Keep Canadian Media Honest - Don't Let The CRTC Deregulate Truth in Journalism

On January 10, 2011, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) released a Broadcasting Notice of Consultation, reference #2011-14, regarding amendments to the Radio Regulations, 1986, Television Broadcasting Regulations, 1987, Pay Television Regulations, 1990, Specialty Services Regulations, 1990, and the Broadcasting Information Regulations, 1993.

We the undersigned are concerned with the wording of specific amendments proposed for:
Paragraph 3(d) of the Radio Regulations, 1986;
Paragraph 5(1)(d) of the Television Broadcasting Regulations, 1987;
Paragraph 3(2)(c) of the Pay Television Regulations, 1990;
Paragraph (3)(d) of the Specialty Services Regulations, 1990.


The current wording is broad:
[Media outlets are prohibited from broadcasting] any news that the licensee knows is false or misleading.

The proposed change is an addenum to the previous statement:
[Media outlets are prohibited from broadcasting] any news that the licensee knows is false or misleading and that endangers or is likely to endanger the lives, health or safety of the public.


We the undersigned strongly feel that:
-The proposed wording introduces a dangerous precedent wherein media may find grounds to report news that is false or misleading so long as the news in question does not directly endanger the lives, health or safety or the public,
-The concerns regarding the previous wording of the regulation should be negated, as the regulation has remained relatively unchallenged since it's inception,
-The CRTC's decision to change the wording of the particular amendments may constitute a potential legalization of intentionally misleading news in many situations,
-The CRTC should strongly consider re-evaluating the wording of these particular amendments in order to ensure media accountability,
-No amount of false or misleading news is acceptable in Canadian society therefore, there is no need to set forth any such definitions of scope, and that
-The current regulation is clear and to the point and no changes are necessary.


We the undersigned strongly suggest the CRTC consider either of the two following options in re-evaluating the wording of the amendments:

Option 1: Leave the current wording of the regulatory paragraphs outlined above as-is, where-is.

Option 2: Consider the difference in this particular wording, in which the definition of scope would remain broad:
[Media outlets are prohibited from broadcasting] any news that the licensee knows is false or misleading, including (but not limited to) false or misleading news that endangers or is likely to endanger the lives, health, welfare or safety of the public, without exception.

We the undersigned feel that either of these two options are much more preferable than the current changes proposed to these particular amendments, and ask that the CRTC give considerable thought to the potential consequence of the amendments as currently proposed.