Posted on 02/01/2005 12:42:41 PM PST by UpHereEh
Because until very recently it was ILLEGAL for them to carry Fox News.
It was well known, and now almost totally forgotten that that KKK was an activist wing of the democrat party.
It may be a very fine semantic point, but if it is illegal to carry a channel, it is safe to say that channel has been banned.
All lies from the Star. Shaw, StarChoice and Cogceco in addition to Rogers have picked up the FNC, with more companies adding it monthly. Also, exactly what Bill said regarding the amount of FNC viewers was "I guess were on in about 7 or 8 million homes" which is true. All those companies viewer added together is exactly that amount. Bill did his homework on that one.
The cable and sattelite services in Canada do not own the news channels. If they don't carry it, it's probably because they don't see an audience for it. Personally, I couldn't care less if I ever get to watch FNC - I don't watch CNN or MSNBC, or NewsWorld (CBC's news channel) or CTVNews, anyway, not because I hate biased news coverage but because I get all my (important) news on the internet.
He doesn't claim to be a conservative and is very entertaining.
I don't know about that. Fox News put in numerous applications to the CRTC that were all denied, I would call that banned.
You knew this was going to happen.
WHY O'Reilly gives a rat's behind about Canada is beyond my comprehension.
His best move at this point would be to totally ignore the place - - just like the rest of America does.
Translation.....the liberal media monopoly in the socialist country of Canada is now also dead.
[*CBC "has enjoyed something like a monopoly on news coverage and commentary up until now, and true diversity is now arriving in broadcasting." ]
I agree with you. BOR is a traditionalist and independent. I look forward to watching him every weekday.
"(For the record, Fox and O'Reilly refused to participate in the fifth estate documentary because they claim they're not conservative, but "mainstream." Well, maybe. From the Ku Klux Klan's perspective.)"
That says enough about what way-out wackos the Toronto Star are, or are just so loose with facts that they wrekclessly throw around comparisons of conservatives to any ole racist group that last crossed the single cerebral synapse.
The KKK is and always has been a DEMOCRAT group, not Republican and certainly not neocon like Fox News.
I agree and O'Reilly is the prototypical blowhard. He
patronizingly and condescendingly refers to his audience
as "the folks" ,i.e., the poor dumb slobs that depend on
his courageous and relentless presentation to them of the
truth. Look at his phony e-mails: One says "You're a no
good right-wing extremist." And the next one he reads
says, "You're a no good left-wing extremist." Then Bill
smirks and assumes the contrived posture of the no-spin
moderate in the middle whose only interest is bringing
the truth to us stupid and helpless "folks." I've viewed
him less and less as time passes.
I'm going to go with both door #1 and door #2, they are both "way-out wackos" and "loose with facts".
It is bad enough that the author pulled this out of his ass and wrote it down. It just sick that he needed to preceed his BS with "Fact is,"
Candada sucks anyway who cares?
With all those dumb ass coins when I walk anywhere I sounds like the person standing in front of the grocery store ringing the bell for salvation army donations.
Not Approved = banned. QED.
#1. Fox will now be available on Rogers Digital cable, finally, and it is or was running on free previews for the month of January. Which means one will have to pay for Fox News Channel extra or get a bundle of channels that includes Fox, which is fair because MSNBC and BBC World News is also available on the same terms, unless the bundles have changed.
Though of course the very reason it took so long to get Fox's licence cleared is no doubt fear of the competition, look what Fox is doing to CNN et al.
#2. Neil McDonald ought to worry - that guy is so biased in his reporting which I always knew but I couldn't believe it when I witnessed it without doubt and could prove it - remember when the Iraqi government banned al Jazeera in Baghdad, I think this was maybe the 2nd time they did it, maybe summer of 2003.
It was headline news and I was channel surfing - every single news outlet except CBC stated the fact that the reasons the Iraqi government was banning Al Jazeera (never mind the employees that were proven to be on Saddam's payroll during the war) was it was inciting violence against Iraqis AND Al Jazeera was showing up to film attacks and reporting on them almost before they happened - hint hint.
Old Neil baby never mentions the reason why the Iraqi government was banning Al Jazeera, just went into some diatribe about how ironic that the Americans came to bring freedom and freedom of speech was being denied, blah blah blah.
So I blasted them in an email which I am sure was ignored.
Hmmm, why don't we let the free market decide who is right? We all believe in freedom, right? So what is the Canadian media establishment so scared of? (Answer: someone might have a different opinion than they).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.