CRTC Criticizes Bell for CTV News "Interference"

News from the world of Television

Re: CRTC Criticizes Bell for CTV News "Interference"

Postby tuned » Sun Mar 29, 2015 10:40 pm

Do CBC Newsworld, BC 1, and CTV News not receive subscriber payments from cable and satellite companies? If I want to subscribe to cable TV I am forced to take these channels and pay for them whether I want their content or not. One of them, CTV News has an owner that has just admitted to interfering in their editorial content.
The CBC is not exactly a bastion of journalistic integrity. Jian Ghomeshi and their "report" on The Fifth Estate spring to mind. Then there's Amanda Lang.
I never got a chance to watch Sun News so I have no idea what the quality of their content was like. I do remember watching CTV Newsnet when it first appeared on the cable dial and it was as low rent as you can get.

Who made you the almighty God that decides what's a news channel or not? Sun News covered current events and politics. You made a bunch of smart ass comments about their "redneck" viewers. Did you subscribe to the channel or are you just parroting others?

CTV News would go out of business if it wasn't for the money it got from cable subscribers like me. The ad revenue isn't enough to keep them in business.
Here are the numbers from the CRTC

http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/publications/ ... ual/60.htm

Same with the CBC News Channel

http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/publications/ ... ual/51.htm
User avatar
tuned
Advanced Member
 
Posts: 1232
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 6:06 pm

Re: CRTC Criticizes Bell for CTV News "Interference"

Postby Dave L » Mon Mar 30, 2015 1:05 am

tuned wrote:Do CBC Newsworld, BC 1, and CTV News not receive subscriber payments from cable and satellite companies? If I want to subscribe to cable TV I am forced to take these channels and pay for them whether I want their content or not. One of them, CTV News has an owner that has just admitted to interfering in their editorial content.
The CBC is not exactly a bastion of journalistic integrity. Jian Ghomeshi and their "report" on The Fifth Estate spring to mind. Then there's Amanda Lang.
I never got a chance to watch Sun News so I have no idea what the quality of their content was like. I do remember watching CTV Newsnet when it first appeared on the cable dial and it was as low rent as you can get.

Who made you the almighty God that decides what's a news channel or not? Sun News covered current events and politics. You made a bunch of smart ass comments about their "redneck" viewers. Did you subscribe to the channel or are you just parroting others?


You still never answered my question about your knowledge of the CRTC ruling. Posing more does not let you off the hook. Nevertheless I'll indulge while I await your's.

Yes they do. I'm not exactly sure how much, but it's like a whopping .25 cents per sub or something miniscule like that. Companies use profits to pay for technology upgrades, SAP and descriptive audio service. Liquor sales pay for hospitals, gas tax pays for roads. Yet here you stand, ranting about paying two bits for services we all benefit from. New technology, SAP, descriptive audio, program guides etc. Like the banks do, I'm sure you'll not be impressed for service charging everyone for minor things at inflated costs, right? That's what corps do. If you think for one second, a'la carte selection will reduce your monthly cost, you're in dreamland. Casual viewing gone. PPV costs in, especially if you want specific shows, but don't otherwise watch the channels. Free choices gone, service charges added for what? Your ideology, pfft to that.

And yes, I had SUN in my package with Shaw Direct. Unlike you, I actually watched it. Often. Not necessarily to be informed, but to be reminded of narrow-mindedness and within our own population. I formulate my opinions based on the observation of facts, convenience and serviceability, not from presumptions motivated by whatever chip is on other's shoulders. Scarcely a report came across the SUN desk that wasn't rife with neoconservative rhetoric written all over it. They were little more than paid lobbyists for big oil, the Conservative Party of Canada, mouth pieces for extremism, political bigots, outright liars and malcontents, from which are a matter of public record. Ezra Levant is a convicted slanderer on multiple counts, yet remains unrepentant or apologetic for his misdeeds. These are the fools you expect to bring you table as a solution to your perceived little problem with how everyone gleans knowledge? I think not, neither does the CRTC and neither does the population en mass. At best, you're in the minority on that issue, but sour grapes are all that's left. Yes, Bell interfered. Likewise, the commission itself had no business making public statements on the issue. Actually, I was surprised after all the muzzling the recent government has applied to it's employees recently. Makes one suspicious of politics, yes? To that end we'd probably agree, wrong is wrong and it ought not to be excused nor tolerated, but it in no way vindicates SUN's underhanded approach to the mandatory inclusion application. The two issues have absolutely nothing to do with each other, hence your point was off topic.

Me God? That's rich. Desperate and pathetic, really. Seeing how you admit to ignorance, I'll be gracious, but sarcasticly disappointed to inform you I'm not the god who makes these decisions. I'm also pained to inform you that you're not the god of what video services I choose to purchase, watch or listen to either, irrespective of your erroneous, over-zealous assertions about a non-issue. I'm quite satisfied with my packages and channel selection. TV, internet, phone. All good, thank you, and I take exception to your insistence it's wrong, on every level. I'm pretty sure though, the CRTC requires news networks to be in compliance with ethics prescribed by http://www.caj.ca/ethics-guidelines/ and/or other bonafide agencies. SUN had no such affiliation, that issue alone disqualified them, no less the myriad of other inconsistencies.

So I ask you again. Do you actually read the thing before speaking to it, or are you going to evade the question entirely?
VE7LGD
User avatar
Dave L
Advanced Member
 
Posts: 224
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 4:21 pm

Re: CRTC Criticizes Bell for CTV News "Interference"

Postby tuned » Mon Mar 30, 2015 2:11 am

Sure I read the CRTC ruling but I don't happen to agree with it. Do you agree with every ruling they make?

You clearly stated that you don't think that Sun News was a news channel and therefore shouldn't be carried along with the other news channels. You try to justify your position by calling them fools, malcontents, bigots, narrow-minded, liars, slanderers, extremists and rednecks.

You seem incapable of comprehending the simple concept of diversity of opinion. Not everyone shares your view of the world and thank goodness for that but I'd be the first one to defend your right to express your opinion. All I'm asking is for the same in return. You've got your three news channels how about one that takes a different point of view? Or was that too scary for you?

I'm glad that you're happy with your cable packages. I may be in the minority supporting Sun News but you're in the minority in that regard. None of the news channels have mandatory coverage at this point and I'm betting that if Canadians have a choice to pay for them or drop them the majority will choose the latter.
User avatar
tuned
Advanced Member
 
Posts: 1232
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 6:06 pm

Re: CRTC Criticizes Bell for CTV News "Interference"

Postby Dave L » Mon Mar 30, 2015 6:07 am

tuned wrote:Sure I read the CRTC ruling but I don't happen to agree with it. Do you agree with every ruling they make?


Certainly not.

tuned wrote:Sun News got shafted. Cable companies are forced to carry the news channels of every other media conglomerate in Canada except the one from Quebecor. Just another example of Canadians not giving a damn about free speech.


Seeing how you've read the report, please point to the part where the commission states "not giving a damn about free speech" as their rationale for denying mandatory inclusion. Let me help, it's not there anywhere. It doesn't even remotely allude to it, where clearly the fact issues are plain as day. What part of "not having successfully demonstrated to the CRTC that they met the criteria for a mandatory distribution order" even remotely suggests a "free speech" issue. Having confirmed you've read it, then pulling something out of your a$$ and claiming it's the rationale for a decision is not an opinion. It's a lie. Likewise, claiming "the one from Quebecor" to be a news channel is a lie perpetuated by you, when clearly it's not.

tuned wrote:You clearly stated that you don't think that Sun News was a news channel and therefore shouldn't be carried along with the other news channels. You try to justify your position by calling them fools, malcontents, bigots, narrow-minded, liars, slanderers, extremists and rednecks.


tuned wrote:So when I hear people whining and moaning about cable companies and the CRTC all I hear are a bunch of hypocrites.

tuned wrote:In 2011 after raking in millions extorted from Canadian cable subscribers

tuned wrote:I'm forced to pay for that blowhard Kevin O'Leary on CBC Newsworld


First, apparently it's quite alright for you to use this tone whilst expressing an opinion, yet contrary opinions may not. That's neither reasonable, nor rational. It's downright childish.

Second, SUN was not a news channel. That's not my opinion. It's a documented fact. Putting words in my mouth does nothing to support your assertion that opinions are to be respected. I had no objection to them being on air, nor did I cheer them going off air. I do however, commend the commission for seeing through the nonsense your ilk peddles by denying the application, based upon irregularities and deficiencies completely unrelated to your assertion.

tuned wrote:You seem incapable of comprehending the simple concept of diversity of opinion. Not everyone shares your view of the world and thank goodness for that but I'd be the first one to defend your right to express your opinion. All I'm asking is for the same in return. You've got your three news channels how about one that takes a different point of view? Or was that too scary for you?


I'm quite capable of accepting the diversity of opinion. Hectoring others with yours or the mere suggestion opinions cannot be criticized is also laughably juvenile, tyrannical at best. For a guy that loves to dish it out, you sure don't take it very well.

I'd happily welcome another news network, even pine for it sometimes out of sheer frustration. A different point of view is one thing. Bull$hit is yet another, letting nonsense stand unquestioned is far cry more insidious than calling it out for accountability. I don't doubt we have numerous similar or different opinions about cable and the commission, but let's call a spade a spade and admit SUN did a pi$$ poor job as a business and a broadcaster were wholly responsible for their own undoing and free speech issues had absolutely nothing to do with their demise.
VE7LGD
User avatar
Dave L
Advanced Member
 
Posts: 224
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 4:21 pm

Re: CRTC Criticizes Bell for CTV News "Interference"

Postby tuned » Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:52 am

If you're going to quote me please read the quote before responding because otherwise people might think you are illiterate. I said Canadians don't give a damn about free speech I didn't say it about the CRTC. You are Exhibit A in making my point.

I stand by my point about news channels extorting money from subscribers who have no choice but to pay or cancel their cable or satellite entirely. CBC Newsworld extorted almost 360 million dollars from Canadians over a five year period. That's 10 dollars for every Canadian man, woman and child. Over the 15 year life of the channel they would take ONE BILLION dollars out of the pockets of consumers who have no say. CTV Newsnet extorted almost 75 million dollars from cable/satellite subscribers during that period. Without that money they both would have gone out of business. That's a far cry from the "twenty five cents" you mentioned.

You are the only one that seems to think Sun News wasn't a news channel. The CRTC considered them one.

I can add tyrannical, juvenile, piss poor, ass, lie and bullshit to the list of words you've used to convince everyone that you're capable of accepting another point of view. Combined with fools, malcontents, bigots, narrow-minded, liars, slanderers, extremists and rednecks it doesn't sound like the language of a tolerant individual.
But being the openminded person that I am I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt.
User avatar
tuned
Advanced Member
 
Posts: 1232
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 6:06 pm

Re: CRTC Criticizes Bell for CTV News "Interference"

Postby Dave L » Mon Mar 30, 2015 4:08 pm

tuned wrote:If you're going to quote me please read the quote before responding because otherwise people might think you are illiterate. I said Canadians don't give a damn about free speech I didn't say it about the CRTC. You are Exhibit A in making my point.

I stand by my point about news channels extorting money from subscribers who have no choice but to pay or cancel their cable or satellite entirely. CBC Newsworld extorted almost 360 million dollars from Canadians over a five year period. That's 10 dollars for every Canadian man, woman and child. Over the 15 year life of the channel they would take ONE BILLION dollars out of the pockets of consumers who have no say. CTV Newsnet extorted almost 75 million dollars from cable/satellite subscribers during that period. Without that money they both would have gone out of business. That's a far cry from the "twenty five cents" you mentioned.

I can add tyrannical, juvenile, piss poor, ass, lie and bullshit to the list of words you've used to convince everyone that you're capable of accepting another point of view. Combined with fools, malcontents, bigots, narrow-minded, liars, slanderers, extremists and rednecks it doesn't sound like the language of a tolerant individual.
But being the openminded person that I am I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt.


Since when does Canada tolerate tyrants, bigots, extremists or slanderers?

As far as extortion goes, I checked but have not found a singe case where the networks were criminally tried and convicted having acquired "almost 360 million dollars" or "almost 75 million dollars" by criminal activity. Please refer me to the case history, or admit to the inflammatory nature of your comment. You have accused the networks of criminal activity in an open forum. Either they were charged with crimes, or they were not. There is no in between. Which one is it?

So you are of the opinion, SUN went off the air because Canadians hate free speech. In my opinion, that's an inflammatory, intolerant blanket statement directed at every man woman and child in this country, merely by virtue of being born here. That's including you. By your own logic, you are a Canadian, therefore you hate free speech. Follow the absurdity?

You sir, are the intolerant one by using extremist rhetorical bait and switch tactics to bolster whatever your agenda you're attempting to indoctrinate apart from the topic. Free speech has nothing to do with any of it. Nothing I say has anything to do with it. Mike Cleaver has nothing to do with it either. An inconsequential blame game, little else.

You injected it into this thread, not me. Making off topic, brash statements and expecting them to stand unchallenged, accepted as fact or subject to interpretation, are what insults freedom of speech. You don't practice what you preach. To use your term about whining about cable and the CRTC, " all I see is hypocrisy".
VE7LGD
User avatar
Dave L
Advanced Member
 
Posts: 224
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 4:21 pm

Re: CRTC Criticizes Bell for CTV News "Interference"

Postby Howaboutthat » Mon Mar 30, 2015 4:22 pm

This was a good thread until someone, once again, decided to hijack it to express their own well-known views about SUN, and others decided to bite and argue with said person who will never change his well-known view on the topic.
Houston, We're dealing with morons!.
User avatar
Howaboutthat
Advanced Member
 
Posts: 2509
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 9:28 pm
Location: Vernon

Re: CRTC Criticizes Bell for CTV News "Interference"

Postby tuned » Mon Mar 30, 2015 4:25 pm

You're right Dave! Bell and the CBC probably don't meet the criminal definition of extortion but they sure do morally. Hey there Mr. Canadian cable consumer...you want to watch US TV channels? well then you better fork over a billion or two for our "news" channels or you won't be watching anything. Extortion is too harsh a word for this practice but I'm good with shakedown so why don't you just substitute the word "shakedown" in my last post and we should be good!

"Extortion (also called shakedown, outwrestling, and exaction) is a criminal offense of obtaining money, property, or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion."

I stand by my original premise that Sun News got shafted. Fine I'll leave Cleaver out of it. He's a nice chap but his position on Sun News is what I'll charitably call a little "inconsistent". As for you Dave I'm done battling wits with an unarmed man.
User avatar
tuned
Advanced Member
 
Posts: 1232
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 6:06 pm

Re: CRTC Criticizes Bell for CTV News "Interference"

Postby Dave L » Mon Mar 30, 2015 5:54 pm

tuned wrote:You're right Dave! Bell and the CBC probably don't meet the criminal definition of extortion but they sure do morally. Hey there Mr. Canadian cable consumer...you want to watch US TV channels? well then you better fork over a billion or two for our "news" channels or you won't be watching anything. Extortion is too harsh a word for this practice but I'm good with shakedown so why don't you just substitute the word "shakedown" in my last post and we should be good!

"Extortion (also called shakedown, outwrestling, and exaction) is a criminal offense of obtaining money, property, or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion."

I stand by my original premise that Sun News got shafted. Fine I'll leave Cleaver out of it. He's a nice chap but his position on Sun News is what I'll charitably call a little "inconsistent". As for you Dave I'm done battling wits with an unarmed man.


Thank you. We could go on all day about petty details, but that's not what troubles me. In my opinion, and probably yours... it's unfair to use one issue to raise another.

The term comprehension came up a few times. The last time I checked on it's meaning, a paragraph is intended to gather a series of sentences into a single train of thought. By putting SUN's demise and freedom of speech into a single paragraph, gives the impression the two are inextricably linked. Even through interpretation of that thought, a reasonable listener would almost always conclude the second sentence as broadly offensive.

Agree or not, in my opinion... the implication was made.

Had you said some people, even some Canadians, I'd have agreed, wholeheartedly. There is a lot of it, but it's neither epidemic or insidious. I always cling to the believe that Canadians are tolerant of human rights and diverse opinions. Though you haven't said in such terms, I'm also quite certain you agree too, SUN was a bad business model and a horrible example for improving the landscape of a deteriorating news media. I also agree Bell and the CRTC acted inappropriately on the matter posted in this thread, so to that end we are in agreement.

Canadian content costs Canadian dollars. There are those in this country who will have none of it and will always view it as propaganda or indoctrination at every level, even when it's not. The radio spectrum is rife with commercial interest from one end of the dial to the other. Public radio are the "parks" of the airways. Every city needs green space in their planning and so does radio. Like it or not, it's in the public interest, not necessarily always ours. I don't use playgrounds, but that doesn't mean I'm being "forced to pay" for them. That point is moot in the same way taxpayers fund the CBC. Sure, the Canadian media has a liberal bias, but it's not extreme insomuch as it's merely left of center. Any reasonable person can sort that out. Conservatives are equally guilty of serving up the kool-ade as liberals are. The premise of adding right of center media to the mix does nothing to remove self-interest from news feeds, in fact it would snowball. For the most part, the greater portion of reports coming from the news agencies are objective and matters of fact. On some issues, the solution as you've suggested is a shakeup. The existing media outlets need their feet held a little closer to the fire of compliance, not adding more bad actors.

Apart from all this, I have a point about a'la carte. It's going to be brutal on families. For individuals who want a dozen channels might be fine, but those households with multiple interests may find themselves with enormous monthly bills for content that was once included in basic packages. Just like 411 service in many areas, they'll likely be charging service fees for looking at a program guide, or non technical support. Connection fees, network fees, fuel surcharge fees, bandwidth usage fees, fees, fees, fees and more fees are all we'll see (not a broad selection of network television) under that system.

I've said quite enough.

Be well my friend.
VE7LGD
User avatar
Dave L
Advanced Member
 
Posts: 224
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 4:21 pm

Re: CRTC Criticizes Bell for CTV News "Interference"

Postby jon » Thu Apr 09, 2015 6:02 pm

Bell Media president gone weeks after news coverage meddling
By The Canadian Press
April 9, 2015 4:51 PM

MONTREAL - The president of the country's largest communications company abruptly left his post Thursday, two weeks after he admitted to trying to influence national news coverage by one of its subsidiaries.

A corporate statement announcing the departure of Bell Media president Kevin Crull left little doubt of the link between his leaving and his interference in CTV's coverage of the country's broadcast regulator.

"The independence of Bell Media's news operations is of paramount importance to our company and to all Canadians," George Cope, head of Bell Canada and BCE Inc., said in a release.

"There can be no doubt that Bell will always uphold the journalistic standards that have made CTV the most trusted brand in Canadian news."

Jeffrey Dvorkin, a media analyst and director of the journalism program at the University of Toronto's Scarborough campus, called Crull's dismissal "very impressive."

Bell Media understands that CTV News is "a crown jewel," and that they need to "defend and sustain its reputation for integrity," Dvorkin said.

"It is rare, at that level, for management to take such a dramatic action but I think it's an indication of how Bell Media understands that its journalism is connected to its reputation," he said.

"If its reputation starts to slide, then that has a terrible effect on its credibility and on the ability of Canadians to trust what it's telling them .... It should send a message to other media organizations in Canada that this is the way to do things."

Crull sparked widespread criticism last month for demanding CTV journalists not give any airtime to Jean-Pierre Blais, chairman of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission.

He was apparently unhappy with Blais's announcement of rule changes requiring broadcasters to offer a low-cost package to cable TV consumers and to allow them to "pick and pay" other individual channels.

In response, Blais called it "disturbing" that the country's largest communication company in Canada would be "manipulating news coverage."

CTV is a division of Bell Media, a company with assets in TV, radio, and the Internet, which is in turn owned by BCE Inc.

The backlash prompted Crull, who joined Bell in 2005, to apologize for what he called his "intrusion."

"It was wrong of me to be anything but absolutely clear that editorial control always rests with the news team," Crull said in a statement March 25.

"I have apologized to the team directly for this mistake."

When Crull appeared before the CRTC three years ago, he insisted that Bell never interfered on the editorial side.

In his statement, Cope thanked Crull for his contributions to Bell's customers and shareholders and praised him for his role in spearheading Bell Media investments in Canadian content.

Crull was replaced by Mary Ann Turcke, who takes over responsibility for Bell Media's national broadcast and digital operations, Cope said.

Turcke, who also joined Bell in 2005, was formerly a media sales group president.
User avatar
jon
Advanced Member
 
Posts: 9256
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 10:15 am
Location: Edmonton

Previous

Return to On the small screen

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 116 guests