Headline from the twilight zone

CRTC may ease ban on broadcasting false or misleading news

Really.  You see a title like that and you just have to read on, thinking it must surely be an extremely poorly worded title.  What "independent public organization that regulates and supervises the Canadian broadcasting and telecommunications systems" would not fight to enforce nothing but the most reliable news delivered with absolute journalistic integrity?

We would assume that being an independent, public organization, such an agency would want to make sure it shields itself from corporate and political influence.  The public needs to be protected from the constant barrage of paid for ads full of false and misleading statements meant to sell us ideas or goods that we would never consider embracing should we be told the truths behind them.

Unfortunately, the title to this article is not misleading.

Current regulations contain a blanket prohibition on broadcasting “any false or misleading news.”  The (CRTC) wants to considerably narrow the scope of that prohibition.  It is proposing a ban on the broadcast of “any news that the licensee knows is false or misleading and that endangers or is likely to endanger the lives, health or safety of the public.”
 
Michael Geist, a University of Ottawa law professor specializing in communications issues, says the proposed prohibition is far too limited.  “If we're setting a high standard that you've got to actually endanger someone's life, health or safety, frankly almost anything that's false or misleading that's obviously outside of that fairly narrow scope would be fair game,” Geist said in an interview.  For instance, he said false news that caused financial harm would not be covered by the more limited prohibition.

Nor would such a limited prohibition prevent intentionally false news that could ruin someone's career, family life, or reputation.  It would not protect companies under attack by ones intent on destroying their public image.

It would create a new battleground for vicious attacks against political opponents, special interest groups, minorities, or anyone that gets in the way of people with enough money and power to buy or bully their way on the airwaves.

That the new rules would disallow lies which endanger lives, health, and safety of the public is no protection at all since it is often difficult to prove in a court of law that certain words provoked a certain outcome.  The same violent rhetoric can be repeated over and over, working its influence on those so full of anger and frustration they only need a small nudge to act, but as we have seen in the recent Arizona killings, the rhetorical trigger was pulled at a safe enough distance in the eyes of the law that those who promote violence and hatred through their lies can continue to do so without personal repercussions.

Orwell's Bastard has a link where you can reach a site and tell CRTC what you think of this dangerous change.  As OB says, they may not listen, but we should voice our opposition anyway.