John Galt

Bill Pittman <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<wpittmanREMOVE-D3CB5D.17102627072004@syrcnyrdrs-03-ge0.nyroc.rr.com>...
    > In article <AQyNc.69626$iw3.19159@clgrps13>, "rob" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > > Right back atcha, there, daffodil. You view the mainstream media as
    > > "leftist" only because you sit to the far right of Mussolini.
    >
    > You see, the far right has a serious problem. When the media record
    > accurately their actions and thinking, it sounds mean-spirited - because
    > it IS.
    >
    > Therefore, they have to recruit media that are symathetic to their
    > Neanderthal approach. That's where Fox comes in.

Fox News consistenly ranks higher than CNN, et al in viewership in the
U.S.; so I guess all americans are neanderthals huh?

The amazing thing is I can deal with liberal CNN, BBC, NBC, CBS, ABC
in canada - fine, Im a fair guy. But you liberal ****ers are so
AFRAID of Fox News - a non-liberal viewpoint penetrating the media
GULAG you have created here in canada - with the liberal party, CBC
and CRTC working hand in hand to push the liberal 'canadian culture'
agenda - anything contrary to that is VERBOTTEN eh?

Its GREAT to see you guys running around so SCARED of Fox News! I LOVE
IT!

If the CRTC approves Fox News (this time, which I doubt they
will...liberal lapdogs that they are) then I will be the one running
in the street in William Wallace war-paint yelling FREEEEEEEEDOM!!!!!!

A

"John Galt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected] om...
    > Bill Pittman <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<wpittmanREMOVE-D3CB5D.17102627072004@syrcnyrdrs-03-ge0.nyroc.rr.com>...
    > > In article <AQyNc.69626$iw3.19159@clgrps13>, "rob" <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >
    > > > Right back atcha, there, daffodil. You view the mainstream media as
    > > > "leftist" only because you sit to the far right of Mussolini.
    > >
    > > You see, the far right has a serious problem. When the media record
    > > accurately their actions and thinking, it sounds mean-spirited - because
    > > it IS.
    > >
    > > Therefore, they have to recruit media that are symathetic to their
    > > Neanderthal approach. That's where Fox comes in.
    > Fox News consistenly ranks higher than CNN, et al in viewership in the
    > U.S.; so I guess all americans are neanderthals huh?

Well not ALL Americans, but a large portion of them <jk>, seriously
viewership does not indicate that they are fair and balanced, or even news,
just that they are entertaining.

    > The amazing thing is I can deal with liberal CNN, BBC, NBC, CBS, ABC
    > in canada - fine, Im a fair guy. But you liberal ****ers are so
    > AFRAID of Fox News - a non-liberal viewpoint penetrating the media
    > GULAG you have created here in canada - with the liberal party, CBC
    > and CRTC working hand in hand to push the liberal 'canadian culture'
    > agenda - anything contrary to that is VERBOTTEN eh?

Ah, so now the CBC is involved in the "plot" to keep Fox News out eh!
Fascinating, why not show some "evidence" of this along with your "evidence"
that Fox has ever been denied an application to broadcast Fox News, oh
that's right you don't have any evidence of either.

    > Its GREAT to see you guys running around so SCARED of Fox News! I LOVE
    > IT!

Who's running scared of Fox News?

    > If the CRTC approves Fox News (this time, which I doubt they
    > will...liberal lapdogs that they are) then I will be the one running
    > in the street in William Wallace war-paint yelling FREEEEEEEEDOM!!!!!!

Nah, you'll probably be on hear bitching that the application process took
too long, or that the CRTC is filtering it for content, or some other bull.

seek

In article <[email protected]>, a wrote:
    >
[clip]
    >
    > Fox is a right leaning news source, and hardly honest, but not much more
    > dishonest than most other stations.

I'm not so sure about that. I know of no other news agency that has stood
in court and stated that it's first ammendment rights give it the right to
lie to and/or decieve their listeners. What's disturbing is that they won on
appeal. Take anything you hear on Fox News with a small salt mine.

[clip]

Relaxification

snip - it's all up there if you're interested...
    >
    > If the CRTC approves Fox News (this time, which I doubt they
    > will...liberal lapdogs that they are) then I will be the one running
    > in the street in William Wallace war-paint yelling FREEEEEEEEDOM!!!!!!


But you also support having al-jazeera on too, right? Freedom and all...

John Galt

[email protected] (Relaxification) wrote in message news:<[email protected]. com>...
    > snip - it's all up there if you're interested...
    > >
    > > If the CRTC approves Fox News (this time, which I doubt they
    > > will...liberal lapdogs that they are) then I will be the one running
    > > in the street in William Wallace war-paint yelling FREEEEEEEEDOM!!!!!!
    >
    >
    > But you also support having al-jazeera on too, right? Freedom and all...

YES, I DO.

Al Jazeera should be shown as is - no content filtering

Fox News also should be shown as is - no content filtering

Let the individual decide what to subscribe to - and what to watch, PERIOD.

John Galt

"a" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

    > Well not ALL Americans, but a large portion of them <jk>, seriously
    > viewership does not indicate that they are fair and balanced, or even news,
    > just that they are entertaining.

Then I guess my point was made - its STUPID to argue both for or
against based on stereotyping.

    >
    > >
    > > The amazing thing is I can deal with liberal CNN, BBC, NBC, CBS, ABC
    > > in canada - fine, Im a fair guy. But you liberal ****ers are so
    > > AFRAID of Fox News - a non-liberal viewpoint penetrating the media
    > > GULAG you have created here in canada - with the liberal party, CBC
    > > and CRTC working hand in hand to push the liberal 'canadian culture'
    > > agenda - anything contrary to that is VERBOTTEN eh?
    >
    > Ah, so now the CBC is involved in the "plot" to keep Fox News out eh!
    > Fascinating, why not show some "evidence" of this along with your "evidence"
    > that Fox has ever been denied an application to broadcast Fox News, oh
    > that's right you don't have any evidence of either.

Your denying the CBC is a state-funded liberal propaganda arm that
pushes 'canadian culture' (i.e. liberalism) at the sacrifice of fair
and balanced reporting? Hahahaha - good luck selling ANYONE on the
idea the CBC is not hugely liberal slanted...
    >
    > >
    > > If the CRTC approves Fox News (this time, which I doubt they
    > > will...liberal lapdogs that they are) then I will be the one running
    > > in the street in William Wallace war-paint yelling FREEEEEEEEDOM!!!!!!
    >
    > Nah, you'll probably be on hear bitching that the application process took
    > too long, or that the CRTC is filtering it for content, or some other bull.

Ohhhh there you have it...'crtc is filtering content' means I am just
bitching eh?...

Now why did you slip that in there? Perhaps because of my previous
challenge? Where I said I will apologize with a mea culpa if the CRTC
does allow Fox News without content restrictions (as with CNN, BBC,
NBC etc); but if they do not allow Fox News OR they implement content
restrictions they DO NOT today have on CNN and BBC..then you agree to
admit the CRTC is a liberal censorship arm...

See how you yourself know what is probably coming from the CRTC - and
you are trying to defend it ahead of time! You are HILARIOUS! Gosh
yes - you are setting the stage SO WELL that if they do allow it with
a content restriction, then John Galt is just 'bitching'...PATHETIC!

So again - put your money where your mouth is:

I agree - that if the CRTC allows Fox News with no content
restrictions (just like CNN, BBC, etc) - a big mea culpa is in order,
and I judged the CRTC too harshly; I will apologize.

But you agree - that if the CRTC denies Fox News or allows it with
content restrictions not today in place with CNN, BBC, ABC, CBS, NBC -
then YOU will agree they are a liberal censorship arm.

Now - put your money where your mouth is - YES or NO?

Let the slithering commence...

A

"John Galt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected] om...
    > "a" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
    > > Well not ALL Americans, but a large portion of them <jk>, seriously
    > > viewership does not indicate that they are fair and balanced, or even
news,
    > > just that they are entertaining.
    > Then I guess my point was made - its STUPID to argue both for or
    > against based on stereotyping.

That was your point ROTFLMAO... man you crack me up.

    > >
    > > >
    > > > The amazing thing is I can deal with liberal CNN, BBC, NBC, CBS, ABC
    > > > in canada - fine, Im a fair guy. But you liberal ****ers are so
    > > > AFRAID of Fox News - a non-liberal viewpoint penetrating the media
    > > > GULAG you have created here in canada - with the liberal party, CBC
    > > > and CRTC working hand in hand to push the liberal 'canadian culture'
    > > > agenda - anything contrary to that is VERBOTTEN eh?
    > >
    > > Ah, so now the CBC is involved in the "plot" to keep Fox News out eh!
    > > Fascinating, why not show some "evidence" of this along with your
"evidence"
    > > that Fox has ever been denied an application to broadcast Fox News, oh
    > > that's right you don't have any evidence of either.
    > Your denying the CBC is a state-funded liberal propaganda arm that
    > pushes 'canadian culture' (i.e. liberalism) at the sacrifice of fair
    > and balanced reporting? Hahahaha - good luck selling ANYONE on the
    > idea the CBC is not hugely liberal slanted...

Yes I will willingly deny that the CBC "is a state-funded liberal propaganda
arm", however I never said the CBC was not liberally slanted, and I
challenge you to try to find a post where I said any thing even closely
resembling this. That has nothing to do with my question, my question was:
What is the link between the non-existant CRTC plot to keep Fox out and the
CBC? What is the CBC's role is said plot?

    > >
    > > >
    > > > If the CRTC approves Fox News (this time, which I doubt they
    > > > will...liberal lapdogs that they are) then I will be the one running
    > > > in the street in William Wallace war-paint yelling FREEEEEEEEDOM!!!!!!
    > >
    > > Nah, you'll probably be on hear bitching that the application process
took
    > > too long, or that the CRTC is filtering it for content, or some other
bull.
    > Ohhhh there you have it...'crtc is filtering content' means I am just
    > bitching eh?...

It does when you have no evidence to back it up.

    > Now why did you slip that in there? Perhaps because of my previous
    > challenge? Where I said I will apologize with a mea culpa if the CRTC
    > does allow Fox News without content restrictions (as with CNN, BBC,
    > NBC etc); but if they do not allow Fox News OR they implement content
    > restrictions they DO NOT today have on CNN and BBC..then you agree to
    > admit the CRTC is a liberal censorship arm...

Depends on what the imagined restrictions are.

    > See how you yourself know what is probably coming from the CRTC - and
    > you are trying to defend it ahead of time! You are HILARIOUS! Gosh
    > yes - you are setting the stage SO WELL that if they do allow it with
    > a content restriction, then John Galt is just 'bitching'...PATHETIC!

No I'm not, I am saying that you are full of shit, whining about a plot that
doesn't exist, and making claims that fox is censored.

    > So again - put your money where your mouth is:
    > I agree - that if the CRTC allows Fox News with no content
    > restrictions (just like CNN, BBC, etc) - a big mea culpa is in order,
    > and I judged the CRTC too harshly; I will apologize.

Right, I doubt such an apology would ever come from you, but ok.

    > But you agree - that if the CRTC denies Fox News or allows it with
    > content restrictions not today in place with CNN, BBC, ABC, CBS, NBC -
    > then YOU will agree they are a liberal censorship arm.

Depends on said imagined restrictions, and I don't really think the CRTC
will deny Fox News based on content at all.

    > Now - put your money where your mouth is - YES or NO?
    > Let the slithering commence...

Amber

John Galt wrote:

    > [email protected] (Relaxification) wrote in message news:<[email protected]. com>...
    >
    >>snip - it's all up there if you're interested...
    >>>If the CRTC approves Fox News (this time, which I doubt they
    >>>will...liberal lapdogs that they are) then I will be the one running
    >>>in the street in William Wallace war-paint yelling FREEEEEEEEDOM!!!!!!
    >>But you also support having al-jazeera on too, right? Freedom and all...
    >
    >
    > YES, I DO.
    >
    > Al Jazeera should be shown as is - no content filtering
Al Jazeera has a track record that lends itself to the restrictions the
CRTC is requiring them. I think the only reason it's being allowed to
happen has to do with there not really being many alternatives. Al
Jazeera is the best known Arabic network. Restrictions are in place
that probably have more to do with hate literature. The network is
getting a shot at it. They screw it up, they're toast.
    >
    > Fox News also should be shown as is - no content filtering
I can't tell whether you are Canadian, American or what ever. I would
hope you're not an American lecturing us on this issue. A glimpse of
Janet Jackson's boob apparently outraged many Americans. Watching
coverage off the Iraq war was rather different in countries other than
the US. The American media sanitized the war. I was forever flipping
through CNN, BBC and CTV, CNN ignored thing altogether on occasion.
Live broadcasts have had delays, so that bad words, whatever can't be
aired. You have rather large fines in the US for stuff like Janet's boob.
    >
    > Let the individual decide what to subscribe to - and what to watch, PERIOD.
I agree with that last point, up to a point. Canada may be much larger
when You talk about actual size. But our population is much smaller
than the US. The CRTC has required a certain amount of Canadian
content. Radio dj's were not happy about it, at the time. But, because
of regulations, Canadian artists really have done very well for
themselves. That happened because of the CRTC and their Canadian
content requirements.
ADF

Relaxification

[email protected] (John Galt) wrote in message news:<[email protected]. com>...
    > [email protected] (Relaxification) wrote in message news:<[email protected]. com>...
    > > snip - it's all up there if you're interested...
    > > >
    > > > If the CRTC approves Fox News (this time, which I doubt they
    > > > will...liberal lapdogs that they are) then I will be the one running
    > > > in the street in William Wallace war-paint yelling FREEEEEEEEDOM!!!!!!
    > >
    > >
    > > But you also support having al-jazeera on too, right? Freedom and all...
    >
    > YES, I DO.
    >
    > Al Jazeera should be shown as is - no content filtering
    >
    > Fox News also should be shown as is - no content filtering
    >
    > Let the individual decide what to subscribe to - and what to watch, PERIOD.

I agree with you 100 percent. I was worried you were going to go all
hypocritical on me.

The CRTC has, in my opinion, no mandate anymore. It was created to
monitor the use the airwaves when there were only 13 channels
available. Now that there is essentially unlimited bandwidth there is
no reason for them to exist anymore.

I always hated not getting HBO in Canada...

John Galt

"a" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

    > > > > The amazing thing is I can deal with liberal CNN, BBC, NBC, CBS, ABC
    > > > > in canada - fine, Im a fair guy. But you liberal ****ers are so
    > > > > AFRAID of Fox News - a non-liberal viewpoint penetrating the media
    > > > > GULAG you have created here in canada - with the liberal party, CBC
    > > > > and CRTC working hand in hand to push the liberal 'canadian culture'
    > > > > agenda - anything contrary to that is VERBOTTEN eh?

    > Yes I will willingly deny that the CBC "is a state-funded liberal propaganda
    > arm", however I never said the CBC was not liberally slanted, and I
    > challenge you to try to find a post where I said any thing even closely
    > resembling this.

You just did - that is, you cant agree that the CBC is liberaly
slanted - and then refute it as being a state-funded (it is) liberal
(it is) propaganda arm (debatable)...

So your real beef is with the word propaganda arm? But you do accept
it is liberal slanted? Wow - that is SUCH an important distinction

    >That has nothing to do with my question, my question was:
    > What is the link between the non-existant CRTC plot to keep Fox out and the
    > CBC? What is the CBC's role is said plot?

No formal plot was claimed to exist or needs to exist, my point stands
on its own as partially affirmed by yourself; that the CBC is a
state-run liberal slanted media outlet (which we agree on) - and that
the SUM of the CBC and CRTC who are both liberally slanted - represent
the canadian media GULAG I was talking about. Both are government run
and funded - both are politically liberal leaning - and those facts
stand for themselves for all to see; re-affirmed presently (or
disavowed) by the upcoming Fox News ruling...

    > It does when you have no evidence to back it up.

Time will tell wont it?

    > Depends on what the imagined restrictions are.

Ah the slithering commences in earnest - notwithstanding the CRTC
shouldnt even be censoring based on content *PERIOD* and should have
NO role in deciding what people choose to watch (or not watch); you
are now pre-spinning the upcoming CRTC castration of yet another Fox
News request as 'in canadian interest' so its 'OK', or other Stalin
type catchprases no doubt...notwithstanding my KEY POINT is that NO
restrictions - NONE - ZIP - NICHT - can possibly be applied to Fox,
when they arent applied today to CNN and BBC; for as soon as you apply
ANY restrictions - the CRTC is de facto showing its liberal censorship
lapdog stripes.

So again, will you have the balls to admit that if ANY restrictions
are applied to Fox News when NONE exist against CNN or BBC, then the
restrictions are politically content motivated, and the CRTC revealed
as the liberal cheerleader it is? YES or NO?

And I again - will apologize for so harshly judging the CRTC, if Fox
news IS passed this time - with no restrictions.

    > No I'm not, I am saying that you are full of shit, whining about a plot that
    > doesn't exist, and making claims that fox is censored.

Plot? What plot? No formalized plot needs exist when the parties
involved are INHERENTLY LIBERAL and their behavioral model is governed
by that leaning.

Again - I am willing to wait and see and judge the CRTC accordingly
with the upcoming approval/denial of Fox News UNRESTRICTED - just like
CNN and BBC; and measure the CRTC on THAT - but you keep slithering
away from acceping that definition of merit challenge gauntlet I have
thrown down...

Wonder why.

    > > I agree - that if the CRTC allows Fox News with no content
    > > restrictions (just like CNN, BBC, etc) - a big mea culpa is in order,
    > > and I judged the CRTC too harshly; I will apologize.
    >
    > Right, I doubt such an apology would ever come from you, but ok.

Done and DONE!

    > Depends on said imagined restrictions, and I don't really think the CRTC
    > will deny Fox News based on content at all.

Fine, lets wait and see - but true fairness dictates that NO
restrictions be placed on a passed Fox News - when today NO
restrictions exist on liberal-friendly CNN and BBC news channels; we
will both measure the CRTC in upcoming days of whether or not they can
be impartial - or are merely a liberal lapdog based on this upcoming
ruling...DONE!

A

"John Galt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected] om...
    > "a" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
    > > > > > The amazing thing is I can deal with liberal CNN, BBC, NBC, CBS,
ABC
    > > > > > in canada - fine, Im a fair guy. But you liberal ****ers are so
    > > > > > AFRAID of Fox News - a non-liberal viewpoint penetrating the media
    > > > > > GULAG you have created here in canada - with the liberal party,
CBC
    > > > > > and CRTC working hand in hand to push the liberal 'canadian
culture'
    > > > > > agenda - anything contrary to that is VERBOTTEN eh?
    > > Yes I will willingly deny that the CBC "is a state-funded liberal
propaganda
    > > arm", however I never said the CBC was not liberally slanted, and I
    > > challenge you to try to find a post where I said any thing even closely
    > > resembling this.
    > You just did - that is, you cant agree that the CBC is liberaly
    > slanted - and then refute it as being a state-funded (it is) liberal
    > (it is) propaganda arm (debatable)...
    > So your real beef is with the word propaganda arm? But you do accept
    > it is liberal slanted? Wow - that is SUCH an important distinction

Yes the are liberal slanted, and Fox is right slanted. It IS an important
distinction. If it was pumping out propeganda then it would be full of lies,
this is not the case.

    > >That has nothing to do with my question, my question was:
    > > What is the link between the non-existant CRTC plot to keep Fox out and
the
    > > CBC? What is the CBC's role is said plot?
    > No formal plot was claimed to exist or needs to exist, my point stands
    > on its own as partially affirmed by yourself; that the CBC is a
    > state-run liberal slanted media outlet (which we agree on) - and that
    > the SUM of the CBC and CRTC who are both liberally slanted - represent
    > the canadian media GULAG I was talking about. Both are government run
    > and funded - both are politically liberal leaning - and those facts
    > stand for themselves for all to see; re-affirmed presently (or
    > disavowed) by the upcoming Fox News ruling...

CBC is a state-funded liberal slanted media outlet, I do not agree that the
CRTC is liberally slanted, and I challenge you to back up that assertion.

    > > It does when you have no evidence to back it up.
    > Time will tell wont it?
    > > Depends on what the imagined restrictions are.
    > Ah the slithering commences in earnest - notwithstanding the CRTC
    > shouldnt even be censoring based on content *PERIOD* and should have
    > NO role in deciding what people choose to watch (or not watch); you
    > are now pre-spinning the upcoming CRTC castration of yet another Fox
    > News request as 'in canadian interest' so its 'OK', or other Stalin
    > type catchprases no doubt...notwithstanding my KEY POINT is that NO
    > restrictions - NONE - ZIP - NICHT - can possibly be applied to Fox,
    > when they arent applied today to CNN and BBC; for as soon as you apply
    > ANY restrictions - the CRTC is de facto showing its liberal censorship
    > lapdog stripes.

I stand by my statement, if the restrictions are soley content based, then I
will be arguing the CRTC as much as you.

    > So again, will you have the balls to admit that if ANY restrictions
    > are applied to Fox News when NONE exist against CNN or BBC, then the
    > restrictions are politically content motivated, and the CRTC revealed
    > as the liberal cheerleader it is? YES or NO?

No, that is not true.

    > And I again - will apologize for so harshly judging the CRTC, if Fox
    > news IS passed this time - with no restrictions.

I doubt you will.

    > > No I'm not, I am saying that you are full of shit, whining about a plot
that
    > > doesn't exist, and making claims that fox is censored.
    > Plot? What plot? No formalized plot needs exist when the parties
    > involved are INHERENTLY LIBERAL and their behavioral model is governed
    > by that leaning.

But plot is exactly what you are claiming, or don't you even know what the
word means?

    > Again - I am willing to wait and see and judge the CRTC accordingly
    > with the upcoming approval/denial of Fox News UNRESTRICTED - just like
    > CNN and BBC; and measure the CRTC on THAT - but you keep slithering
    > away from acceping that definition of merit challenge gauntlet I have
    > thrown down...

No your NOT willing to wait, you have already condemed the CRTC based on
what YOU think they will do, not on thier past actions. You have not thrown
down a challenge at all, you have just worded your accusation in a way that
seems like that.

    > Wonder why.
    > > > I agree - that if the CRTC allows Fox News with no content
    > > > restrictions (just like CNN, BBC, etc) - a big mea culpa is in order,
    > > > and I judged the CRTC too harshly; I will apologize.
    > >
    > > Right, I doubt such an apology would ever come from you, but ok.
    > Done and DONE!
    > > Depends on said imagined restrictions, and I don't really think the CRTC
    > > will deny Fox News based on content at all.
    > Fine, lets wait and see - but true fairness dictates that NO
    > restrictions be placed on a passed Fox News - when today NO
    > restrictions exist on liberal-friendly CNN and BBC news channels; we
    > will both measure the CRTC in upcoming days of whether or not they can
    > be impartial - or are merely a liberal lapdog based on this upcoming
    > ruling...DONE!

Ok, done then

John Galt

Amber <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>.. .

    > > Al Jazeera should be shown as is - no content filtering

    > Al Jazeera has a track record that lends itself to the restrictions the
    > CRTC is requiring them. I think the only reason it's being allowed to
    > happen has to do with there not really being many alternatives. Al
    > Jazeera is the best known Arabic network. Restrictions are in place
    > that probably have more to do with hate literature. The network is
    > getting a shot at it. They screw it up, they're toast.

But at the end of the day - someone, some individual or group of
indidivauls in the CRTC has made an arbitrary value judgement - no
matter how reasonible to 'some' or even 'most' people - that Al
Jazeera needs to have constraints put on it, when ANY constraint on
media - for ANY reason is de facto censorship and I vehemently
dissagree with that.

Al Jazeera - its a sad pretense for a 'news organzation in my opinion
- BUT - while "I may not agree with what you say, I will fight to the
death for your right to say it"

So while on a personal level I would love to see Al Jazeera 'gone' - I
would NOT want it to be censored; key difference being my overidding
belief in freedom and 'the market' as being the best judge - over time
- of what should continue or not. I would love to see Al Jazeera fail
over time - as people do not subscribe to it; but I do NOT want to see
it gone at the expense of doing a 'wrong' and setting a dangerous
precendent of censorship.

So yes - while no one 'wants' to see Al Jazeera come here, ALL media
should be *allowed* with the consumer *choosing* what to subscribe to
or not; because the dangerous precedent you (or the CRTC) set today
against Al Jazeera - will tomorrow be used against you...this is how
freedoms are lost over time.

    > > Fox News also should be shown as is - no content filtering

    > I can't tell whether you are Canadian, American or what ever. I would
    > hope you're not an American lecturing us on this issue. A glimpse of
    > Janet Jackson's boob apparently outraged many Americans. Watching
    > coverage off the Iraq war was rather different in countries other than
    > the US. The American media sanitized the war. I was forever flipping
    > through CNN, BBC and CTV, CNN ignored thing altogether on occasion.
    > Live broadcasts have had delays, so that bad words, whatever can't be
    > aired. You have rather large fines in the US for stuff like Janet's boob.

People as individuals have CHOICE on what to watch - at the end of the
day, Janet will suffer the consequence for her actions, and the
network that showed it will as well; point being that these things are
self regulating based on collective individual feedback - and a
government need not step in (and trample OTHER rights and freedoms)
and do more harm over time with good intentions.

    > > Let the individual decide what to subscribe to - and what to watch, PERIOD.

    > I agree with that last point, up to a point. Canada may be much larger
    > when You talk about actual size. But our population is much smaller
    > than the US. The CRTC has required a certain amount of Canadian
    > content. Radio dj's were not happy about it, at the time. But, because
    > of regulations, Canadian artists really have done very well for
    > themselves. That happened because of the CRTC and their Canadian
    > content requirements.
    > ADF

Look - at the end of the day if an artist cannot compete in Canada
alone or in the entire North American market; he needs to get back to
the studio and do some more homework. The idea of putting a CRTC in
place to artificially insulate canadian artists from the requirements
of good quality and real entertainment value when in competition with
U.S. sources, just leaves the CONSUMER as the loser. i.e. IF the CRTC
artificially protects boring and lame Canadian content from having to
compete with better U.S. content, the consumer just gets stuck with
boring and lame content - when they could be watching something
better, by choice. Key issue - the CRTC, in its role as 'reality
insulator' for lame canadian artists that cant hack it in the real
world, also punish the consumer.

Look - Avril Levigne, Shania Twain, etc al - TRULY good artists did
NOT succeed because the CRTC forced canadian channels to cover their
up-and-coming concerts; these artists succeeded simply as a function
of being TRULY good in the whole north american market. Now if other
artists *need* the CRTC promotion and protection you claim has
'value', then I simply argue said artists arent *worth* the protection
- by their very need *for* it....


i.e. If canadian 'content' were truly any good - it wouldnt NEED crtc
protection, and it would dominate North American channels and culture;
the very fact you need a CRTC to mandate delivery of canadian content
is a de fact admission that you have to force the shit on people - or
else it will not survive...

George Dance

"James A. Chamblee" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected] .net>...
    >
    > Fox News is simply the worst news source in the U.S., among a group of poor
    > broadcasting choices.
    >
    > The only balanced English-language broadcast news originates at NPR, PBS,
    > and the BBC.
    >
    > That's why I never watch TV news.

That certainly makes you an authority.

Captain!

jazeera would be a good alternate source of information. i'd subscribe.