[PluggyRug]

Just read the comments ......


https://mobile.twitter.com/JustinTrudea ... 4141383680

[llama66]

Still the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Act is beholden to Section 2 as it guarantee's the freedom of the press.

This whole argument is moot because I'm sure the fed's will Notwithstanding Clause this away anyway.

For the record, I've had zero time to change anything as I'm not in office.

I'm not being obtuse, I'm stating my charter protected right to an opinion, just as you are. Maybe I'm not in such a rush to throw my freedom away. We don't have to agree on this, but it's nice to have the right to get into a discussion like this, no?

[llama66]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

llama66 llama66:

Controlling the media is NOT a hallmark of a "free" society. Free means we get both good and bad media, it is incumbent on the individual to discern the difference. NOT for the Government to legislate the difference.

Controlling media is one thing, but defining a profession is another. Government defines all sorts of professional organizations, such as Doctor, Lawyer and Engineer.

Why not define 'Journalist'? There used to be an informal definition, ie: you worked for a newspaper. Then a TV News crew. But when anyone can hang a sign and say "I'm a Journalist", are they? Orson Wells "War of the Worlds" blurred that line. Some guy with a website can come along now and report things like 'news', but if it never actually happened, do we call him a journalist or fiction writer?

Should he have to state "Fiction, for entertainment purposes" in the copy? And what about actual newspapers that publish advertisements as if they were stories? Shouldn't that be identified?

Why? Why does someone have to think for us, why does someone have to tell us if something is real or not? We should be smart enough to figure it out. We have the weapons to fight misinformation, already. We don't need some charter to tell others how to act or what they can write, we need to have the critical thinking skills and decide what was just read real or not.

This is why the west is in decline. We've grown lazy.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

This is one example:

Stuff like that pisses me off too. But probably for a different reason. Groper has provided MORE than enough material to shred him, between his misguided, disastrous policies and the stupid shit he says, there's really no need to make up lies about him. The reality of Groper should be damaging enough.

But this "digital charter" is just another example of leftists eroding the rights of the people. The message is abundantly clear and rather chilling. Only the govt has the right to lie to the people.

[llama66]

$1:

Only the govt has the right to lie to the people.

Maybe the competition is scaring them.

[peck420]

llama66 llama66:

This whole argument is moot because I'm sure the fed's will Notwithstanding Clause this away anyway.

No, this conversation is moot because reductio ad absurdum was the basis for it.

This is a conference. It has no legal bearing in Canada. If Canada wanted it to have legal bearing, it is still a long ways away.

And, quite frankly, any major legal changes to how we deal with the interwebs pits Fedarles vs Quebec, so really...years and years away.

I could see your concern if there was a bill sitting in the House, but right now...just feel good activities with requests of voluntary adherence.

[BartSimpson]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Why not define 'Journalist'?

Because once you do that then you exclude everyone else who may have important news to share.

You also end up creating official news services that serve as mouthpieces for the government and while you might approve so long as leftists are in charge what happens when Canada one day swings hard to the right and you people elect a hard right government?

Will you approve when 'fake news' is defined as anything in opposition to the right wing government? Will you approve when only right-wing reporters get to have journalist licenses?

I suspect not.

That's why there are some things that the cocksucking, power hungry c*nts from the government should keep their fucking, corrupt hands off of.

I may not like the liberal media and how they collude with the left but I'll fucking hate them when leftist bureaucrats get to approve who can report the news.

And I imagine you'd hate it if the US outlawed all media aside from FOX News.

[llama66]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

And I imagine you'd hate it if the US outlawed all media aside from FOX News.

I'd kill my self. There is only so much Hannity a human can endure.

[DrCaleb]

llama66 llama66:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

llama66 llama66:

Controlling the media is NOT a hallmark of a "free" society. Free means we get both good and bad media, it is incumbent on the individual to discern the difference. NOT for the Government to legislate the difference.

Controlling media is one thing, but defining a profession is another. Government defines all sorts of professional organizations, such as Doctor, Lawyer and Engineer.

Why not define 'Journalist'? There used to be an informal definition, ie: you worked for a newspaper. Then a TV News crew. But when anyone can hang a sign and say "I'm a Journalist", are they? Orson Wells "War of the Worlds" blurred that line. Some guy with a website can come along now and report things like 'news', but if it never actually happened, do we call him a journalist or fiction writer?

Should he have to state "Fiction, for entertainment purposes" in the copy? And what about actual newspapers that publish advertisements as if they were stories? Shouldn't that be identified?

Why? Why does someone have to think for us, why does someone have to tell us if something is real or not? We should be smart enough to figure it out. We have the weapons to fight misinformation, already. We don't need some charter to tell others how to act or what they can write, we need to have the critical thinking skills and decide what was just read real or not.

This is why the west is in decline. We've grown lazy.

It's not about lazy, it's about integrity. Journalists have a skeptical nature, and part of the training is to feed that skepticism. If they are told by a witness that they saw a car accident, and they have pictures, a good journalist will first verify there was a car accident. They will look at the scene for debris. They will call tow companies to see if cars were towed. They will go there to see the wreckage. Then, and only then, will they report there was a car accident.

The average person cannot do this themselves. We have to rely on a journalist and their integrity to report to us about the car accident, and verify its a real thing. The average blogger will do nothing beyond accepting the witnesses word there was an accident. The average schyster will make the whole thing up to begin with. How is the average person to tell?

I see nothing wrong with legislating professional ethics, and professional responsibility, because so much of modern society depends on getting the truth about our society. There needs to be standards as to what can be sold as 'truth', not what the truth is going to look like according to 'social' media.

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Why not define 'Journalist'?

Because once you do that then you exclude everyone else who may have important news to share.

Those are called 'witnesses', not Journalists.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

$1:

It's not about lazy, it's about integrity. Journalists have a skeptical nature, and part of the training is to feed that skepticism. If they are told by a witness that they saw a car accident, and they have pictures, a good journalist will first verify there was a car accident. They will look at the scene for debris. They will call tow companies to see if cars were towed. They will go there to see the wreckage. Then, and only then, will they report there was a car accident.

Oooo like the 10 yr old muslim girl who wasn't assaulted? Oh yeah, the media really did their f*cking job there. Yes, I know the police asked the media to help by releasing a description of the "suspect" but the media took it much farther than that.

[llama66]

Respectfully disagree. "Journalists" as you define, chase sexy stories. Hence the term "If it bleeds, it leads".

Integrity is reporting the truth, regardless of how inconvenient it is. To wit: How much coverage did Humboldt get versus the Van attack that happened at the same time?

[DrCaleb]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

$1:

It's not about lazy, it's about integrity. Journalists have a skeptical nature, and part of the training is to feed that skepticism. If they are told by a witness that they saw a car accident, and they have pictures, a good journalist will first verify there was a car accident. They will look at the scene for debris. They will call tow companies to see if cars were towed. They will go there to see the wreckage. Then, and only then, will they report there was a car accident.

Oooo like the 10 yr old muslim girl who wasn't assaulted? Oh yeah, the media really did their f*cking job there. Yes, I know the police asked the media to help by releasing a description of the "suspect" but the media took it much farther than that.

No idea what you are talking about, but that is one of those things that falls back on the integrity of the organization. Where they reporting an assault, or were they reporting on a police report of an assault?

There is a difference.

[llama66]

He references the 10 year old in Toronto that allegedly got her Hijab cut off. Widespread coverage, but ultimately the allegations were proven to be false. Story dropped.

[DrCaleb]

llama66 llama66:

Respectfully disagree. "Journalists" as you define, chase sexy stories. Hence the term "If it bleeds, it leads".

Integrity is reporting the truth, regardless of how inconvenient it is. To wit: How much coverage did Humboldt get versus the Van attack that happened at the same time?

That is an editorial decision, and goes back to 'integrity'. Most people attribute differences in media to 'liberal values' when instead it comes down to editorial decisions. If one channel chose to beat the Humbolt Broncos story to death, compared to another, that is up to their editor or producer. Or perhaps their owner. That's what i see as the major failing in the 24 hour news channel format. They need to keep people's attention, so they will milk a story to death.

The one hour news show doesn't do that.