Foxnews

[j2k4]

Well?

What about it?

Keeping in mind, of course, that FOXNEWS is now banned in Canada, though Al Jazeera is welcomed; if Canada doesn't like it, it must really be bad, huh?

[clocker]

Fox News is banned in Canada?
I just saw Bill O on the tube last night and he didn't appear to be frothing at the mouth any more than usual...has he been informed?

[Biggles]

I don't see FOX very often (by choice I confess) but the ratio of hits on Canada to the little I have seen would suggest that FOX don't like Canada much either.

[vidcc]

I believe that a while back it was in a package and the package was refused license because of duplication of service or something equivelent. It wasn't offered as a "stand alone" channel and was bundled with such channels as Nickleodeon Kids, Flix, Sundance, ESPN and Cinemax.
Could you point to a credible news source that states it's "banned" as i haven't heard that they re-applied.
thanks :D

[spinningfreemanny]

Originally posted by clocker@10 August 2004 - 22:58
Fox News is banned in Canada?
I just saw Bill O on the tube last night and he didn't appear to be frothing at the mouth any more than usual...has he been informed?
I just seen his interview with Ben Affleck; heck, almost nice. :blink:

[j2k4]

Originally posted by vidcc@10 August 2004 - 18:07
Could you point to a credible news source that states it's "banned"
No-I'm Conservative and don't know what's credible and what's not.

Don't take my word for it; after all, I don't live there, so how would I know, right?

[Busyman]

Originally posted by j2k4+10 August 2004 - 21:07--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 10 August 2004 - 21:07)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-vidcc@10 August 2004 - 18:07
Could you point to a credible news source that states it&#39;s "banned"
No-I&#39;m Conservative and don&#39;t know what&#39;s credible and what&#39;s not.

Don&#39;t take my word for it; after all, I don&#39;t live there, so how would I know, right? [/b][/quote]
Well..........you brought it up. :lol:

[vidcc]

Originally posted by j2k4+10 August 2004 - 19:07--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 &#064; 10 August 2004 - 19:07)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-vidcc@10 August 2004 - 18:07
Could you point to a credible news source that states it&#39;s "banned"
No-I&#39;m Conservative and don&#39;t know what&#39;s credible and what&#39;s not.

Don&#39;t take my word for it; after all, I don&#39;t live there, so how would I know, right? [/b][/quote]
I just ask for a source... such as say..the fox news network.
I searched myself and couldn&#39;t find a story that said that the fox channel had been refused application as a stand alone channel, or had even re-applied after the package it was in failed.
Before i discuss the rights and wrongs of the original point i would like to know that it is in fact "banned"

[j2k4]

After welcoming CNN, Al Jazeera, et.al. to the Canadian fold, FOXNEWS was omitted from the standard satellite non-Canadian programming menu, for whatever reason; apparently the Canadian Cable Television Association had requested, as a last-gasp effort, to make FOXNEWS available in Canada on a "special and/or pay" basis, provided FOX do a bit of re-formulating to become FOX NEWS CANADA, and, in order to gain this distribution, broadcast in digital format, which FOX decided not to do, as apparently they are feeling "singled out" (the other news outlets are apparently not required to do this).

Fox opted out at this point.

I have highlighted the relevant sections in red.

This comes directly from the CRTC (Canadian Radio and Telecommunications Commission) archive.

Broadcasting Public Notice CRTC 2004-45
Ottawa, 9 July 2004
Call for comments on proposals for the addition of Fox News and NFL Network to the lists of satellite services eligible for distribution on a digital basis
The requests
1.
The Commission has received two separate requests from the Canadian Cable Television Association (CCTA), acting as the Canadian sponsor, to add two non-Canadian satellite services to the lists of satellite services eligible for distribution on a digital basis (the digital lists). The CCTA described the non-Canadian services as follows:
Fox News: A 24 hour seven day per week national U.S. cable news network devoted to delivering objective coverage of the day’s events. The service broadcasts original news and information programs including live breaking news stories and coverage of significant events in the United States and around the world.

NFL Network: A 24 hour year round television lifestyle and entertainment sports service for NFL fans intended to complement and promote NFL games that are aired by other broadcasters. NFL Network broadcasts original news and information shows, magazine style shows and a weekly game preview show. Programming also includes press conferences, fantasy football shows and in 2004 some live exhibition games. NFL Network is not a live event sports service and will not be carrying live NFL games with the exception of some exhibition games and NFL Europe League games not currently offered by existing Canadian broadcasters.

2.
The CCTA stated that authorizing the above services for distribution in Canada would be beneficial to the Canadian broadcasting system in that the services would (i) offer Canadian viewers the benefit of increased choice, (ii) increase the penetration of digital services which, in its view, is critical for the health of Canadian diginet services, high definition television, video-on-demand and potential interactive services, and (iii) be an effective tool in combating the appeal of the black market.
Background
3.
In Call for proposals to amend the lists of eligible satellite services through the inclusion of additional non-Canadian services eligible for distribution on a digital basis only, Public Notice CRTC 2000-173, 14 December 2000 (Public Notice 2000-173), the Commission invited proposals to amend the lists of eligible satellite services through the inclusion of additional non-Canadian programming services that would be authorized for distribution on a digital basis only. The Commission also stated in Public Notice 2000-173 that any such requests must include the following:
evidence that the non-Canadian service has agreed to be sponsored by the Canadian party filing the proposal;

a statement from the service provider that it has obtained all necessary rights for distribution of its programming in Canada;

a brief description of the service;

a copy of the current program schedule;

evidence of potential demand, as gathered through discussions with distributors; and

an undertaking from the non-Canadian service provider that it does not hold, will not obtain, nor will it exercise, preferential or exclusive programming rights in relation to the distribution of programming in Canada.

4.
The Commission is satisfied that the CCTA has provided the supporting information required by Public Notice 2000-173 and that it is now appropriate to call for comments on the requests set out above.
5.
As stated in Public Notice 2000-173, the Commission intends to assess the current requests against the background of its general policy which, among other things, generally precludes the addition to the lists of eligible satellite services of new non-Canadian satellite services that are either partially or totally competitive with Canadian specialty or pay television services. In applying this policy, the Commission will take into account the services of all specialty and pay television programming undertakings whose licence applications have been approved by the Commission, including all of the launched and unlaunched Category 1 and Category 2 specialty and pay television services.
The sponsor’s views on competitiveness
6.
With respect to NFL Network, the CCTA submitted that this service would not be partially or totally competitive with a licensed Canadian specialty or pay television service. The CCTA stated that NFL Network would complement both the live NFL games currently aired by Canadian broadcasters and the NFL Sunday Ticket pay package offered on a digital basis by Canadian cable companies.
7.
The CCTA was of the view that Fox News would serve to complement the news currently aired by Canadian broadcasters. Further, the CCTA submitted that the Commission has already recognized that non-Canadian news and information satellite services are not competitive with licensed Canadian services that operate with similar formats. In this regard, the CCTA noted that the Commission has added such non-Canadian news services as CNN, CNN Headline News, C-Span, Euronews and BBC World to the lists of eligible satellite services despite the existence of Canadian services such as CBC Newsworld and CTV Newsnet.
8.
In Fox News Canada, Decision CRTC 2000-565, 14 December 2000, the Commission approved an application by Global Television Network (OBCI) (Global) for a new Canadian Category 2 specialty programming service to be known as Fox News Canada. In Deadline to commence operation of Category 2 specialty and pay television services, Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2003-599, 16 December 2003, the Commission approved a request by Global for a one year final extension until 24 November 2004 to the implementation date for Fox News Canada.
9.
The CCTA attached to its request a letter dated 31 March 2004 from Fox News, the non-Canadian partner in Fox News Canada. In that letter, Fox News addressed the Fox News Canada service as follows: "Fox News does not intend to implement this service and therefore will not meet the extended deadline to commence operations." The Commission notes that the CCTA did not provide any information from Global concerning Global’s plans for Fox News Canada.

[j2k4]

FOXNEWS evidently gave up the ghost due to concerns that further attempts to gain access would be met with more of these little road-blocks.

In any case, it is not my intent to discuss the viablity of FOXNEWS in Canada, but to stick to the stated topic per the header.

[Busyman]

Okay then FOX News is good for democracy.

It shows that news organizations have free speech (and are biased).

It shows a different point of view (when ignoring others).

I do think it rather foul to allow Al-Jazeera and not Fox News. <_<

[vidcc]

Originally posted by j2k4@10 August 2004 - 19:51
FOXNEWS evidently gave up the ghost due to concerns that further attempts to gain access would be met with more of these little road-blocks.

In any case, it is not my intent to discuss the viablity of FOXNEWS in Canada, but to stick to the stated topic per the header.
ok so fox news isn&#39;t actually banned then, they chose not to attempt to meet the specified criteria.

to the original post i feel that fox news is no less worthy as any other news station when it comes to reporting current events. Perhaps they may have bias in &#39;features&#39; in the same way cnn or the bbc could be accused of but as a NEWS channel i see no difference in any of them.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by clocker@10 August 2004 - 17:58
Fox News is banned in Canada?
I just saw Bill O on the tube last night and he didn&#39;t appear to be frothing at the mouth any more than usual...has he been informed?
You were watching FOX?

Why? :huh:

[clocker]

I was feeling all warm and fuzzy.
Needed a fix of bile.

[spinningfreemanny]

Originally posted by clocker@11 August 2004 - 03:14
I was feeling all warm and fuzzy.
Probably due to the catastrophe screams from CNN :rolleyes:

[MagicNakor]

:lol: FoxNews is banned in Canada? Well, I&#39;d better go tell my television that then. It apparently hasn&#39;t been brought up to date.

Edit: And no, I don&#39;t have satellite television or digital cable.

:ninja:

[vidcc]

Originally posted by j2k4@10 August 2004 - 16:52
Well?

What about it?

Keeping in mind, of course, that FOXNEWS is now banned in Canada, though Al Jazeera is welcomed; if Canada doesn&#39;t like it, it must really be bad, huh?
It is kind of a loaded question IMO because of the making of the point that Al jazeera is/was shown (i am taking J2s word for this because Al jaz been shut down in Iraq) and Fox isn&#39;t (on cable at least)
To say that fox is "banned" was very misleading to say the least, false to say the facts.
Canada already has several news stations from other western countries so i think the question would have been more valid if it had been


Is broadcasting Al jazeera good for "free speech" ?

I can&#39;t see the democracy connection

[3RA1N1AC]

Originally posted by vidcc@11 August 2004 - 08:05
Is broadcasting Al jazeera good for "free speech" ?

I can&#39;t see the democracy connection
Fox News&#39; effect on democracy... that&#39;s pretty difficult to gauge. i find it difficult, anyway, when it&#39;s shown in a country that already has democracy or a variation thereof. i imagine that a more obvious test would be to broadcast it in a country that has no democracy and then see whether democracy "happens." then you could draw a correlation between X amount of Fox News and Y amount of democracy. :D

[j2k4]

Originally posted by vidcc@11 August 2004 - 11:05
To say that fox is "banned" was very misleading to say the least, false to say the facts.

I thought I cleared up the "banned" faux pas with a subsequent post, but, just for you, vid:

Mea Culpa, Maxima Mea Culpa.

Satisfied?

Would that you applied the same scrutiny to the statements of Mr. Kerry?

There is a great link in WN&E that I would love to have you parse.

[J'Pol]

I still don&#39;t understand the question. In what way would Foxnews be "good for democracy".

[vidcc]

Originally posted by j2k4+11 August 2004 - 14:39--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 11 August 2004 - 14:39)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-vidcc@11 August 2004 - 11:05
To say that fox is "banned" was very misleading to say the least, false to say the facts.

I thought I cleared up the "banned" faux pas with a subsequent post, but, just for you, vid:

Mea Culpa, Maxima Mea Culpa.

Satisfied?

Would that you applied the same scrutiny to the statements of Mr. Kerry?

There is a great link in WN&E that I would love to have you parse. [/b][/quote]
Yes you did clear it up, but that post you quoted of mine was dealing with the original question and the fact that the orginal said it was banned. which is why i suggested the alternative and used "free speech" instead of democracy.

Yes i would apply the same scutiny to kerry statements..yes i would apply the same to Bush statements.

I suspect you want a comment on the Kerry video. What is there to comment about? i disagreed with going into Iraq...no matter who says we needed to.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@11 August 2004 - 15:46
I still don&#39;t understand the question. In what way would Foxnews be "good for democracy".
In the sense that many of it&#39;s detractors firmly believe and would so state that it is bad for democracy.

[vidcc]

Originally posted by j2k4+11 August 2004 - 19:28--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 11 August 2004 - 19:28)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-J&#39;Pol@11 August 2004 - 15:46
I still don&#39;t understand the question. In what way would Foxnews be "good for democracy".
In the sense that many of it&#39;s detractors firmly believe and would so state that it is bad for democracy. [/b][/quote]
Why do these "detractors" say that?
I&#39;ve heard people say it has a right leaning bias but how would that equate to being bad for democracy ?

Are they accusing fox news secretly rigging elections or some other underhanded mischief ?

[j2k4]

Originally posted by vidcc@11 August 2004 - 16:07

There is a great link in WN&E that I would love to have you parse.

I suspect you want a comment on the Kerry video. What is there to comment about? [/quote]
Indeed.

This has no impact whatsoever on your opinion of the relative merits of the candidates?

You have testified many times that you do not judge, nor do you ascribe to a candidate the quality of being dishonest, or lying.

As regards the first caveat, how do you go about casting your vote?

As to the second, do you take in the video documentation of Kerry&#39;s contradictory commentaries at all, or does the fact of the video&#39;s having been assembled at the behest of the RNC render it invalid?

[vidcc]

I only watched the first 60 seconds as the content was obvious. I haven&#39;t watched any of the "bush" themed videos so i feel ok in giving up so soon on this video. The bit i saw was kerry saying Iraq actions would be justified and i already told you that i disagree with that.
I might be wrong but the bits i didn&#39;t bother watching were contradictions, the imfamous "flip flop" that you so endered yourself to using at every oportunity.
I have never said i find Kerry an impressisive candidate, but the part i saw certainly wouldn&#39;t suddendly endere me to Bush

You have testified many times that you do not judge, nor do you ascribe to a candidate the quality of being dishonest, or lying.

This is your own spin.

What i said is i don&#39;t care about private lives. The thing you are refering to would no doubt be Clinton and his blowjob.
Lets get one thing absolutely clear here.... if Clinton had lied about anything related to his job as president i would have come down on him like a ton of bricks and it would have made me think twice about voting for him again. As a president i judge on results achieved for America, because that&#39;s what i pay him to do. I don&#39;t care about anything else.
You run your own company.... if you had to cut your staff down who would you pick to make redundant...a hard conscientious worker that does his job without you having to keep watch...but cheats on his wife..... or the one that makes a mess of things but stays home at night?
To me politicians are employees..they work for me... not the other way round, so all i look at is are they doing their job


As regards the first caveat, how do you go about casting your vote?

I look at the manifestos of the candidates to see which i feel has the best policies and how they plan to achieve this.
I do realise that many won&#39;t be met and that some even though they are good ideas won&#39;t stand a chance of passing, our politicians being as they are.
promising something is one thing. being able to keep that promise is another.


As to the second, do you take in the video documentation of Kerry&#39;s contradictory commentaries at all, or does the fact of the video&#39;s having been assembled at the behest of the RNC render it invalid?

would the offering render it invalid if it was by michael moore and about Bush?

I view this kind of thing with distaste along with all the other negative mudslinging that has gone on in the campaign. I find it a repugnant tactic to smear the man himself and not the policies. This counts on both sides.

I am not a democrat or a republican. I look at the issues and make my choice there.
In this case i have the benefit of knowing exactly how Bush will act as president.

Hope this clears it up for you :D

[Rat Faced]

Im sure i saw a study that reported PBS viewers were the most informed in the USA, and Fox viewers the least... :P

If true, that must really rankle ;)


As to the Fox Issue...if they dont want to go through the rigmorole everyone lese has to, then tough. Maybe the question should be:

"Why does Fox want special treatment to broadcast on Canadian Cable/Satelite without going through the crap every other "news service" had to?"


:ph34r:

[MagicNakor]

I don&#39;t know what the hubub is really. I could watch FoxNews every night if I felt so inclined. I&#39;ve got pretty standard cable. So, obviously FoxNews is broadcasting in Canada.

Although I hope no one actually watches it for news. They broadcast a story so wildly inaccurate, that the RCMP wouldn&#39;t press charges against them in a media-blackout case. ;)

PBS, however, teaches me how to paint happy cabins and trees.

:ninja:

[Biggles]

Originally posted by j2k4+12 August 2004 - 01:28--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 12 August 2004 - 01:28)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-J&#39;Pol@11 August 2004 - 15:46
I still don&#39;t understand the question. In what way would Foxnews be "good for democracy".
In the sense that many of it&#39;s detractors firmly believe and would so state that it is bad for democracy. [/b][/quote]
Surely democracy is choice made on the basis of ll the available information.

In this respect Fox is a source. However, what happens is that the majority stick to the source that confirms their already preformed prejudices rather than take a "fair and balanced view". (although I do love Fox&#39;s "that is the truth but in the interests of fairness lets hear from an insane left wing loser" approach)

The number of people open to actually vote one way or another, based on the facts as they understand them, is little more than a few percent in most countries. Consequently most politicians make a few noises to appease the given vote (Bush on abortion - Kerry on Tax) without any significant commitment to do anything radical and concentrate their efforts to appeal to the middle ground floating voter (who might be frightened off by a firm commitment to do something radical).

Least, that is my view of the process. The most successful right wing or left wing leaders are those who convince the middle ground that their radical policies are the middle ground. :) These people are few and far between and Bush isn&#39;t one of them (Reagan actually was - as was Atlee for the left in the UK).

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@12 August 2004 - 06:14
Im sure i saw a study that reported PBS viewers were the most informed in the USA, and Fox viewers the least... :P



As to the Fox Issue...if they dont want to go through the rigmorole everyone lese has to, then tough. Maybe the question should be:

"Why does Fox want special treatment to broadcast on Canadian Cable/Satelite without going through the crap every other "news service" had to?"



Rat-

How do you suppose one would go about formulating a test/study to determine which news source was doing the best job of keeping it&#39;s viewers informed?

The study you recollect sounds rather subjective to me.

The rigamorole, or "crap", as you put it, is different for FOX, apparently; as I read the decision from the CRTC, FOX, in order to be accorded access to the Canadian market, would have to begin by digitalizing their product, while the services currently permitted in Canada do not.

This is a different brand of "crap", I think.

vid-

I haven&#39;t spun anything relative to your past statements as to honesty, etc., just recounted, more-or-less, what you yourself have said; if you feel I have erred on the side of "less" rather than "more", I apologize, but rest assured there is no mal-intent.

I must say, I have almost always found you to be of most reasonable tone in your commentary.

Biggles-

"Insane, left-wing loser"?

Are you implying those who choose (or are chosen) to represent the liberal point-of-view on FOXNEWS are bench-warmers who can&#39;t carry their water?

I think I can say that any liberal/left spokesperson who so desires could find airtime on FOX; many will not (for fear, it would seem), even though offers constantly circulate.

In short, those who do appear are of "cream-of-the-crop" status.

MN-I cannot account for your reception of FOXNEWS, apart from the unalterable fact of your overwhelming specialness; were it within my ability, I would run a cable over hill and dale directly to your door in order that you might continue to enjoy FOXNEWS.

To me, it is amazing that all of you find time to watch FOX; of course, even those who hated Howard Cosell couldn&#39;t ignore him.

:)

[Biggles]

:lol:

I don&#39;t really see enough Fox to determine the calibre of those who appear. I was merely suggesting that the balance had one leg longer than the other purely in its presentation.

I feel deprived, who was Mr Cosell and why did I miss the opportunity to hate him?

[Rat Faced]

J2K4,

If thats the case, maybe Canada is going the same route as the UK... Digitising all Cable TV channels?

No new services can start that arent Digitised, whereas those that already have channels have a few years left in which to Digitise themselves..

ie: They have to do nothing different to any "New" service...

[MagicNakor]

Well, FoxNews comes on after Tru Calling. Sometimes I&#39;m too busy getting ready for work to change the channel. ;)

There is a push for digitising television channels; the CRTC announced last November that all television channels will be digitised in the next three or four years. But, unless it comes down in price, I suppose I&#39;ll go without. I&#39;m not going to pay over &#036;110 each month for television.

:ninja:

[j2k4]

Biggles-

Although it doesn&#39;t really do Cosell justice, you could quickly read this:

http://nh.essortment.com/biographyhoward_rggs.htm

Rat-

Again, I&#39;m sure the overall push is for digital signal/sourcing, but in this case, it appears FOXNEWS is being subject to a standard none of the others are.

I don&#39;t see FOXNEWS being excluded for long, there being no real upside for the CRTC.

I must reiterate:

This is all subject to my interpretation of the CRTC archive.

MN-

I&#39;m willing to speculate that you are "too busy" for a reason. :D

[MagicNakor]

:rolleyes:

:ninja:

[vidcc]

Originally posted by Biggles@12 August 2004 - 11:22
(although I do love Fox&#39;s "that is the truth but in the interests of fairness lets hear from an insane left wing loser" approach)


Not making a comment on this just thought it was one of the most humorously clever lines i have read in a while... :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: