Fox News gets foothold in (Canadian) House of Commons

[Newsjock]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040601/RGOAT01/TPBusiness/Canadian

Tuesday, June 1, 2004 - Page B2

I have learned that Fox News, domain of Bill O'Reilly, the obnoxious yak-show host who lovingly describes Canadians as "dishonest pinheads," has one official subscriber in Canada -- none other than the House of Commons. A Fox mouthpiece in New York tells me the Commons has been getting the Fox service -- free of charge -- since last August. ... Fox, always eager to curry favour with foreign politicians, simply provided the Commons with a descrambling code, allowing a dish somewhere in Ottawa to receive a feed from Fox's Galaxy satellite.

... Fox, launched by loveable Rupert Murdoch in 1996 and now the dominant cable news network, has been trying to penetrate the Canadian market for some time. ... With MPs on the freebie list, the Goat is willing to hazard a wee guess that its second attempt may just succeed.

[bacchant]

1. Does Fox expect

that consistent exposure to their propaganda will create the same Pavlovian response in members of the Commons that it does in the weak-minded freeper subspecies? Kind of a spread the dumbness and conquer approach?

[SidDithers]

2. Piped straight into Stephen Harper's office, no doubt...

Sid

[Spazito]

3. LOL, the reason why Fox isn't allowed onto our television screens...

is because our politicians see what a crock it is. Fox screws itself yet again!

[demdave]

4. So you are happy with your politicians deciding what you can watch?

Do they also screen your thoughts and tell you what to wear? At least I have the freedom to chose what not to watch.

[TrogL]

5. We have content rules

Pity about your Fairness Doctrine.

[demdave]

6. We have unlimited cable, computer and satellite networks.

If I want to get my news from the 700 club or from Al-jazeer, I have the choice. The fairness doctrine was appropriate for the era of 3 channels. We have moved into the 21st century and don't need a mommy government to make sure we have peas with our meat and potatoes.

If you are happy with the government telling you what you can and can't watch, fine. I would rather make the decision myself.

[chenGOD]

9. Are you saying that Canadians with internet access...

can't hit up the FOX news network website? I'd say you're wrong there.

Sure maybe they can't get FAUX news (oh woe are them, they are bereft and hopeless) on their TV, but they could get it on the net if they were so desperate.

[SidDithers]

16. Strange....

I couldn't find Cubavision available on either Dish or Direct TV.

Enjoy your peas.

Sid

[leftistagitator]

19. Yes, we're much better off with 700 channels

run by 3 media corporations. My God what a tool you are, you actually approve of corporations turning America's media into nothing but pure propaganda for the Republican Party. In other, better countries, news stations must actually tell the truth in order to maintain their liscences, and that is the way it should be. I suppose * can be expecting your donation any day now.

[Spazito]

7. BS you do...

we get news from around the world, you get only news that is "vetted" by your US corporations. Fox is denied access because it is does not fulfill the criteria of a news organization based on what we Canadians know is news. Too bad your SEC doesn't do that.

[demdave]

8. If you like the censorship, that is all that matters.

Doesn't Canadian cable have enough channels or are you limited? We seem to have room for almost too many channels.

[Spazito]

10. Shall we compare?

I get CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, BBC, CBC, CTV, Global, and those are just the ones that carry news. You do NOT get CBC, CTV and Global, do you?

For you to say we are being censored is beyond ridiculous given the lack of quality on your "news" stations. Fox does not qualify as a news station based on standards we, as Canadians, have set. Again, too bad you don't have such high standards, isn't it.

[Occulus]

12. Doesn't qualify as news in my book, either

In fact, I consider the use of the word "news" in its name to be false advertising.

[TankLV]

21. Ouch! That can of "Raid Truth Cockroach Killer" strikes again!

But then again, the Truth just is.

An awful powerful weaapon.

Last I saw, not one single Canadian network available here. Not one.

And a lot others, too.

Same ol' crap.

Pot meet kettle, err - Demdave!

[bacchant]

11. Wow demdave, what's with the hostility toward our brothers to the north?

It IS a pity about the fairness doctrine. Using the promise of choice to deregulate our media, the right wing has turned the public airwaves into a corporate orgy. We could a few fair standards to protect us from the business of misinformation.

[RetroLounge]

14. Are you defending Fox News, or do you just dislike

our northern friends?

Canada is right on as usual...

RL

[Vladimir]

17. Beautifully put n/t

[loftycity]

18. Yeah for the Canadians! They pay my salary!

I called Faux on Sunday ---and complained about O'Riled up.
That idiot is cutting into my livelihood and to my good pals in Vancouver and Saskatoon! Americans love Canadians they are the kickin! loft party above the pod people.

[TankLV]

20. Someone must've turned out the lights.

The cockroaches are crawling out into the room again.

We can set our watches by this farce.

[daleo]

13. The whole cable subscription model is flawed when it comes to choice

If Fox is allowed in Canada, it will be either on basic cable, extended cable, whatever - it will be part of a package. So, the notion of freedom of choice on cable is a red herring. If I want Fox, I will have to take a bunch of channels that don't interest me. Conversely, if I don't want Fox, I will have to exclude a bunch of channels that do interest me, or else I will end up supporting Fox.

Until cable signals are unbundled (so that real freedom of choice is possible), it is a misnomer to speak of choice. I don't know if the bundling is a technological barrier or a marketing ploy.

[TrogL]

15. What cable company are you with?

I'm on Shaw. I can pick and choose individual stations if I don't want a package. Granted, it costs more.

Frankly it's less expensive just to get the package then put a parental lock on the ones that piss you off.

[daleo]

23. Can you? I have never heard of it.

Maybe I will have to investigate this. I suppose it is probably prohibitively expensive though i.e. a few picked channels will cost more than a bundle (no pun intended).

[JawJaw]

22. Well Done

I applaud the Canadian politicians having the courage to expose themselves to the Fox dis-infomercial 'news' channel.

Let it be a constant warning to them of what happens when the fascists get a foothold.