|
|
Post by Cranky on Oct 10, 2014 3:48:50 GMT -5
With municiple election in Ontario and federal a year away, might as well create a political thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Oct 10, 2014 5:16:42 GMT -5
First up.....what is good for the goose....
I was caught by suprise when the mass media started screaming "Harper stealing content". After some digging, it appears that the news media want to be able to control what and who can have fair use their broadcast material. In other words, if Trudeau or Harper said something stupid in an interview, the media wants to control who and when they can use that content. As an example, when Trudeau made his famous drama queen speech, I think it was CBC footage. The CBC wants to limit and get their permission on who and how they can use it.
The goose...
The media is not paying for using private property as backdrop to their stories. Or interviewing in public places. They claim it's "fair use" and if they could not have that freedom, it would limit free speach. So they can sit in front of your property, have the camera running all day waiting for a story, no problem. They can run that footage and make money on it. They claim it's fair use.
The gander..
The law is already there that we can have non profitable fair usage of their material, but now, they are screaming that their material is "taken" without permission or remuneration. It's theirs and protected by copyright.
Sorry. Goose......meet gander....
On to political speech....
The news media is trying to spin it and claim that their news footage is protected by copyright law and access to it is limit by them. Too bad, piss off. The only problem I have with what Harper wants to broaden is that it should not be just for political actors and ads, but available to EVERYONE in all media. We should all be entitled to use it to create commentary. If I want to make a mocking video/image of Trudeau or Harper, or Trudeau wants to make a mocking video of Harper, it's not up to the CBC to pick and choose who they limit it too or claim copyrights.
What is good for the media goose....is good for the public gander.
To quote...
So I blame Harper.....for not making it broad enough. And as for claims by the broadcasters and mas media that it compromises their journalistic integrity....that's is the funniest thing I heard this century.
|
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Oct 10, 2014 8:52:37 GMT -5
RE: the bias, mud-slinging, and criticism involved in politics.
IMO, it's akin to dirty tactics in hockey.
The other teams have "goons"….OUR team has "necessary deterrents".
And I think it goes further…into the issues.
Politics is usually nothing more than blanket criticism of whatever the other team does….while apologetics abound for the good guys.
By and large, Liberals see Harper/PCs see Trudeau the way a Habs' fan sees Lucic.
And it's useless to argue/discuss issues with people who hold that mindset.
Look at Ford Nation in Toronto.
They may have some great ideas. They may have done some good things….but the other side simply won't listen to any of it.
On the other hand, there are many who don't care what the Fords do or how they behave….they're the good guys no matter what.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Oct 10, 2014 9:38:28 GMT -5
stop being reasonable and realistic, CH . . .
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Oct 10, 2014 11:30:24 GMT -5
RE: the bias, mud-slinging, and criticism involved in politics. IMO, it's akin to dirty tactics in hockey. The other teams have "goons"….OUR team has "necessary deterrents". And I think it goes further…into the issues. Politics is usually nothing more than blanket criticism of whatever the other team does….while apologetics abound for the good guys. By and large, Liberals see Harper/PCs see Trudeau the way a Habs' fan sees Lucic. And it's useless to argue/discuss issues with people who hold that mindset. Look at Ford Nation in Toronto. They may have some great ideas. They may have done some good things….but the other side simply won't listen to any of it. On the other hand, there are many who don't care what the Fords do or how they behave….they're the good guys no matter what. I don't care about the mud slinging. Or who does it. Or how. I care about the media choosing who can or cannot use their footage/images and them trying to change the fair use into copyrighted material. Their self serving, pseudo moral outrage of "stealing their hard work and compromising their integrity" is as hollow as their claims of "harming their in depth and unbiased reporting". If I was a political figure and was interviewed by Ezra Levant in my camo thongs, then my bro Ezra does not have the right to control that footage to limit the damage it would do to my impeccable image. Nor control who and how it's used, or buy air time on his channel, or in any way control the political message. The lovable image of me in my thong is "out there"..... |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Oct 10, 2014 12:27:19 GMT -5
That's just media bias….and that, too, is as pervasive as are the politicians who take advantage of it. "Vicious" cycle.
How many times have Rob/Doug Ford gone on the right-wing friendly John Oakley show to spout their claims and platforms?
How many times has the Toronto Star painted only the left-of-centre as favourable?
What gets in the way of truth…..
Flat-out state-controlled propaganda in which the media is a complete puppet.
Media ownership skewing the coverage to suit their purposes. Self-interest trumping truth.
Media who simply treat bias as a niche market and cater to a certain audience's leanings. They don't create it…as much as they perpetuate/feed it for $$$$.
Media who won't report the truth out of fear of violence from certain groups/belief systems.
There are no doubt more forms and combinations thereof, but those are the models that come to my mind. There is little real education in any of it, besides teaching one how to think critically. But how many actually take that route?
Does 100% unbiased coverage in the mainstream media even exist?
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Oct 10, 2014 12:41:29 GMT -5
Does 100% unbiased coverage in the mainstream media even exist? did it ever? |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Oct 10, 2014 13:44:25 GMT -5
 Good point, franko. But I think some journalists/outlets still strive for it….but not in the mainstream as far as the political, business, social topics are concerned. I think some alternative news sources are more on the mark in terms of unbiased reporting, but the mainstream has convinced most that it's just a bunch of kooks. I mean, they're not on TV in prime time...how could they possibly know what they're talking about? Is CNN's slogan still: "The Most Trusted Name in News"?
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Oct 10, 2014 13:48:45 GMT -5
a lot of what is presented as news is really just interpretation and commentary on current events.
|
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Oct 10, 2014 14:38:04 GMT -5
You'd think that with 24-hr. news channels, they could spend more time going in-depth….but it's usually just repeat, rehash of the same old line. Deliberate manipulation, fabrication, omission, and suppression. Takes a critical eye to see through it….and even then, how do you really know? Then come the conspiracy theories….or ARE they just theories? The info re: 9-11 is proof enough of the various angles that can be taken. And now…..back to The Madcap Adventures of the Ford Family. Followed by: Harper vs. Trudeau. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Oct 10, 2014 15:22:51 GMT -5
If you think media bias is bad now, imagine if they had absolute control over all the content under all mediums. They would absolutely control all the messages.....under the wonderful bullcrap of doing this under the "freedom of speech".
Franko....you and I quoted Trudeau and his space adventures. If that was on CBC and they had it in print, if they had their way, that is copyrighted...and we need their permission. What are the chances between never and not-a-chance-in-hell that we get that permission?
Their bs claim that the Evil Harper wants to steal their rights and make attack ads. The bigger picture is their foot in the door to copyright material and subsequent use. My problem with Harpers legislation is that it does not go far enough to give all of us the right to fair use. Any claims to anything else by the media is pure bs.
And I give you permission to quote me any time you want......
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Oct 10, 2014 19:04:11 GMT -5
Franko....you and I quoted Trudeau and his space adventures. If that was on CBC and they had it in print, if they had their way, that is copyrighted...and we need their permission. What are the chances between never and not-a-chance-in-hell that we get that permission? thankfully (in spite of what they think) the world does not revolve around the MotherCorp. most outlets let you quote to your heart's content as long as you give credit; sometimes they don't even care about that. that's it, CBC, make yourself even more irrelevant . . . and then whine when even more funding is gone. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Oct 10, 2014 22:19:23 GMT -5
With municiple election in Ontario and federal a year away, might as well create a political thread. Well, the friggin' interest is there, HA ... I'm pretty close to starting a closed discussion group on Facebook for next year's federal election ... people are already debating/arguing the issues now ... and, to be honest, I find the Liberal supporters to be the ones least contributing ... the Tory Right are all over this next election and it's as if they're intimidating the Liberal/NDP left ... there's a very big anti-Trudeau lobby out there and if the polls are any indication, the Trudeau-driven Liberal juggernaut is slowing down considerably ... I'm hoping for record voter turnouts in the next federal election ... this might be one of the most significant federal elections in recent memory ... many know my convictions on this but I'd support a Harper minority ... things seemed to work with a minority, anyway ... Cheers. PS ... the NDP will not form the next government ... I haven't ruled out voting for Muclair, but until this ISIL BS is resolved, I honestly feel that, of the three leaders, Harper has the stones to properly deal with it ... I don't know what he's going to do six months from now, but if ISIL isn't controlled by then he'll probably feel pressure to do more ... that's just me, though ... |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Oct 10, 2014 23:05:51 GMT -5
You'd think that with 24-hr. news channels, they could spend more time going in-depth….but it's usually just repeat, rehash of the same old line. Deliberate manipulation, fabrication, omission, and suppression. Takes a critical eye to see through it….and even then, how do you really know? Then come the conspiracy theories….or ARE they just theories? The info re: 9-11 is proof enough of the various angles that can be taken. And now…..back to The Madcap Adventures of the Ford Family. Followed by: Harper vs. Trudeau. The media, generally speaking, will not promote the truth, they're more apt to promote the story ... and the story will be whatever version the editor of that media wants you to read ... there's revenues to be had by camping outside Rob Ford's house ... Trudeau-the-anti-Christ and the-devil-in-Harper are just two incomplete stories that generate revenues ... Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Oct 10, 2014 23:14:01 GMT -5
If you think media bias is bad now, imagine if they had absolute control over all the content under all mediums. They would absolutely control all the messages.....under the wonderful bullcrap of doing this under the "freedom of speech". Franko....you and I quoted Trudeau and his space adventures. If that was on CBC and they had it in print, if they had their way, that is copyrighted...and we need their permission. What are the chances between never and not-a-chance-in-hell that we get that permission? Their bs claim that the Evil Harper wants to steal their rights and make attack ads. The bigger picture is their foot in the door to copyright material and subsequent use. My problem with Harpers legislation is that it does not go far enough to give all of us the right to fair use. Any claims to anything else by the media is pure bs. And I give you permission to quote me any time you want...... The worst offender to freedom of speech for me, anyway, is CNN ... they're all about making something out of nothing with producers who are more concerned how they look in a CNN baseball hat than they are about anything else ... it's not enough to convey the story (whatever that is) but they have to look gorgeous doing it ... very important ... I honestly don't know what CNN or Fox News, for that matter, are doing on the air ... pump fear into people and keep the story going ... certainly, most media outlets can lay claim to that only, CNN and Fox seem to be the poster boys for this concept ... Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by blny on Oct 11, 2014 13:50:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Oct 11, 2014 14:48:48 GMT -5
Well, every story I hear about this "fair dealing" talks about the media's concern that ALL parties will misquote, mis attribute or even go so far as to not use the material honestly. That is a valid concern. I'm not sure of the origins of the Ignatieff "just visiting ads, but if he (as an example, not saying this is what happened) is interviewed saying he is just visiting a sick relative in the hospital and an attack ad of just visiting the country with that audio clip occurs .... Well to me that's wrong. That wasn't the intent of that quote.
And now, let's say franko is interviewed for his job, or CH is interviewed for his voice over talents ....guess what? Any quote either of them gave is fair game to be used by political parties, even if it was never intended to be political. I don't think that's right either, but that is what the government is saying is allowable under fair dealing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Oct 11, 2014 18:05:49 GMT -5
Just before the hockey game tonight on CITY TV they gave the preamble to a story later on tonight about companies canvassing Facebook taking your pictures and using them in their ads and such. Would you be upset if you showed up in a Redbull commercial wearing a Redbull hat ... But you weren't asked, or paid?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Oct 14, 2014 12:52:07 GMT -5
It's worse, far worse then I thought. It's actually bonafide collusion to strip away what has already been established and supported by the Canadian Supreme court. I don't really care for Ezra Levants antics and the style he brings his point of view, but what he has to say is absolutely important to the right to fair dealing and more importantly, he exposed the media for outright collusion to censor and control the news. www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/3837345428001Anybody surprised that the CBC is behind it? Anybody surprised that the CBC and it's co-conspirator have not uttered a single word about fair use (more restrictive fair dealing in Canada) and trying to spin it and misrepresent it in it's broadcast to to the masses as "theft of the journalist work" and "intellectual property" where in fact it's part of freedom of speech, long established legal foundation and conspiracy to censor. It's now beyond a shadow of a doubt that the media colludes and manipulates the masses...... |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Oct 14, 2014 13:09:19 GMT -5
Well, every story I hear about this "fair dealing" talks about the media's concern that ALL parties will misquote, mis attribute or even go so far as to not use the material honestly. That is a valid concern. I'm not sure of the origins of the Ignatieff "just visiting ads, but if he (as an example, not saying this is what happened) is interviewed saying he is just visiting a sick relative in the hospital and an attack ad of just visiting the country with that audio clip occurs .... Well to me that's wrong. That wasn't the intent of that quote. And now, let's say franko is interviewed for his job, or CH is interviewed for his voice over talents ....guess what? Any quote either of them gave is fair game to be used by political parties, even if it was never intended to be political. I don't think that's right either, but that is what the government is saying is allowable under fair dealing. It's not what the "government is saying is allowable under fair dealing", far from it, it is long established LEGAL RIGHT to fair dealing and the CANADIAN SUPREME COURT already ruled on political parties right to fair dealing. I don't care if you don't like Harper. It's not even the issue here no matter how much the media is feeding you your preferred narrative about the Evil Harper and big bad politicians. It's about about the broafer fair use and freedom of speechh and freedom from, the media colluding to censor. And last but not least about your example. If it's a PUBLIC statement made in an interview made for PUBLIC consumption, then it's fair game top be quoted. You can not pick and choose your examples and cover them with right to privacy. Fair dealing and the broader fair use....and why I think Harper is not going far enough to make it fair use for EVERYBODY. www.press.uottawa.ca/sites/default/files/9780776620848_5.pdf. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Oct 14, 2014 13:22:58 GMT -5
Just before the hockey game tonight on CITY TV they gave the preamble to a story later on tonight about companies canvassing Facebook taking your pictures and using them in their ads and such. Would you be upset if you showed up in a Redbull commercial wearing a Redbull hat ... But you weren't asked, or paid? It's not and example of fair use, not even close. That's a right to privacy issue. Fair dealing.....The Canadian concept of fair dealing is similar to that in the UK and Australia. The fair dealing clauses[10] of the Canadian Copyright Act allow users to engage in certain activities relating to research, private study, education, parody, satire, CRITICISM, review, or news reporting. (note the word criticism)Fair use........is a limitation and exception to the exclusive right granted by copyright law to the author of a creative work. In United States copyright law, fair use is a doctrine that permits limited use of copyrighted material without acquiring permission from the rights holdersYou see what I did there? I "fair use" an excerpt from Wiki (or any source) to explain what fair use is without needing permission from them or anyone else. No censorship, no control and the freedom to support my freedom of speech. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Oct 15, 2014 16:23:06 GMT -5
I'm not well-versed on the topic.....but here's a strong opinion I found online. Again, I don't know what's true or what's being hyperbolized, but I have a feeling this writer wouldn't like Harper no matter what. Harper government forcing media to be a co-conspirator in Conservative propaganda
Iron-fisted control, suppression of dissenting views, deception in Parliament, disinformation in propaganda, and relentless personal attacks. These are some of the key characteristics of Harper Conservatism – a self-serving ideology that's focused almost exclusively on maintaining power.
As part of this political culture, the Harper government seeks to pass legislation in the scope of Conservative self-interest and power lust, rather than the greater good of all Canadians and that of the country.
Case in point, the recently uncovered ploy by the Harper government to re-write Canada’s copyright law for no other reason but to serve future Conservative attack ads.
This shady plan only coming light after CTV News obtained a private Conservative document outlining how the Harper government will alter the Copyright Act, so that political parties (namely the Conservatives themselves) will be able to use news footage and other journalistic content for attack ads and campaign spots without asking broadcasters or publishers for permission.
When pressed about the issue, the Harper government gave the argument that Canada’s news agencies “should not have the ability to censor” political messaging.
In the House of Commons last Thursday, Heritage Minister Shelly Glover gave the following statement,
“There is a public interest in ensuring that politicians are accountable for their actions and accountable for what they say in public settings. Major television networks should not have the ability to censor what can and cannot be broadcast to Canadians. We believe this has always been protected under the fair dealings provisions of the law, and if greater certainty is necessary we will provide it.”
However, there is wide agreement among Canada’s broadcasters, journalist, political analysts and academics that this measure would constitute an infringement on the intellectual property rights of broadcasters and other news organizations. Moreover, other people or groups won’t have the right to violate copyright laws. The Conservatives’ proposed exemption will only apply to political parties and not other organizations such as unions.
So the copyright law change is essentially an assault on property rights from a Conservative Party that proclaims to be a defender of free markets and an adherent to the tenets of capitalism. But I guess with all of Harper’s pledges of government intervention into the economy and the sole-source contracts, the sheer hypocrisy really shouldn’t be much of a surprise.
The reality is that the Harper Conservatives don’t give a rat’s ass about media censorship or freedom of speech. They are simply laying the ground work for their unscrupulous attack ads in the upcoming federal election, which could happen as early as next spring.
In fact, the Harper government’s sudden desire to change Canada’s Copyright Act comes in the wake of a warning from Canadian broadcasters; CBC, Radio-Canada, CTV, Rogers and Shaw, which owns Global Television, all vowed in a letter back in May that they would no longer air political ads that include their material without express consent. It should be noted that Quebecor, which owns Sun News Network (the hyper-partisan Conservative broadcaster), was the only major broadcaster not to sign the letter.
To make matters worse, the Harper government intends to bury the copyright changes in another Conservative omnibus bill, which means that it will not go before committee hearings in Parliament and MPs won’t be able to hear expert testimony on whether or not it's a good idea.
Basically, the unfounded claims of potential censorship is just a thinly veiled cover for the true odious nature of the Conservatives’ intentions.
Harper and company want to walk over the intellectual property rights of Canadian broadcasters and journalists by seizing their material without asking to distort the content and take it out of context, thereby forcing the media to be a co-conspirator in Conservative propaganda and subsequently degrading freedom of the press and diminishing the public’s confidence in the media.
A key role of the media in a democracy is holding the government to account, which is why media independence, including the ability to protect the journalistic content produced, is so important. However, according to Harper Conservatism, which seeks to control information and the ‘message’, the media is perceived as a threat.
This is why, rather than viewing Canada’s media as an agent of transparency and accountability in our democracy, the Harper government forces Canadian taxpayers to pay for its 24|Seven production, which is simply publicly-funded propaganda for Stephen Harper that would make any tin-pot dictator proud.
It's also why, despite having more than 3,300 communications staff within the government, the Conservatives have spent more than $20 million in taxpayer money on media monitoring contracts since December 2012. And it's also why rather than adhering to the principles of freedom of the press and the protection of intellectual property rights, the Conservatives want to make sure they are able to force their message on Canadians.
Ultimately, the Harper government’s ‘nefarious scheme’ is best summed up by CTV’s Don Martin,
“Any government which asserts unlimited access to the airwaves for propaganda purposes is more than into chronic copyright infringement, in some academic journals that would be viewed as flirting with fascism.” |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Oct 15, 2014 17:00:44 GMT -5
I'm not well-versed on the topic.....but here's a strong opinion I found online. Again, I don't know what's true or what's being hyperbolized, but I have a feeling this writer wouldn't like Harper no matter what. Harper government forcing media to be a co-conspirator in Conservative propaganda
Iron-fisted control, suppression of dissenting views, deception in Parliament, disinformation in propaganda, and relentless personal attacks. These are some of the key characteristics of Harper Conservatism – a self-serving ideology that's focused almost exclusively on maintaining power.
. . . flirting with fascism.” "strong" opinion? slightly understated, no?  the interesting thing is that the same thing could have been said about the Chretien Liberals . . . up to and including "maintaining power" -- that's what politicians do best (there weren't any complaints about fascism at least)! regarding the CBC . . . it's a public broadcaster. I don't think that what they produce on the public dime should be public domain -- whether in-house or purchased, it should be available. Don't like it? go to a private broadcaster. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Oct 15, 2014 21:34:59 GMT -5
That's a good find, CH, thanks ... this kind of underhandedness doesn't surprise me with Harper ... I guess he considers Trudeau a major threat ... and once he gets the copyright laws changed, other parties will be able to do the same ... I remember it backfiring on Kim Campbell ... it was the last nail in the Tory spiral from office ... Mr Harper should take note:
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Oct 15, 2014 22:08:43 GMT -5
Same with the Liberals, Dis . . .
here's "the bunch of the ads"
but they would never ever attack someone or use his words against him.
then again . . .
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Oct 15, 2014 22:45:08 GMT -5
Thanks Franko ... I honestly don't remember those ads, but they weren't necessary ... Ignatief wasn't going to get my vote ... if the Liberals resorted to those tactics then they must have felt they were behind and out of options ... it might just be that way for Harper right now ... honestly, if he's started those attack ads already he must really be concerned ...
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Oct 16, 2014 0:42:18 GMT -5
Pure bloggers garbage by a "progressive blogger" and "hopeful agitator". That was straight out of the pages of Rabble and trash subway "newspapers". He has no concept of fair dealing or fair use other then some spit about Evil Harper. Here is who he is and his claim to fame....LOL! www.blogger.com/profile/07743385647090599473 |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Oct 16, 2014 1:29:27 GMT -5
The very issue that the media cartel is bringing up as an "evil Harper issue" has already been decided in 1988 by Federal Court of Appeal between the Liberals and CTV. Here it is..... www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/242517364?width=723I can also bring up several cases where the Supreme Court held up fair dealing. Here is a link.... fairduty.wordpress.com/resources/notable-supreme-court-decisions/So why now and why bring it up? Pretty simple, they media colluded outright, IN WRITING to spin it as something they can pin on Evil Harper and try to claw back long established copyright limitations and fair dealing rights. What frightens me is that they actually have so much influence and power that they can sell their spin to the masses and there are precious few left in the media to shoot down their bs. And it gets worse.... The left is so gung ho to get rid of Harper, their eyes glazed over and joined the Big Media Corporations to support their copyright power play and restrict the right to free speech and fair dealings. They are perfectly willing to sell any principles they purport to cherish and climb inside corporate underwear for short term political gain. This is scary on so many levels.... |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Oct 16, 2014 1:54:20 GMT -5
I love this......the media cartel has violated the Competition Act...and Ezra Levant has outed them.
(Here is part of the article that my FAIR DEALING rights allows me to post.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Oct 16, 2014 16:33:16 GMT -5
Same with the Liberals, Dis . . . here's "the bunch of the ads" but they would never ever attack someone or use his words against him. then again . . . Franko, no one is saying it's only the Conservatives that use attack ads. It's all parties, but that doesn't make it right. And the media is saying, they won't air ALL parties ads . It has to stop somewhere, n'est ce pas? Unless of course, people actually agree with twisting people's words to garner votes .... |
|
Good point, franko.
