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. 

She only violated the integrity of her office to protect the integrity of her office

Leave Christiane aloooooooooooooone!

We can now see why Sean Bruyea got nowhere with the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner, Christiane Ouimet.  Mr. Bruyea filed a complaint with PSIC concerning violations to his right to privacy in which his personal records were passed around to many people in an effort to discredit him.

Ouimet tossed his complaint out despite a massive amount of proof in his favour.

Today, AG Sheila Fraser tabled her investigation of the PSI commish and we learn why Ouimet considered what was done to Bruyea as no biggie:

19. We found that the Commissioner:

disclosed personal information about the complainant to his previous employer, to senior officials in government, and to the private sector security consultant;

requested access to the complainant’s personnel file from his previous employer in order to use this information in a security investigation that targeted the complainant and three other former PSIC employees;

prepared and circulated information about the complainant within PSIC, which included leading the preparation of four binders comprising 96 documents and totalling more than 375 pages of information about him, circulating at least 50 emails about him, and involving at least 6 of her staff in these activities; and

did not meet her obligations under the Treasury Board’s Policy on Privacy Protection and under the Privacy Act, in responding to the requests made by the complainant to access his personal information in PSIC’s possession.

So the person in charge of making sure others in positions of authority in the public sector act with integrity is guilty of massive violations herself.

The AG’s report also concluded that Ouimet was generally abusive to staff – swearing at them, threatening their jobs, causing them fear.

I don’t agree with trivial lawsuits.  What this public servant has done is far from trivial and every person affected by her should sue her ass.  The public has been paying her salary for the past 25 years and she more than failed the public.  People like her have no social conscience to appeal to.  Lawsuits, they understand.

Ouimet’s explanation?

21. The Commissioner told us that she acted in good faith at all times and intended no prejudice toward anyone. The Commissioner told us that she had acted to protect the reputation of her Office and on the advice that she received from PSIC’s Departmental Audit Committee.

It would have been better not to have a commissioner because those with complaints would have gone elsewhere for help.  This piece of crap actually served as a barrier to legitimate complaints.  She should not be allowed to simply resign and walk away (with severance pay and benefits, I’m sure).

The AG’s report cleared up some questions, but there’s still at least one huge one that needs to be answered.  Was Ouimet following someone else’s instructions or is she simply independently vile, vicious, duplicitous?

I doubt she’ll ever tell.  If she turns up on some CON friendly board down the road, though, we’ll have our answer.