FOX BULLY IS A CRYBABY ON CANADA (Here's the liberal reponse to Bill O'Reilly)

The Toronto Star ^ | February 01, 2005 | ANTONIA ZERBISIAS

[Thommas]

they claim they're not conservative, but "mainstream." Well, maybe. From the Ku Klux Klan's perspective.

I agree BOR exaggerates and is not conservative, but the liberal slant of this article is typically insane. Liberals worldwide like to denounce "conservatives" as Nazis and Klanners, but this propaganda fails to note that Nazis were extreme socialists and Klanners were (and in the case of Sen. Byrd still are) liberal/progressive Democrats.

Those who cannot fathom basic history make for inept and risible pundits.

[Snowyman]

Oh, and as for the Quebec comment, you mentioned it in a post about your hometown so it's fair to say based on your personality, it was a safe assumption.

What part of "I've never lived in Quebec " don't you understand . I have never lived there. I have never said I did. Are you one of those bigots who believe that anyone who disagrees with you must either be a liberal or from Quebec ? Sounds like it.

Taking 8 or 10 lines from perhaps 1500 posts hardly represents the majority of time and even mentioning it is only a reflection on your lack of maturity and unfortunately also a reflection on your intelligence . No one here would waste the time doing it .

As I said , you first addressed me , not the other way around . I read some and I was quite content to ignore your posts . I had decide you didn't know what you were talking about . Your latest post simply proves I was right . I'll make it real simple for you . When one argues with a fool you have two fools arguing . And that's not an assumption . Have a good day.

[UpHereEh]

Yaaawwwwn, nice try on 8-10 lines out of 1500 though. The rest of your blathering posts are pretty much telling others what to think, do and act like. I'm not the first person you've spewed insults at, nor will I be the last. And to spell-out the Quebec comment to you "you seem like you are from Quebec", get it Frosty?

[Eli Playter]

Fox and CanWest applied for the license jointly knowing full-well what would be expected of them and every other successful licensee. They got what they applied for; no surprises of special conditions and then they sat on the license.

It seems pretty obvious that the business heads at both companies had second thoughts about following-through. And it isn't even as if talking-heads programming is all that expensive to do. Obviously, Fox News Canada was a thin-margin license to begin with. That isn't the fault of the Canadian government. Nobody "banned" anything.

[UpHereEh]

Fox and CanWest didn't apply jointly for a license at all it was the Global Television Network that applied to broadcast Fox News Canada. Here's how it went down according to Wikipedia. All the links to the decisions and applications are on their website.

On December 14, 2000, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) approved FOX News Canada on behalf of the Global Television Network, for broadcast. FOX News Canada was to be a domestic Canadian version of FOX News. The channel, or specialty television service, was never implemented by FOX, and the deadline for commencement of the service expired on November 24, 2004.

On June 18, 2003, the Canadian Cable Telecommunications Association (CCTA), an organization representing approximately 90 cable companies in Canada, applied to add FOX News, ESPN, HBO, and other non-domestic programming to the CRTC's Lists of Eligible Satellite Services on a digital basis. In their application the CCTA duly noted that, absent a change in CRTC policy, some of the channels were likely to be ineligible for addition to the lists as some were partially or totally competitive with licensed Canadian programming. Some Canadian channels additionally might hold exclusive rights. In a lengthy response, the CRTC stated that "the Commission considers that CCTA has not raised sufficient question as to the validity of the existing policy, or sufficient argument or evidence as to the benefits of its proposed approach, to warrant a policy review at this time" and noted that "CCTA has not provided the information generally required for the Commission to consider requests to add services to the Lists. Accordingly, the Commission is not in a position to examine whether it would be appropriate to authorize for distribution any of the specific services noted in CCTA’s request".

The CCTA applied on April 15, 2004 solely to add FOX News, along with the NFL Network. CCTA's acting president Michael Hennessy said that the previous "bulk approach... ...was just too big", adding it raised "significant issues" with respect to broadcast rights and competition with existing domestic services. On November 18, 2004 the CRTC announced that a digital license would be granted to FOX News. In its proposal, FOX News stated, with reference to FOX News Canada, that "Fox News does not intend to implement this service and therefore will not meet the extended deadline to commence operations". On December 16, 2004, Rogers Communications became the first Canadian cable or satellite provider to broadcast FOX News, with other companies following suit within the next several days.

The CRTC's previous refusal to grant Fox News a license had been contested by some Canadians, as well as American fans of the channel, who believed the decision to be politically motivated.

[UpHereEh]

I already know what you're going to say, same company, my mistake but still I just don't think FNC wanted anything to do with Fox News Canada. I spend about the same amount of months per year in the US as I do in Canada and I have to agree with them on that one. The channels such as Mystery Canada, Food Network Canada, Discovery Canada, etc... have entirely different line-ups and programming than their counterparts. I do however think it would be a great idea to add a Canadian based Fox News bureau to focus on national issues here.

[Eli Playter]

Well, then it begs the question, why'd they partner-up? It probably went something like this:

CanWest: You know guys (Fox). there's a market up here we don't think's being served and we'd like to rebroadcast your signal with enough CanCon to fit CRTC regs. Whaddaya think?

FNC: Sounds like a plan. 50-50?

CanWest: Fair enough. The normal 30% CanCon is cheap enough to do. Let's apply.

They then get their license but don't get the public demand they expected but they're sitting on a contractual agreement for sole broadcast in Canada. Now what?

As for the CanWest ownership of the other channels? Who cares? Like your average watcher gives a damn abou who owns what? I don't think they make the connection nor care even if they do.

I would've liked to see it had they give it a chance.

[Eli Playter]

"The CRTC's previous refusal to grant Fox News a license had been contested by some Canadians, as well as American fans of the channel, who believed the decision to be politically motivated."

A license had already been granted for the same service. Until CanWest and Fox pulled the plug on the Canadian version, the CRTC didn't really have a legitimate choice. Once they waved the white flag, didn't they (FNC) get the OK for carriage?

[UpHereEh]

Perhaps if FNC channel gets enough viewers in Canada they'll explore applying for another Canadian version. It would be nice to see some homegrown pundits addressing Canadian issues from a conservative view.

[Eli Playter]

I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.

[UpHereEh]

Well said, I agree with your entire post. I will also keep my subscription and enjoy watching Bill take on the big issues. Hannity is another class act, and the more the MSM keeps Fox News in the press, negative or otherwise, the more the ratings will increase. The CBC will get what's coming to them one of these days. Harper is determined to cut their funding and force them to sell ads based on ratings like everyone else does. If we can get the conservatives elected, the CBC is a top priority on the hit list. I strongly believe, what goes around, comes around!

[HamiltonJay]

precious TV time

Uh here, in america, TV time is not precious, in fact we have so much bandwidth that almost anything can get on the air... Of course, being an ever more socialist government, I'm sure in your neck of the woods, airtime is still a rare commodity.

[UpHereEh]

I'm sure in your neck of the woods, airtime is still a rare commodity.

... and a very monopolized one!

[concrete is my business]

Just try it. NYC will freeze in the dark.

[Eli Playter]

Sorry Jay but airtime is hardly a rare commodity (except in certain minds). A business applied for and received a license for Fox News Canada. That business chose not to excercise the license, probably for sound business reasons. Now that the business has dissolved and turned in the license, Fox News Channel is now OK'd for carriage. Nothing socialistic about it.

[Republic_of_Secession.]

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.

The same old insipid attacks. Comparing the Fox News Channel to the Klan is just ridiculous.

[altura]

You forgot the "E"

[UpHereEh]

Hat tip to Stephen Taylor who decided to do a little research on the subject...

As I prepared this post, a rerun of the CBC's fifth estate documentary was lamenting the arrival of that "loud", "raucous" cable news channel that has debuted on Canadian digital cable. I am, of course, talking about Fox News.

Bob McKeown has an obvious thesis. He claims, quite correctly, that Fox News has aided in the division of the United States into Red and Blue. He calls it "a very un-civil war". Ironically he uses Al Franken and his Air America to confirm his thesis that Fox News is conservative (and thus quite evil). Yet, he ignores that by appealing to Franken he becomes unfaithful to his original thesis of media division of opinion as unfavorable.

I'd venture to guess that Bob took a lot of notes when he saw the Democratic Party funded documentary on Fox News: Outfoxed. All of the points were there. If I produced Outfoxed, I'd look into suing the Fifth Estate for plagiarism.

There is something quite ironic about the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation identifying media bias when the American news channel itself will compete directly with CBC for viewers.

So, I decided to look into the political influence behind what may direct the decisions at the CBC, from the stories that they choose to cover to which rerun of the Antiques Roadshow they'll play on Newsworld whenever the Conservative Party gets together at a convention or leadership debate.

Thus, I present the political contributions by party made by the current CBC board of directors.



Consider that these powerful positions are appointed by the government and that state media should of course be unbiased. The CBC documentary on Fox News dreads a division of opinion in the news media concerning the stories that are reported, the facts which are selected, and the tone of the broadcast. I would much prefer a "divide" than such a disparity which is as evident as the chart above describes.