Mar 072011
 

This story is actually a week old, but I have seen it nowhere else and was completely unaware of it, until a friend, RJ, sent me an article that links to this one, so apologies if this is old news to you.  There is no Fox in Canada.  Canada does not have anything like Fox, spreading disinformation, Republican propaganda, and outright lies to confuse the electorate into voting against their self interest.  Canada has the good sense to ban outlets like Fox.  Why don’t we?

7foxliesAs 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 Wisconsin border. Fox News will not be moving into Canada after all! The reason: Canada 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 U.S. airwaves. When Stephen Harper moved to abolish 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 is a stark admission that right wing political ideology can only dominate national debate through dishonest propaganda… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Huffington Post>

To my Canadian friends, I say hang in there!  You do NOT want your airwaves polluted as ours have been.

To my fellow Americans, I say take action.  Call your Senators and Representative and tell them that America needs a law like Canada’s that forbids broadcasting false or misleading news.

Share

  35 Responses to “Why Fox Is Banned in Canada”

  1. Hats off to our very sensible, wonderful neighbor to the north! I have long considered Harper to be just like George W. Bush, and I am glad Canadians had the wisdom and balls to stand up to him! Hopefully, he, too, will soon be gone from office.

  2. Many places are smarter than we are. Anyone with an oz of brain matter knows that filling the masses full of bullshit is not a good idea unless you are repuglican. And the dims let it happen like most the rest of it. Bastards all!

  3. Thanks for this Tom.. As you know I live in Canada and we recently went through quite a fight to preserve the Canada Radio Act as it is. The Conservative Party was desperately trying to amend the existing law to allow ‘news entertainment’ such as FOX to move onto our radio, TV and cable waves. There was such an outcry from the public that the initiative was dropped by the Conservative government. FOX is a blight upon America. Whatever happened to ‘truth’ as a component of responsible news reporting??

    • YVW, Dawg!! Great to see you, BTW. On our side of the border, we see truth about half the time on MSNBC, our best major network. After that, it goes downhill. But, where most networks just refuse to debunk Republican lies, Fox participates in their formulation.

      Folks, Dawg runs Buckdog, a great place to go for Canadian Politics.

  4. Agree whole heartedly.

  5. Fox would not be banned in Canada if they did not call what they do NEWS. They need to call it Comedy, or better yet Tragedy.

  6. Jerry, or a comedy of errors! :mrgreen:

  7. We need a law that makes them explain, very expressly, that they are an opinion broadcaster and not a news network. Barring that, they are already in violation of their FCC license-if anyone actually enforced the rules behind those licenses, at least.

  8. from wikipedia-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.

    The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, they just know so much that isnt true.

    • Look, I never said that Fox cannot be seen in Canada. I said that “Canada does not have anything like Fox.” The Fox they see on cable is American Fox about America, not Canadian Fox.

      The trouble with our conservative friends is that they distort meaning whenever the facts differ from their lies.

  9. oh and that darn first amendment too.

  10. This is a problem on both sides of the isle, the dems were in total control and didnt pass a law over truth on the airwaves either.

    vote 3rd party for real change in america

    • Wrong, sir. The reason we have the current situation with Republicans in charge of the House is that voters who voted Democratic in 2008 voted 3rd party or stayed home in protest in 2010. I have problems with the Dems too, but the only “real change” voting 3rd party brings is a change to Republican rule.

  11. Banning lies and misinformation by broadcasters sounds great. I just hope it woiuld be applied to NBC, MSNBC, CBS, ABC as well. None of them have the market cornered on the truth or on being unbiased in their reporting.

    • Welcome Rock. I don’t think it’s possible to eliminate bias. I’m biased and damn proud of it. But if the facts mitigate against my point of view, I say so. I don’t lie to make a point.

  12. That’s great! I had no idea Canada wouldn’t let Fox News broadcast because they out and out say they lie. That’s wonderful, wish our country had some reasonable laws about that.

    • Maui, to be clear, cable companies can show US Fox there. If Murdoch tried to establish Canadian Fox, and it were to function like US Fox does, they would lose their license.

  13. pretzel_logic, like so many right wingers, refused to follow the rules here and resorted to personal attack. He has been banned,

  14. Same old hackneyed liberal propaganda coming out of Canada. Fox is the leading cable network in the U.S.A. because it tells the TRUTH. The liberals have tried to stop it through the so-called “fairness doctrine.” What a catchy name for a despicable end. They are trying to censor and cram their agenda down our throats. And since their own networks fail they want Fox to subsidize them. Kind of like Obamacare.

    • Denny, if you actually believe the garbage you’re spewing, let’s talk about buyinh my bridge between Manhattan and Brooklyn. It’s discounted this week only. Fox is the most popular network because they pander to fools, who were more than twice as likely to give an incorrect answer when tested on current events as the viewers of any other network.

  15. Where is the rest of the article?? Why is it cut off?? I know there’s more because I read more of it the other day. Unfortunately, I cannot figure out where I read it though. Please post the rest of the article!

    • You are referring to the the original article ob Huffington Post. At the bottom of the insertion, there is a link to the entire piece.

  16. You guys seem to think that the Democrats and the Republicans differ in any way. Both have been PROGRESSIVES that have been implementing their policies as early as Woodrow Wilson in the US and earlier in England with the Fabian Socialists/Society. The reason why we don’t ban ANY ONE from speaking their mind is because of our Constitution. If you guys bothered to read the Constitution, you might notice that all the sentences begin with “CONGRESS SHALL NOT” Any questions?

    • This issue has nothing whatsoever to with the First Amendment. First, we’re talking about Canada. American exceptionalism aside, they have their own Constitution. Second the bandwidth that Fox uses to broadcast is public property, leased to Fox, subject to rules of use as determined by the FCC. Fox has every right to speak their opinion, but they do not have the right to broadcast intentionally misrepresented facts, if the FCC should ban such abuse of privilege.

      • If you would actually watch Fox News, you might actually have a clue about the “misinformation” you are talking about. Do you have any specific examples? Give me one. The FCC is against the freedom of speech. It is controversial speech which is protected. Polite speech does not need that protection. You think that “misinformation” is bad. If it is what you claim, you have to read it, how do you know if you don’t read or watch it. The whole point of being objective is to consider all sides of a story, if you ignore Fox’s point of view, then you admit that you are subjective, biased and indoctrinated into a particular ideology. Or as you put it “MISINFORMED”. looks like another pot calling the kettle black scenario to me.

        • You base your argument on a false premise. My opinion about Fox is based on watching it. I coined the term Faux Noise years ago, long before the campaign to turn off Fox in public places started. A couple of examples are Beck’s statement that Obama the Muslim is plotting to establish the Caliphate in the US and pushing the deceptive “death panel” meme during the HCR debates. I admitted to bias, not subjectivity. But my bias is based on experience. MISINFORMED? Try ASS-U-ME.

          • Provide to me the transcript the this “quote” from Beck, if its true, then it should be available. The fact that you cant will prove you are wrong in your first example. On your second example. I don’t know where you have been for the last six months, but supporters of the health care law recently admitted that such panels will be necessary. Paul Krugman, an influential journalist/supporter of the law has recently gone public admitting this. Look it up.

            • Provide you with a transcript? Why? Nothing I sat will make a difference to you. You don’t make demands here, and I have wasted enough time on your arrogance and disrespect. You don’t call the shots here. You are done. You asked what I had seen on Fox. I told you. I will not take the to look it up, because nothing I can say will satisfy you. As for Krugman, you took him out of context. He thinks that Medicare and Medicaid will need to make decisions about what procedures they will pay for. That has been in place for years, just like in private insurance, but there, executives who care only for profit make the decisions.