CRTC Criticizes Bell for CTV News "Interference"

News from the world of Television

CRTC Criticizes Bell for CTV News "Interference"

Postby jon » Wed Mar 25, 2015 2:01 pm

Regulator slams Bell Media after report exec meddled with CTV journalism
By Jennifer Ditchburn, The Canadian Press
March 25, 2015 2:48 PM

OTTAWA - Canada's broadcasting regulator has issued a sharply worded reminder to Bell Media that it has a statutory duty not to interfere in the work of its CTV journalists, calling a report of meddling "disturbing."

The warning follows a Globe and Mail article that says Bell Media president Kevin Crull intervened in how journalists reported a major regulatory decision last week. The decision had not gone the way the corporation had hoped.

The Globe says Crull demanded that journalists not give any airtime to Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) chairman Jean-Pierre Blais. CTV President Wendy Freeman is said to have communicated that edict to journalists, reportedly explaining that she feared for her job.

Blais had just announced rule changes requiring broadcasters to offer a low-cost package to consumers and to allow them to "pick and pay" other individual channels. He had appeared at a news conference, and also did individual interviews that day.

Blais put out statement Wednesday that reminded Bell of its responsibilities under the Broadcasting Act.

"That a regulated company does not like one of the CRTC's rulings is one thing. The allegation, however, that the largest communication company in Canada is manipulating news coverage is disturbing," Blais wrote.

"Holding a radio or television license is a privilege that comes with important obligations that are in the public interest, especially in regards to high-quality news coverage and reporting."

Crull did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The Broadcasting Act, which the CRTC applies as it gives out licenses, specifically points to "freedom of expression and journalistic, creative and programming independence" of the networks.

The Globe report says that CTV Ottawa bureau chief Bob Fife, along with chief anchor Lisa LaFlamme and Freeman, ultimately refused to abide by Crull's edict for the evening national newscast.

Blais said in his statement that one of the pillars of Canada's broadcasting system, and even Canadian democracy writ large, is the independence of its journalists.

"An informed citizenry cannot be sacrificed for a company’s commercial interests," Blais wrote.

"Canadians can only wonder how many times corporate interests may have been placed ahead of the fair and balanced news reporting they expect from their broadcasting system."

Three years ago, Crull and other Bell executives appeared before the CRTC as parent company BCE Inc. applied for its merger with Astral Media.

At the time, Crull insisted that Bell never interfered on the editorial side.

"...Our news operation operates entirely independently and covers stories one hundred per cent based on their view of the journalistic value of that story and covers all perspectives and has never one day, or one story had an intervention from this management team," Crull said.

Blais, who declined to do interviews Wednesday, has emphasized the importance of quality news and journalism in public comments before.

"Broadcasters are custodians of the television system as a public service. They therefore have a special obligation to ensure that the system reflects our identity, contributes to our democracy and enhances our safety and security," Blais told the London, Ont. Chamber of Commerce in January.

"Broadcasting can't only be a purely commercial undertaking whose sole focus is to increase profits."

In 2013, CTV stood its ground as Prime Minister Stephen Harper's office threatened to bar a cameraman from travelling on the government's plane. Dave Ellis had asked an unscheduled question of the prime minister during an event in New York.

CTV is a division of Bell Media, a company with assets in TV, radio, and the Internet. Bell Media in turn is owned by BCE Inc., the country's largest telecommunications firm.
User avatar
jon
Advanced Member
 
Posts: 9257
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 10:15 am
Location: Edmonton

Re: CRTC Criticizes Bell for CTV News "Interference"

Postby Mike Cleaver » Wed Mar 25, 2015 4:11 pm

Crull should be gone.
If he doesn't resign, the CRTC should pull Bhells broadcast licenses.
Bhell doesn't own the airwaves.
It was awarded licenses to use the airwaves which belong to the public and was awarded those licenses under strict terms and conditions.
This is conflict of interest at the highest level.
Freeman needs to be gone as well to have even considered following Crulls edict.
This is what happens when only large corpse hold broadcasting licenses.
They think they can get away with anything they want.
In my 54 years in the business, I've seen this happen too often and station owners have gotten away with it.
Attempts were made to supress news at stations where I worked.
I defied them all.
It probably led to me getting fired a couple of times but it happened later down the line.
That didn't matter.
It just allowed me to further my career.
In the news business, Ethics are everything.
Lie to or hide things from your listeners, readers or viewers or slant them in any direction, you deserve to lose your job.
Mike Cleaver Broadcast Services
Engineering, News, Voice work and Consulting
Vancouver, BC, Canada

54 years experience at some of Canada's Premier Broadcasting Stations
User avatar
Mike Cleaver
Advanced Member
 
Posts: 2085
Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2006 6:56 pm
Location: Vancouver

Re: CRTC Criticizes Bell for CTV News "Interference"

Postby tuned » Wed Mar 25, 2015 10:44 pm

Crull is a dead man walking. There are certain lines you can't cross as the CEO of a large corporation and he jumped over them.
User avatar
tuned
Advanced Member
 
Posts: 1232
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 6:06 pm

Re: CRTC Criticizes Bell for CTV News "Interference"

Postby Mike Cleaver » Thu Mar 26, 2015 1:43 am

Obviously, he horrified the company lawyers and flacks.
They obviously told him he'd better retract what he said/did.
He has "apologized" for his error.
I'm sure he's sincere and has learned his lesson.
NOT!
Arrogant f**king prick!
Some may remember his key role in throttling internet speeds and slowing and blocking some types of downloads a couple of years ago.
His sense of entitlement is abysmal.
Time to go back to the 30s and break up the conglomerates.
Too much power resting with too few.
Mike Cleaver Broadcast Services
Engineering, News, Voice work and Consulting
Vancouver, BC, Canada

54 years experience at some of Canada's Premier Broadcasting Stations
User avatar
Mike Cleaver
Advanced Member
 
Posts: 2085
Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2006 6:56 pm
Location: Vancouver

Re: CRTC Criticizes Bell for CTV News "Interference"

Postby tuned » Thu Mar 26, 2015 11:40 am

One of the keys to a healthy media landscape is diversity of ownership. The more the better. When the FCC abolished the 7-7-7 rule it started a slippery slope that affected broadcasting in North America. Concentration of the media is dangerous in a free society. So I agree with you Mike, where we disagree is that you didn't support Sun TV's right to exist on the same basis as all the other news channels. So you're part of the problem. You don't mind media concentration as long as they cater to your point of view. Then when someone like Crull says something you don't like you get your panties in a twist. Sun TV got your panties in an even bigger twist and you had no problem with them getting shafted by the likes of Bell. So what side are you on?
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 » Sat Mar 28, 2015 2:08 pm

tuned wrote:So I agree with you Mike, where we disagree is that you didn't support Sun TV's right to exist on the same basis as all the other news channels. So you're part of the problem. You don't mind media concentration as long as they cater to your point of view. Then when someone like Crull says something you don't like you get your panties in a twist. Sun TV got your panties in an even bigger twist and you had no problem with them getting shafted by the likes of Bell. So what side are you on?


It was pointed out to you in the past, but apparently your comprehension is limited to your ideology. Dozens of other stations were denied under the same process, yet your panties seem quite twisted into perpetuity.

Let me refresh your memory. SUN was a specialty channel of a Toronto station that relinquished control of it. It was never eligible for mandatory inclusion in the first place, irrespective of it's content.

That's not so hard to understand... right?

Mike is not the problem here. Your point is moot. Repeating it over and over again will never make it so, despite what the blowhards in the 24/7 news cycles tell you.

It's not just phoney redneck news that bites either. IT ALL SUCKS, big time. 95% of it is embarrassingly unwatchable, the other 5% in small does only and with a grain of salt.

Bell told SUN to go to hell. You'd think that would be a corporation's right, instead of having government tell them what to do. No?

SUN was looking for corporate welfare because they were losing millions every year from the launch date. That's okay though, yes?

News is like fruit juice. If it's got added sugar, it's no longer juice. It's a beverage. SUN was not news. It was propaganda. I'll remind you, for the mostpart, network news follow a code of journalistic code of practices, but SUN never did. The kool-ade sold didn't amount to two in a thousand imbibers, though you seemed be well stocked.
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 » Sun Mar 29, 2015 10:58 am

If you want to debate Dave I'll debate. If you want to be a troll and name call I'm not interested.
User avatar
tuned
Advanced Member
 
Posts: 1232
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 6:06 pm

Re: CRTC Criticizes Bell for CTV News "Interference"

Postby Neumann Sennheiser » Sun Mar 29, 2015 11:16 am

tuned wrote:If you want to debate Dave I'll debate. If you want to be a troll and name call I'm not interested.


If I can be allowed to mediate, if only peripherally, The "name-calling" was directed at third parties and not "tuned" him or her self. Any name-calling at all may be the point of order unto itself of course and that ground rule would not be unreasonable.

You two are seemingly pretty intelligent people and I might find a real debate of the issues between you interesting.

I live in the United States where opinions of all stripes can be quite polarized nowadays, but between myself and even my most right-wing friends, we still manage to find a place to express our views respectfully.

Of course, that place is face to face, not on-line and anonymously. It's tougher this way but not impossible.
"You don't know man! I was in radio man! I've seen things you wouldn't believe!"
User avatar
Neumann Sennheiser
Advanced Member
 
Posts: 1129
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 10:43 pm
Location: Port Ludlow, Washington, USA

Re: CRTC Criticizes Bell for CTV News "Interference"

Postby tuned » Sun Mar 29, 2015 12:53 pm

"It's not just phoney redneck news that bites either. IT ALL SUCKS, big time. 95% of it is embarrassingly unwatchable, the other 5% in small does only and with a grain of salt."

This is just someone's opinion. I wasn't debating the quality of Sun TV's programming just their right to exist on the same basis as all the other so called "news" channels.
Since you live in the land of the free you might not realize that Canadians are very soft on freedom of speech. Canadians only support speech that they agree with and feel that anything else should be banned by the government. Sun TV is a prime example. Tom Leykis and Howard Stern were run out of the country by the government because some people were offended by their content. Canadian tolerance is largely a myth.
User avatar
tuned
Advanced Member
 
Posts: 1232
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 6:06 pm

Re: CRTC Criticizes Bell for CTV News "Interference"

Postby PMC » Sun Mar 29, 2015 3:24 pm

tuned wrote:"
Since you live in the land of the free you might not realize that Canadians are very soft on freedom of speech. Canadians only support speech that they agree with and feel that anything else should be banned by the government. Sun TV is a prime example. Tom Leykis and Howard Stern were run out of the country by the government because some people were offended by their content. Canadian tolerance is largely a myth.


Tuned, you should not confuse freedom of speech with arrogance or confuse tolerance with good taste :)
PMC
 

Re: CRTC Criticizes Bell for CTV News "Interference"

Postby Dave L » Sun Mar 29, 2015 3:45 pm

tuned wrote:Since you live in the land of the free you might not realize that Canadians are very soft on freedom of speech. Canadians only support speech that they agree with and feel that anything else should be banned by the government. Sun TV is a prime example.


I have an opinion. You have an opinion. On this issue, I look at the facts... not the rhetoric.

Rather than address the facts and speak to each of them individually, you've make blanket statements off the topic.

The part of the discussion that will not stand, is your premise that SUN was taken off the air because Canadians hate free speech. That is probably the single most narrow-minded, nonsensical statement I've read on this board (and many others for that matter). The mere fact they were conservative based propaganda channel had NOTHING TO DO with the commission's decision to deny the application for mandatory inclusion. I have my doubts you've even read the decision, instead having formulated an "opinion" separate from factual issues. When presented with these facts, instead of actually discussing them, you've make baseless comments and rhetorical blanket statements that are completely off the topic.

Name calling you say? I never used a derogatory term to describe you, yet on your part using term "troll" is name calling. A direct accusation and hypocritical at the highest level. No need to apologize though, I'm delighted you've proven my point. Thank you for that.
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 » Sun Mar 29, 2015 6:24 pm

Why am I forced to pay for CTV News, BC1 and CBC Newsworld? There is plenty of "non-news" and "propaganda" on all three channels so what was the difference with Sun News? I don't need a history lesson on where the channel came from because it's irrelevant.

I never said Sun News was taken off the air because of free speech however Canadians are totally soft on free speech. Why was Tom Leykis censored and then taken off the air in Vancouver? Same with Howard Stern in Toronto?

Answer the questions and we will continue our little debate.
User avatar
tuned
Advanced Member
 
Posts: 1232
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 6:06 pm

Re: CRTC Criticizes Bell for CTV News "Interference"

Postby PMC » Sun Mar 29, 2015 7:40 pm

tuned wrote:Answer the questions and we will continue our little debate.


A `Troll' not getting enough sex, and you need to masturbate here with misinformation...? :lol:
PMC
 

Re: CRTC Criticizes Bell for CTV News "Interference"

Postby tuned » Sun Mar 29, 2015 8:00 pm

You don't want to debate either PMC because you've got nothing. You guys can enjoy your little circle jerk.
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 » Sun Mar 29, 2015 8:40 pm

tuned wrote:Why am I forced to pay for CTV News, BC1 and CBC Newsworld? There is plenty of "non-news" and "propaganda" on all three channels so what was the difference with Sun News? I don't need a history lesson on where the channel came from because it's irrelevant.


Ahh, but it is relevant. That's my point. When a license is issued for a specialty channel, it comes with the affirmation that it serves a limited market and the understanding it cannot be upgraded to a Category A license. SUN tried and failed, not for any other reason. Like anyone else, they need to build a network from the ground up. Simply because one can put a slow moving vehicle sign on a tractor and drive on the highway does not automatically mean that same tractor can next become a motor vehicle carrier of passengers or courier and freight service anywhere in the country.

tuned wrote:I never said Sun News was taken off the air because of free speech however Canadians are totally soft on free speech. Why was Tom Leykis censored and then taken off the air in Vancouver? Same with Howard Stern in Toronto?


I'm not sure TBH, but I've been around the media enough that it's largely driven by sponsors. If their customers and consumers find the content objectionable or offensive, they have every right... under freedom of speech to say so. The sponsors also have the right to choose whether to continue or to cease.

Is GLOBAL putting a gun to your head? Is CTV taking court authorized payments from your bank account? Is the CBC threatening bodily harm or holding your kids hostage? Sure, it's taxpayer subsidized, but so is logging, mining, education, health care, armed forces etc and the premise that "my" tax dollar should not be used for those things is every bit as ridiculous as your self-importance is to network television. You are not forced to pay anything, ever. You have the right and freedom to cancel your subscription at any time. If it's news you want, there's plenty on the net. In fact, you can watch anything the networks run for TV on their websites. Better yet, it's on demand AND free.

To suggest anything else is anti-competitive. Mandatory inclusion of the news nets ensures all regions of Canada are adequately served by networks who agree to abide by a journalistic code of practices. SUN and FOX by their own admissions do not, therefore by the virtue of their own doings, are ineligible for mandatory inclusion. No matter how many times you say it, they are not news channels. Period.

If SUN wants a Category A news channel, they have every right to apply, like anyone else. Instead of trying a workaround strategy to convert one license into something it's not under the guise of something else. The CRTC saw right through that nonsense. Not for the reasons you've imagined, while actively striving to indoctrinate them into others. It was a specialty propaganda channel at best and had no business pretending it's anything remotely similar to an actual news channel. If SUN was made eligible, then would that not be "forced to pay" under your moveable goal-post ideology? Why not include other legal entities like Greenpeace TV, Huffington Post TV or National Rifle Association TV, after all they are merely idealogues with an agenda to serve too?

There, I've answered your questions to the point. Apparently, your demand for answers from me, outstrips your ability to answer mine. Before posting in this thread, did you actually read the CRTC decision on SUN? What part of it do you not understand? Cite the specific point you disagree with in that decision and speak to it. Leave the rhetorical gibberish aside, because it's been what is "irrelevant" in this discussion.
VE7LGD
User avatar
Dave L
Advanced Member
 
Posts: 224
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 4:21 pm

Next

Return to On the small screen

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 107 guests