license will be issued. Mr. Lavoie said the company has already approached distributors and he is encouraged by the response so far.
So, I gather it's up and running? Anyone over there seen it yet? From what I've been hearing, it sounds kind of lame, and not just on ideological grounds. But my sources are hardly definitive.
I haven't seen it, but I can vouch for the fact that the earth still rotates on its orbit, the tides still flow, and even long range sensors cannot detect any upcoming plagues of locusts. _________________ ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,
Joined: 25 May 2006 Posts: 1120 Location: Vancouver
Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2011 7:56 pm Post subject:
Senor Magoo wrote:
I haven't seen it, but I can vouch for the fact that the earth still rotates on its orbit, the tides still flow, and even long range sensors cannot detect any upcoming plagues of locusts.
Yup, tide flows in, tide flows out, never a missed communication. What else could explain it but the hand of God at work?
Joined: 09 Jul 2007 Posts: 917 Location: Back in Calgary!
Posted: Thu Apr 21, 2011 3:01 pm Post subject:
Quote:
So, I gather it's up and running? Anyone over there seen it yet? From what I've been hearing, it sounds kind of lame, and not just on ideological grounds. But my sources are hardly definitive.
Was watching the introduction of the channel at work...They had an hour long count down prior to it's opening, started with the canadian anthem to the cheesiest stock footage you could find. If I see Ezra spinning around with his arms crossed one more time...
First segment was Ezra blasting the CBC vote compass tool. Haven't seen it since. I'm guessing that only Conservaitve canada will really watch the channel...and I'm not sure how well they respond to a Fox style media (Don Jansen..I think that name is right...on CFCN as an older farmer with cowboy hat, any flashier than that and they lose viewers). We'll see...I think it'll fail. Sun TV, Made Of Fail.
Oddly enough...they did show a Lib attack ad on Harper within the first half hour _________________ Now is not the time for you Liberal fools, its time for a witch hunt. - Bloc Party
I watched Ezra Levant's interview with Guy Earle, the comedian who got fined by the BCHRC for homophobic insults at a nightclub.
Persuant to Searosia's concern about old farmers and cowboy hats, Levant seemed to be gearing the interview towards a younger, hipper audience. At one point he joked about Earle allegedly having a "small dick"(using that exact phrase), which was apparently one of the insults tossed at him by the offended audience members.
As well, near the end of the interview, both Earle and Levant picked up on the theme of "If the HRCs can do this to comedians, who's to say lesbians won't be next?" Which is not the sort of thing you'd say if you were appealing to the older older SoCon crowd.
Granted, the issue is overall one tailor-made for youth appeal, ie. stodgy old bureaucrats vs. edgy young comics. Ezra was pretty much spoon-feeding the questions to an obviously grateful Earle. The overall thrust of the interview was propagandistic, Levant made no attempt at even-handedness. Still, speaking as someone who generally regards the guy with utter contempt, I'll say that Levant came off as less of an imbecile than he often does.
Levant chainsawed a tree for Earth Day. When I first read about this, I thought he had gone out into the woods and hacked up a still-rooted tree, but it turned out to be a small tree that had evidently been transported to his studio.
A rather forced stunt, obviously designed to provoke outrage from enviornmentalists while imparting an air of iconoclasm to the show. The tree looked like the kind usually drafted as Xmas trees, so it's quite possible that it had a limited life-span to begin with. The studio he was in resembled that of a local affiliate station, not a national network.
Joined: 11 Apr 2006 Posts: 2359 Location: Vancouver
Posted: Sun Apr 24, 2011 5:13 am Post subject:
Well, I can honestly say that I wish Sun News to have the same sparkling financial success as enjoyed by the National Post. _________________ On the wilds of the Drive
So far, Sun TV is a network about being a network. It spent most of its first day congratulating itself for being there and most of its second day retelling its nascent creation myth with telethon-esque levels of self-regarding pathos, full of awe at the amazing odds its staff feels it overcame to make it to air.
That’s right: all the triumphalism of pirate radio, with absolutely none of the cool.
The anchors shout a lot for people who mostly agree with each other, as if music someone else had chosen was playing too loudly. The women smile and nod a great deal. They all wear bright short skirts. None of them have sleeves. About 70 per cent of Sun TV’s programming feels like being trapped at a second cousin’s wedding reception.
They don’t tell you much news, in either the strictest or the most lenient sense of the word, but they do tell you what to think about it. On Wednesday from time to time an anchor would turn briskly to the camera and say, “Here’s what’s happening now,” then replay a story from the day before. Which hadn’t actually happened then, either.
After all of that – all the fuss, the hype and hysteria – what has Sun News Network amounted to? Cheap, cheesy, terrible television. I encourage you to watch it. You can learn a great deal about the utter banality of well-meant but bonehead TV. […]
I was reminded that there was a guy with a sock puppet named Ed, who went from community cable TV to the CITY-TV channel a few years ago. The guy with the sock had a better grasp of the basics of TV than Ezra Levant and his producers.
Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 17641 Location: Seceded from the Ford Nation
Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2011 5:05 am Post subject:
voice of the damned wrote:
Levant chainsawed a tree for Earth Day.
The sort of asshole thing you'd expect from him. Faux Glenn Beck.
Corey, I do hope it's a flash in the pan. I expect though that other members of the media are fulminating a tad about this, so I wouldn't think they'd be all that enthusiastic about it.
I personally hope that they're overestimating the appetite among Canadians for this type of dreck. I think they are. After all, how many failed media attempts is Ezra Levant up to now?
Joined: 11 Apr 2006 Posts: 8635 Location: OMG! They killed Jason Kenney!
Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2011 5:08 am Post subject:
Tehanu wrote:
voice of the damned wrote:
Levant chainsawed a tree for Earth Day.
The sort of asshole thing you'd expect from him. Faux Glenn Beck.
Corey, I do hope it's a flash in the pan. I expect though that other members of the media are fulminating a tad about this, so I wouldn't think they'd be all that enthusiastic about it.
I personally hope that they're overestimating the appetite among Canadians for this type of dreck. I think they are. After all, how many failed media attempts is Ezra Levant up to now?
Yeah, that Alberta Report/Western Standard thing really worked out well eh?
Yeah, that Alberta Report/Western Standard thing really worked out well eh?
Even back in its pre-Levant heyday, Alberta Report was rarely, if ever, financially viable, and was funded as a charity-case by some oil executives in Calgary.
Patrick Muttart, a key Harper campaign strategist, has suddenly left the Conservative campaign after reports that he tried to improperly spin a negative story about Michael Ignatieff to Sun Media.
The Conservatives confirmed Wednesday morning that Mr. Muttart is no longer part of the Tory team. He had been in Ottawa part time working on the campaign, providing insight and strategy on ads and messaging, since the writ was dropped in late March.
...But he ran afoul of Quebecor’s Pierre Karl Péladeau, who owns the Sun newspapers and TV network. The media titan exposed him Wednesday as the source on a story about the Liberal Leader.
In his Sun newspapers, Mr. Péladeau wrote that a package of information, including a photograph purportedly of Mr. Ignatieff in Kuwait in 2002, was given to Sun Media honcho Kory Teneycke, a former Harper spokesman, by Mr. Muttart.
“He claimed to be in possession of a report prepared by a ‘U.S. source’, outlining the activities and whereabouts of Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff in the weeks and months leading to the American invasion of Iraq in 2003,” Mr. Péladeau wrote.
In another article Peladeau had this to say (for what it's worth, which may not be much):
...Sun Media president and chief executive Pierre Karl Peladeau has unleashed a blast of righteous indignation at how he says his company was played.
“Over 1500 years ago it was the Greek dramatist Aeschylus who said that in war truth is the first casualty,” he wrote in a piece that appeared Wednesday. “This is about politics as war by other means, and a lie that might have claimed our company as a casualty.”
...On Wednesday, even as Mr. Peladeau blasted dealing in misinformation “when the future governance of country is on the line,” he found a silver lining for his company’s credibility.
“It is my belief that this planted information was intended to first and foremost seriously damage Michael Ignatieff's campaign but in the process to damage the integrity and credibility of Sun Media and, more pointedly, that of our new television operation, Sun News,” he wrote.
“If any proof is needed to dispel the false yet still prevalent notion that Sun Media and the Sun News Network are the official organs of the Conservative Party of Canada, I offer this unfortunate episode as Exhibit A.”
Well, with a large grain of salt I may take that last comment, but at the same time, this sure doesn't make Harpers 'team' look very good. _________________ On the wilds of the Drive
Joined: 11 Apr 2006 Posts: 14585 Location: Toronto, ON
Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2011 12:46 am Post subject:
The only reason Sun News exposed the CPC is because Sun was made to look bad in the process. If it hadn't reflected badly on them, Sun would have been happy to keep running attacks on Harper opponents all day long. _________________ "Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson
I adore seeing the right eating its young. Almost makes you believe in Darwinian selection.
What I find interesting about this story is that by all account this lad is a wanna-be young Karl Rove. Also, all this whinging by the Cons about Ignatieff being a pseudo-American carpetbagger is a bit rich in the context of this story; dude is advising from the far reaches of the USA. I wonder how many other non-national people are involved in Harper's campaign? Wasn't there some uber-right Australian dude kicking around for a while, is he still around?
Ezra Levant’s The Source is modelled on Glenn Beck’s soon-to-be-cancelled Fox show; it has the host do wacky conservative things like destroy a bush to show his contempt for Earth Day. But Beck’s program has an elaborate set and there’s creative use of camera angles and lighting. Levant’s set, dominated by two fairly small TV screens with his name on them, looks much more low-tech. And like many of the Sun shows, the backgrounds are often monolithically blue, which can give news shows a feeling of sameness: U.S. set designer Jim Fenhagen, who designed shows like ABC World News Tonight, hasn’t seen Sun but told Maclean’s that as a general rule, “doing blue sets is pretty old-fashioned now.” [...]
Another difference between Sun and Fox is that Fox is a little subtler about plugging itself. The Sun logo is often omnipresent: Theo Caldwell, the tousled-haired host of the O’Reilly Factor imitator The Caldwell Account, sits at a desk that has the logo literally built into it, suggesting Stephen Colbert’s desk that’s shaped like the first letter of his name. Brian Lilley, host of The Byline, sits in front of a background that has almost nothing on it except his own name and the name of his show. Fox News is cannier about pushing its brand name on its viewers; even when the logo is part of a Fox News set, it’s done in an almost subliminal way, like the semi-transparent logos on the set of Fox & Friends. “People do like to see the logo,” Fenhagen says, but a network needs to avoid “over-logoing it.”
In the end, it could be that what matters for Sun’s future is not production values but Canada’s desperate need for conservative content. “I’d watch an Ezra or a Theo in a box, instead of any standard Canadian host in a palace,” Coren says. But as Fox News frequently points out, many of its viewers are independents attracted by its inviting look. Despite the righteousness of its anti-liberal mission, declared the conservative blog Rightchik, Sun “looks like a small-town television station production. They need some Yankee help.”
Joined: 11 Apr 2006 Posts: 14585 Location: Toronto, ON
Posted: Mon May 16, 2011 6:07 pm Post subject:
bshmr wrote:
The 'blue' can be, and undoubtedly will be, filled easily with digitally generated backgrounds, such as action video and adverts.
No one is going to pay for that, considering that the top rated shows on Sun are drawing in the neighbourhood of 4500 viewers. _________________ "Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson
And indeed, Bell TV has dropped Sun News and Sun News is complaining to the CRTC that Bell is treating CTVNN, CP24 and BNN, which it owns, preferentially.
Bell argues that between free over-the-air signals in the Toronto, Ottawa and London markets, and soon apparently free online streaming, the Sun TV feed is nearly worthless and they don't want to pay for it.
So Sun News seems to want the CRTC to force Bell at least a subset of and its customers to pay for their channel. Again, how's that small government working out for you.
Joined: 11 Apr 2006 Posts: 14585 Location: Toronto, ON
Posted: Mon May 16, 2011 8:47 pm Post subject:
Corey wrote:
And indeed, Bell TV has dropped Sun News and Sun News is complaining to the CRTC that Bell is treating CTVNN, CP24 and BNN, which it owns, preferentially.
Bell argues that between free over-the-air signals in the Toronto, Ottawa and London markets, and soon apparently free online streaming, the Sun TV feed is nearly worthless and they don't want to pay for it.
So Sun News seems to want the CRTC to force Bell at least a subset of and its customers to pay for their channel. Again, how's that small government working out for you.
Ahahaha. This is excellent. I will now remove one of the 15 strikes against Bell. _________________ "Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson
How in the hell would having a big fancy set make the content any better or worse? From what I have seen, the problem with Sun TV is that they are too self-referential - they've got stock clips of the news which they follow with interviewing each other for commentary. Ok, fine, but every once in a while why don't you interview someone interesting who DOESN'T also host their own show in a different time slot? I'd rather see unique interviews conducted in a "local TV news room" than more navel gazing conducted in a state-of-the-art studio.
Joined: 11 Apr 2006 Posts: 14585 Location: Toronto, ON
Posted: Tue May 17, 2011 3:08 am Post subject:
I think the point about the set was more that it is indicative of the fact that Sun News is a very amateur operation. _________________ "Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson
Joined: 11 Apr 2006 Posts: 3483 Location: SFU and/or the college of Riddlemastery at Caithnard
Posted: Tue May 17, 2011 7:14 am Post subject:
Well, lots of people do seem willing to buy packaged shit as long as the package has top-flight production values.
If you're starting with shit, and you don't even have the production values, then all there is for viewers to pay attention to is the shit. That's not gonna sell.
Unbeknownst to most of us, the Sun News Network keeps chugging along. Thinking back, what a farcical fuss there was about the creation and launch of the ostentatiously right-wing news channel.
It turns out there are prime-time hours when about 7,000 viewers are watching the fearless Sun News crew fight to get the much-neglected right-of-centre viewpoint in front of Canadians. About seven million are watching the hockey, just to put the numbers in perspective. Seven thousand. Seven million. Think about it. When I say “unbeknownst,” I do actually mean unbeknownst. [...]
Recently, the channel’s Krista Erickson accosted dancer Margie Gillis on air about arts funding and tried to beat her up, verbally. This was comedy of the raw sort. Erickson explained that Gillis is a very famous, award-winning dancer and choreographer. [...]
Then Erickson went full-bore Monty Python. She denounced Gillis for being a dancer and having an opinion about Canada. The thrust of her argument was expressed as this: “We have lost more than 150 soldiers who have served in Afghanistan! They have put their lives on the line and, you know, it is, frankly, quite a serious business compared with people dancing on a stage!” [...]
Erickson is a laugh-a-minute sight to behold on Sun News. When she refers to CBC she calls it “the state broadcaster” and if she needs to refer to the Toronto Star or The Globe and Mail, she refuses to name a newspaper that isn’t a Sun paper. Instead she says, “a competing newspaper which shall remain nameless.” This is comically paranoid when spoken. It’s the speaking style of people who wear tinfoil on their heads to block the radio signals from the aliens.
A Canadian broadcast watchdog says it has received a record-setting number of complaints from viewers about a recent Sun News TV interview.
Canadian Broadcast Standards Council national chairman Ron Cohen says his organization has received more than 4,100 complaints about a June 1 interview between host Krista Erickson and Quebec-born dancer Margie Gillis.
Having watched the entirety of the 20 minute interview, I'm not exactly sure what these complainants want the CBSC to do. Unless there's some rule against "obnoxiously debating a dancer", it's not clear what rules the interviewer was supposed to have violated.
Unless she's been living on Mars the past few months, Gillis must be familar with Sun News and their schtick, and should have known what to expect from an interview billed as being about "taxpayer funding of the arts". And she herself didn't seem to mind the questions too much, except at the end when she muttered "How sweet" to the host's parting shot.
Joined: 11 Apr 2006 Posts: 14585 Location: Toronto, ON
Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2011 11:22 pm Post subject:
Maybe the complaints are about editorializing while calling it news. _________________ "Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson
Joined: 11 Apr 2006 Posts: 14585 Location: Toronto, ON
Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2011 3:09 am Post subject:
voice of the damned wrote:
Does Sun TV's mandate specifically prevent it from having programs geared towards opinion?
No, but news organizations are supposed to have a firewall between the newsroom and editorial. _________________ "Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson
No, but news organizations are supposed to have a firewall between the newsroom and editorial.
Well, in the interview below, a FOX News journalist tells a member of Westboro Baptist that their picketting of funerals is "disgusting", and accuses them of spreading "lies"(I only listened to the first few minutes, but it's obvious that the interviewer wasn't making any pretensions to objectivity. She doesn't like the Westboro people, and she makes it quite clear.)
I realize that this is an American interview, but if(let's say) a CTV reporter had interviewed a Phelpsite in the same manner, you're saying that viewers would be justified in complaining to the CBSC on Firewall grounds?
Also, while I can't find any examples on YouTube, I have heard many Canadian talk-radio hosts conducting interviews with their personal biases on full display. Would it be the case that you can get away with this if you bill yourself as "Talk", as opposed to "News"?
Joined: 11 Apr 2006 Posts: 14585 Location: Toronto, ON
Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2011 12:07 pm Post subject:
The following are excerpts from the RTNDA Code of (Journalistic) Ethics, which is administered by the CBSC (I have added bold font for emphasis). I should add that I don't know whether Krista Erickson is a member of the RTNDA.
Quote:
Article One – Accuracy
Broadcast journalists will inform the public in an accurate, comprehensive and fair manner about events and issues of importance.
Quote:
Article Three – Authenticity
Broadcast journalists will present news and public affairs without distortion.[/b] Interviews may be edited provided that the meaning is not changed or misrepresented. Broadcast journalists will not present news that is rehearsed or re-enacted without informing the audience. Newsrooms should take steps to ensure the authenticity of amateur video and audio tape before broadcasting it. Editorials and commentary will be identified as such.
Quote:
Article Eight – Decency and Conduct
Broadcast journalists will treat people who are subjects and sources with decency. They will use special sensitivity when dealing with children. They will strive to conduct themselves in a courteous and considerate manner, keeping broadcast equipment as unobtrusive as possible. They will strive to prevent their presence from distorting the character or importance of events.
The following are excerpts from the Canadian Association of Broadcasters Code of Ethics (again, my emphasis in bold). I would note that in Clause 5, the RTNDA Code I quoted from above is incorporated by reference.
Quote:
Clause 5 – News
It shall be the responsibility of broadcasters to ensure that news shall be represented with accuracy and without bias. Broadcasters shall satisfy themselves that the arrangements made for obtaining news ensure this result. They shall also ensure that news broadcasts are not editorial.
News shall not be selected for the purpose of furthering or hindering either side of any controversial public issue, nor shall it be formulated on the basis of the beliefs, opinions or desires of management, the editor or others engaged in its preparation or delivery. The fundamental purpose of news dissemination in a democracy is to enable people to know what is happening, and to understand events so that they may form their own conclusions.
Nothing in the foregoing shall be understood as preventing broadcasters from analyzing and elucidating news so long as such analysis or comment is clearly labeled [sic] as such and kept distinct from regular news presentations. Broadcasters are also entitled to provide editorial opinion, which shall be clearly labeled [sic] as such and kept entirely distinct from regular broadcasts of news or analysis.
Broadcasters shall refer to the Code of Ethics of the Radio and Television News Directors of Canada ("RTNDA") for more detailed provisions regarding broadcast journalism in general and to the CAB Violence Code for guidance with respect to the depiction of violence, graphic reporting of delicate subject matter or the use of explicit language in news and public affairs programming on television.
Quote:
Clause 6 – Full, Fair and Proper Presentation
It is recognized that the full, fair and proper presentation of news, opinion, comment and editorial is the prime and fundamental responsibility of each broadcaster. This principle shall apply to all radio and television programming, whether it relates to news, public affairs, magazine, talk, call-in, interview or other broadcasting formats in which news, opinion, comment or editorial may be expressed by broadcaster employees, their invited guests or callers.
Quote:
Clause 7 – Controversial Public Issues
Recognizing in a democracy the necessity of presenting all sides of a public issue, it shall be the responsibility of broadcasters to treat fairly all subjects of a controversial nature. Time shall be allotted with due regard to all the other elements of balanced program schedules, and the degree of public interest in the questions presented. Recognizing that healthy controversy is essential to the maintenance of democratic institutions, broadcasters will endeavour to encourage the presentation of news and opinion on any controversy which contains an element of the public interest.
I think all of those clearly establish that generally there needs to be a firewall between news and editorial, and also specifically that Krista Erickson's behaviour was a breach of journalistic ethics. _________________ "Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson
Broadcast journalists will inform the public in an accurate, comprehensive and fair manner about events and issues of importance.
Assuming that the word "fair" measn something like "giving both sides", wouldn't that be covered by Erickson's allowing Gillis time to express her own opinion?
Quote:
Broadcast journalists will treat people who are subjects and sources with decency. They will use special sensitivity when dealing with children. They will strive to conduct themselves in a courteous and considerate manner,
These criteria strike me as almost truisms, which are pretty much open to the most subjective interpretation. As an example...
Quote:
Isn't it ridiculous that you're talking about eating a cookie, when the associate minister is talking about a crisis?
That Alberta bureaucrat might have found it discourteous that the reporter was calling him ridiculous. And who is to tell him that he's wrong?
Quote:
It shall be the responsibility of broadcasters to ensure that news shall be represented with accuracy and without bias. Broadcasters shall satisfy themselves that the arrangements made for obtaining news ensure this result. They shall also ensure that news broadcasts are not editorial.
Well, I don't think the show was trying to pass itself off as a news broadcast, in the sense of "And now the news...". I think anyone watching would assume that the general format was a debate, with the host taking one view and the guest the other.
I think the rules you post there were probably meant more to cover a situation where someone reading the nightly news might be tempted to say something like "In Ottawa today, that economic incompetent Jack Layton said..."
Quote:
News shall not be selected for the purpose of furthering or hindering either side of any controversial public issue, nor shall it be formulated on the basis of the beliefs, opinions or desires of management, the editor or others engaged in its preparation or delivery.
Yes, but again, I'm wondering if a one-on-one interview show has to follow the same standards as a straightforward news broadcast.
Quote:
Nothing in the foregoing shall be understood as preventing broadcasters from analyzing and elucidating news so long as such analysis or comment is clearly labeled [sic] as such and kept distinct from regular news presentations. Broadcasters are also entitled to provide editorial opinion, which shall be clearly labeled [sic] as such and kept entirely distinct from regular broadcasts of news or analysis.
Well, it could be argued that Sun TV was following these strictures. I'm not familar with the show in question, but it didn't seem to me that they were trying to pass it off as a straightforward news broadcast.
Quote:
It is recognized that the full, fair and proper presentation of news, opinion, comment and editorial is the prime and fundamental responsibility of each broadcaster.
Okay, so "opinion, comment, and editorial" are allowed. As long as its "full, fair, and proper". Again, Ms. Gillis was given adequate time to express her own views.
Quote:
Recognizing in a democracy the necessity of presenting all sides of a public issue, it shall be the responsibility of broadcasters to treat fairly all subjects of a controversial nature.
See my previous point.
But, assuming that the Sun TV broadcast did indeed breach the firewall, does that mean that it's impossible to have a show in a news channel where the host takes one viewpoint and the guest the other? And what about that Fox interview with the Westboro Baptist woman? Would that be disallowed on Canadian TV?
Joined: 11 Apr 2006 Posts: 3483 Location: SFU and/or the college of Riddlemastery at Caithnard
Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2011 4:40 pm Post subject:
As to your last point yes, quite likely it would be. Chances are it's actually against whatever's left of the rules in the US; certainly it would have been dirty pool thirty years ago or whenever when they had more serious rules. And really, there's no need for that kind of thing. I do a perfectly good job concluding Westboro types are vile nuts based on the facts, I don't need a Faux News "journalist" acting snippy to signal it for me.
Most of the rest of your points seem to boil down to "There's no point in, or way to, make any kinds of rules about broadcasting content because everything is subjective anyway." Very postmodern, but I don't think it's actually true. Just because a question is subtle and capable of being argued does not make all opinions about it equal. It's not impossible to make a reasonable determination of whether there is bias or unfairness in a broadcaster's presentation of news. It's just generally arguable, but determinations can be made. Just because someone could successfully quibble at length that this woman was being unbiased as the driven snow doesn't make it so.
And specifically, some of what you say involves "It's OK because the woman was given room to talk and counter the assertions being made". Well, no. If the broadcaster is taking one side and allows the guest to take the other, that is not the broadcaster being unbiased or presenting the news, it is the broadcaster taking one side. If the broadcaster wants to get multiple sides of an issue presented, they should get more than one guest from more than one side of the issue, and ask them all equally searching questions. And there is a difference between asking tough questions and asking slanted questions. It is possible although, again, no doubt it's a difficult task requiring some deliberation, to determine distinctions between the two.
Most of the rest of your points seem to boil down to "There's no point in, or way to, make any kinds of rules about broadcasting content because everything is subjective anyway." Very postmodern, but I don't think it's actually true.
Well, I don't know if it's neccessarily postmodern to say that some categorizations can be objectively quantified, whereas some are pretty much a matter of personal interpretation of the terms. "No frontal nudity on prime time TV" would be an example of the former; "No rude questioning of a guest" would be an example of the latter.
Quote:
It's not impossible to make a reasonable determination of whether there is bias or unfairness in a broadcaster's presentation of news.
Again, though, part of my issue was whether or not this particular TV show qualified as "news". It's not like it was the 6:00 news anchor announcing that Gillis had recieved grants, and then saying "But we object to this money coming from the taxpayers".
Quote:
If the broadcaster is taking one side and allows the guest to take the other, that is not the broadcaster being unbiased or presenting the news, it is the broadcaster taking one side. If the broadcaster wants to get multiple sides of an issue presented, they should get more than one guest from more than one side of the issue, and ask them all equally searching questions. And there is a difference between asking tough questions and asking slanted questions. It is possible although, again, no doubt it's a difficult task requiring some deliberation, to determine distinctions between the two.
I can ackonwledge the difference between the host saying A and the guest saying B, as in the Gillis interview, and the host remaining neutral, and having one guest saying A and another saying B. But is the former really a violation of the rules?
I used to listen to talk-radio was a kid, long before Rush Limbaugh and FOX News took off, and the hosts were often quite open about arguing one side of the question, and wouldn't even bother having a guest on to counter that. They'd just take calls from the listeners, and on some nights they'd all be in agreement with the host. Would that be disallowed now?
Joined: 11 Apr 2006 Posts: 3483 Location: SFU and/or the college of Riddlemastery at Caithnard
Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2011 8:25 pm Post subject:
If radio talk shows are considered "news", then yeah I guess. I'm not clear they are. Meanwhile, isn't that thing called the "Sun News Network" or some such? Are they not claiming to present news broadcasts? Just because they can't be taken seriously doesn't mean they get to ditch the rules--first they have to admit that they can't be taken seriously by themselves renouncing claims that news is involved.
Meanwhile, isn't that thing called the "Sun News Network" or some such? Are they not claiming to present news broadcasts?
Actually, yes they are(I had to look that up), but does that mean that every show has to follow the same protocols as a newscast? I'd be interested to know what their actual CRTC-approved mandate is.
But, in your favour, from wikipedia...
Quote:
On-air personalitiesCharles Adler – host, Charles Adler
David Akin – national bureau chief; host, Daily Brief
Pat Bolland – The Roundtable morning show
Theo Caldwell – host, The Caldwell Account
Jacqui Delaney – host, Newswire
Nicole Dubé – reporter
Brian Dunstan – host, Evening News Update
Krista Erickson – daytime news anchor, Canada Live[18]
Tobias Fisher – national news editor
Alexandra Gunn – "Life and Style" reporter; weekend weather anchor
Michelle Jobin – senior meteorologist
Sneha Kulkarni – reporter
Ezra Levant – host, The Source[18]
Caryn Lieberman – weekend anchor, Sun News Live
Brian Lilley – senior correspondent; host, Byline
Alex Mihailovich – reporter
Gina Phillips – Social Media correspondent
Alex Pierson – The Roundtable morning show
Andrea Slobodian – The Roundtable morning show
Monte Solberg – The Roundtable morning show
Neelam Verma – host, First Look early morning show[19]
That's the list of Sun News personalities. If Erickson's show is indeed as it sounds, then maybe it would be an inappropriate venue for expressing opinions. But then, that relates to the nature of the show, not the network. And what about newscasters who deliver editorials after the news has been read?
Joined: 11 Apr 2006 Posts: 14585 Location: Toronto, ON
Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2011 10:17 pm Post subject:
Newscasters delivering editorials after the news has been read identify them as editorials in compliance with the code of ethics.
Even if all your points are true and correct, Sun would still be skirting the very edges of what is permissible.
The point is that when you present something and call it the news, it is required to be unbiased and impartial. Sun TV presents itself as the Sun News Network, bills itself as a 24hr news station, and Krista Erickson is the daytime news anchor. You don't get much more "news" than that.
And as Rufus says, unbiased news isn't the show taking one side and having a guest on to rebut the other. Given the power imbalances between the broadcaster and the guest, that would be like me taking an opinion on Canadian foreign policy in regard to the Middle East and then asking my eleven year old cousin to give the opposing point of view while asking slanted questions of him. _________________ "Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson
Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 17641 Location: Seceded from the Ford Nation
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2012 12:19 am Post subject:
One of the many delightful things about the demise of Sun TV's mandatory cable coverage in Toronto is that I don't see Ezra Levant's show listed what seems like every other hour. Never got round to watching it, I'm not that masochistic. In Toronto Sun TV has been replaced by a PBS feed, much nicer, I can watch Downton Abbey and sundry other mildly pretentious shows with British or mid-Atlantic accents. Yay!
Harper got his majority, however slender. Mission accomplished for Quebecor. They did their part - for instance dedicating a big chunk of their pre-election day to their fabricated Jack Layton and the massage parlour story.
Harper got his majority, however slender. Mission accomplished for Quebecor. They did their part - for instance dedicating a big chunk of their pre-election day to their fabricated Jack Layton and the massage parlour story.
I hope for the sake of this country that the kind of fabricated BS that was the massage parlour story didn't swing a single vote.
Joined: 11 Apr 2006 Posts: 14585 Location: Toronto, ON
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2012 10:52 pm Post subject:
Vundo Draxon wrote:
ronb wrote:
Harper got his majority, however slender. Mission accomplished for Quebecor. They did their part - for instance dedicating a big chunk of their pre-election day to their fabricated Jack Layton and the massage parlour story.
I hope for the sake of this country that the kind of fabricated BS that was the massage parlour story didn't swing a single vote.
At least in Toronto, I'm quite sure it triggered a backlash. _________________ "Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson
Nobody should be surprised that the CBSC failed to find fault in Erickson’s approach. She was obnoxious. There is no regulatory mechanism for the censure of obnoxious behaviour on TV.
Neither is there any regulatory mechanism to censure unprofessionalism or lack of quality. We use the market mechanism of not watching to censure that. Yet that interview was probably viewed thousands more times than it ever would have been if not for the people who are just looking for an excuse to complain about anything SunTV does, no matter what it is. See also: their citizenship/reaffirmation ceremony fiasco. The only thing even remotely worth caring about is the fact that a few people paid by the government (indirectly, us) spent a few person-hours on that waste of time (the ceremony itself and time dealing with the subsequent controversy). I really don't care if SunTV can't be arsed to cover a real ceremony because I can't be arsed to watch anything on their channel in the first place.
We use the market mechanism of not watching to censure that.
The problem with this approach is that when I choose not to watch/read/listen to/buy/smoke/eat something then the only person I'm controlling is ME.
What if people seem to like something that I don't like, and are unwilling to forgo it like I do? _________________ ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Voting Centre
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Front Page
Links
Acceptable Use Policy
Donate
Today's Active Topics