Canadian "Truth In Broadcasting" Law

[MozeMan]

http://www.theatlantic.com/internat...be-illegal-canadas-broadcasters-debate/72866/

How would such a law in America affect conservative talk radio and TV?

 

[fredcantu]

I don't think we have a problem with broadcasters lying as much as broadcasting only the selected truths that back up their point. With full disclosure I'll admit I'm old school and miss the old equal time rules. But I realize opposing views are tuneouts and people will listen longer to shows they agree with.

 

[willdav713]

http://www.theatlantic.com/internat...be-illegal-canadas-broadcasters-debate/72866/

How would such a law in America affect conservative talk radio and TV?

It would be challenged and stuck down by the courts. This is why we live in a Republic under Democratic rule we can choose what we want to say to a certain extent, and listen to. Broadcasters are always going to go with the market and what makes them money, period. At this time Liberal talk for instance is not profitable in many markets. I am not sure if Rush Limbaugh airs in Berekley, California while Al Franken might.

 

[fredcantu]

I am not sure if Rush Limbaugh airs in Berekley, California while Al Franken might.

Berkeley is part of the much larger San Francisco market. Rush airs on KSFO which ranks #11 overall and is the #3 talker behind public radio KQED and local talk giant KGO. Al Franken left radio in 2007 to begin a successful run for U.S. Senate.

 

[MozeMan]

Is Canada not a democracy? Pretty sure it is. I am not sure what would be so un-American about some kind of legal mechanism in place to prevent broadcasters, or perhaps even politicians or officials, from intentionally lying to the American public on our airwaves.

Waving the flag and proclaiming proudly our right as Americans to mislead each other in the name of entertainment and profit is profoundly repugnant to me. The FCC goes way out of its way to protect us from dirty language, but manipulating our political system with lies in order to keep ratings up is okay?

 

[w9wi]

http://www.theatlantic.com/internat...be-illegal-canadas-broadcasters-debate/72866/

How would such a law in America affect conservative talk radio and TV?

I think Fred hit it. There is very little lying going on in American broadcasting, conservative or otherwise.

There is a lot of omission of fact, and a lot of exposure to only one side's opinion.

 

[Faraway]

But I realize opposing views are tuneouts and people will listen longer to shows they agree with.

This is so un-true. As a talk show producer I am always looking/listening for callers with an opposing viewpoint. Most hosts under stand that hearing a steady stream of "I agree" calls is boring. That's why on a lot of shows you might be noticing a trend to fewer calls. If all the calls are saying the same thing, and not really causing additional dialog, why bother.

 

[MozeMan]

In a legal trial, if one side intentionally withholds information for the purpose of leading a jury or judge away from the truth and is caught, the system is derailed and a mistrial results.  Why should the intentional omission of information designed to blur the truth be any more acceptable in a broadcasting context?

 

[willdav713]

In a legal trial, if one side intentionally withholds information for the purpose of leading a jury or judge away from the truth and is caught, the system is derailed and a mistrial results. Why should the intentional omission of information designed to blur the truth be any more acceptable in a broadcasting context?

What you are describing is the court system where you are sworn to tell the truth and nothing but the truth. The court system is different than brodcasting. In the library you have fiction and non fiction. To be non fiction it has to be trueful, if such law were to exist we wouldn't have any programming on TV and Radio except for The History Channel, Discovery, and The Weather Channel.

That is why stations have disclaimers "Programming on ____ doesn't express the stations views or opinons" that gives listeners a clue that these are opinon generated talk shows. Also with the new House I expect cuts for the FCC.

 

[fredcantu]

if such law were to exist we wouldn't have any programming on TV and Radio except for The History Channel, Discovery, and The Weather Channel.

The Canadian law only applies to the broadcast of news programs.

 

[CTHank]

I remember a news director telling me once when I was just getting started to remember, that in every story there are multiple sides, and that it was important to try and get information from all sides, so you can present a complete picture. Today though we're live in a 30-60 second world and it seems like the only side we ever get is the one deemed most likely to get attention.

I don't think that most people in "news" organizations consciously lie, I think they take a side and present that side because they either agree with it or it fits some preconceived belief they have and they know that we live in a world where people form opinions by the headlines they read and not by the story being told. And the follow-up story is never read or heard as often as the original.

Just like you can't legislate morality, I don't believe you can legislate fairness or truth in broadcasting

 

[grantchester]

I don't believe you can legislate fairness or truth in broadcasting

They used to.

There ought to be some way to hold people to account for the damage done by half-truth, mis-truth and out-and-out lies. The craven cynicism with which some talk hosts disseminate bile has had a definite detrimental effect on our country.

 

[fredcantu]

I know a lot of modern broadcasters hate the idea of the return of the fariness doctrine. But I'll tell you that back when equal time, local news and public service programs were mandated we had a much better informed and educated citizenry. Plus we had some damn create programming because even the Top 40s and rock stations did hourly newscasts.

 

[flashback]

requiring facts in newscasts.such a radical idea.

 

[CTHank]

But I'll tell you that back when equal time, local news and public service programs were mandated we had a much better informed and educated citizenry.Plus we had some damn create programming because even the Top 40s and rock stations did hourly newscasts.

You can't travel back in time, you can't keep wishing for the 'good old days'. Today's average person has many more avenues of information than were available back then. Each person who has an internet connection can instantly see what's going on with the NY Times, WSJ, Express-News, WOAI, CNN, Foxnews, etc. Feeds come directly to us on our phones, you don't have to wait for the top or bottom of the hour, now when something happens it's on facebook or twitter almost immediately.

I cracked my first mic in 1968 and yes there are times when I wish I was still on air, but I also know by looking at the raw numbers that you can reach far more people with a well thought out and produced pod-cast that you ever could with a local radio broadcast. I started in radio news on a rock station and please we weren't more creative we simply for the most part (if there wasn't anything major happening locally) ripped and read. There was still only one all-news station, the difference between then and now was that there was indeed more local programming, but again the world has changed. Don't blame it on the lack of a fairness doctrine, blame it on the ability of major consolidators to control entire markets, but most who complain won't because they're still hoping against hope to get hired by one of the big boys and you don't want to offend potential bosses.

KTSA is mostly local programming and they don't fair well against WOAI, people listen to what entertains them, so give them that and they will find you.

 

[fredcantu]

I also know by looking at the raw numbers that you can reach far more people with a well thought out and produced pod-cast that you ever could with a local radio broadcast.

I'm always been curious about podcast listenership. Where do you find these numbers?

 

[bturner]

Has anybody looked at all the requirements and pure lack of freedom Canadian broadcasters have? They have so many checks and balances it is difficult to even focus on the business you are involved in. You cannot even change your format without government approval.

Don't forget loopholes: Rush has always said he is 'entertainment', not a news program. If we had such a truth in broadcasting requirement, everybody would have to change the way they do things from NPR to ABC and the others to CNN and Fox and all other radio and TV doing anything they call news. Everybody has a slant or emphasis. Someone mentioned attorneys earlier. News reporting in the USA is much like news aired by attorneys who compose the content base on the outcome they seek. But this starts earlier on. Check any activist press release. Do they ever mention a non-glowing fact that might minimize their agenda? In short all news has become more 'opinion' or better yet, 'intrerpretation' of facts (usually not all) to lead the viewer or listeners to come to a certain conclusion.

I'm sure journalists of decades ago are rolling in their graves. I remember a radio station saying they were number one. They conducted a survey at places that were a favorites among their listeners. A journalist would seek out more balance. Blame this on budget cutbacks in newsrooms and fewer qualified people in those newsrooms. Add in the deadline stress of not being able to fully research a topic and you see how we come to a point where the whole truth rarely makes it on the first try.

No, I do not believe the editor or news director has a political agenda or an agenda passed down from ownership. I've seen news people elated being on the cutting edge of a developing story and loving opening a can of worms to expose an injustice versus a political agenda. More often than not, I have seen these news people at odd with ownership trying to be true to themselves, refusing to compromise their morals.