# CRTC approves Al Jazeera for Canadian viewers



## Scoobie Newbie (15 Jul 2004)

http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1089894102595_32?hub=topstories

CTV.ca News Staff

Canadians will soon be able to watch Al Jazeera television, after the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission approved it for distribution in Canada Thursday.

The Al Jazeera application was filed by the Canadian Cable Television Association in spring 2003, and includes numerous other "ethnic services" from around the world.

Each of the elements was decided independently.

In all, the CRTC approved nine new non-Canadian, third-language networks -- including ones featuring Spanish, German and Romanian programming -- while six were denied.

Among those rejected was Italy's RAI International. Despite the support of more than 100,000 Canadians who signed petitions, the RAI application faced opposition from the Toronto-based Telelatino, which currently broadcasts about 50 hours per week of programming from RAI.

The application to offer the Qatar-based Al Jazeera through Canada's direct-to-home satellite networks was contested by the Canadian Jewish Congress and other groups, which said it disseminates "anti-Semitic hate speech."

Al Jazeera is often referred to as the "CNN of the Arab world" and is often the first to broadcast messages and videotaped statements from militants in Iraq and belonging to al Qaeda.

In its ruling the CRTC said distributors of Al-Jazeera in Canada will be required to guard against the broadcast of "any abusive comment." That could mean the editing or deleting of some content.


----------



## Lance Wiebe (15 Jul 2004)

The CRTC is a joke.

The allow the "CNN of the Arab world", and disallow Fox News?

Just goes to show what those appointed over-paid CRTC decision makers consider priorities for us peons.

I know!  We should can the CRTC.  Replace it with anyone that can demonstrate an iota of common sense...


----------



## loyalcana (15 Jul 2004)

Lance Wiebe said:
			
		

> The CRTC is a joke.
> 
> The allow the "CNN of the Arab world", and disallow Fox News?
> 
> ...



Fox news has a license to broadcast in Canada and I believe they had it for sometime.


----------



## wongskc (15 Jul 2004)

The CRTC denied Fox News?  I saw a CRTC document that had approved it.  Give me some time to see if I can find it again.


----------



## Bert (15 Jul 2004)

Another perspective may be similar to "keep your friends close but keep your enemies closer".  By no means do I think
Al-Jazeera or the popluations around the world are enemies, but it offers a different perspective on news and events
from a hostile part of the world.  Everything we see in the news is based upon WHAT is happening.  The WHY its
happening and the historical context is left out of the general news (CNN, AL-Jazeera, CBC, etc) and it helps to pave
the way for sensationalism and bias.  Al Jazeera's reporting might prove interesting.  Theres enough primary and 
secondary reporting in Canada to compare Al-Jazeera's facts and biases.

Organizations like the CRTC are farther from politics than the government and closer to the government that it avoids
pressure from specific lobby groups due to its own beauocracy.  It will watch Al-Jazeera and Canadian reactions as it
should.


----------



## Fruss (15 Jul 2004)

The CRTC is just a real big fat joke!!!  They just closed CHOI-FM in Quebec city..  the only station that promote people to exercise, don't smoke and try to prevent suicide..  It was the #1 radio station in Qc City..  now, you cannot have an opinion on the air anymore??

Where are we going??

Did I mentionned that I used to work for that radio station when I was back east..  I though I'd let you know..  

BTW, closing this station put about 45 hard working person to the street!!!


----------



## Redeye (15 Jul 2004)

Lance Wiebe said:
			
		

> The CRTC is a joke.
> 
> The allow the "CNN of the Arab world", and disallow Fox News?
> 
> ...



Why would you want to watch Fox News?  It's like The National Enquirer televised! It drives me nuts when I go to the states to see the kind of slant and ignorance that they pass off as journalism.  Even if CNN has some discernable leanings, at least they give some appearance of balance.  Fox News' "fair and balanced" reporting can only be called that because it's balanced from the extreme right to the moderate right, and that's it.


----------



## tabernac (15 Jul 2004)

What's so bad about CBC? I don't see anything wrong...


----------



## Redeye (15 Jul 2004)

My disapproval of anything to do with the CRTC has a lot more to do with the fact that I believe in freedom of expression than anything else.  I don't need the government to tell me what I can and can't watch.  Most of the time, if I want a decent report of news, I'll try to catch the BBC World Service because they're generally reasonably fair in presentation, and moreover, seem to have more commentators with some idea of what they're reporting on.  Having al-Jazeera on TV in Canada is fine with me - anyone who wants their viewpoint can get it easily enough anyhow, since they publish on the internet.  A lot of what they say is fairly slanted and extremist, but in a lot of ways, so is every other news source.  The only way to really make a decision on what's right is to weigh out every available version and then synthesize an interpretation of your own.  Anyone who blindly follows one source is nothing but a sheep.  Look at all the dittohead-types in the US, as a prime example - they'll blindly agree with whatever hypocritical rubbish spewed by Rush Limbaugh they hear, without ever giving it a critical thought.

As for the Italians who were mad that RAI didn't get a license, I understand their annoyance and don't see why there has to CRTC approval for it - but it's not like al-Jazeera was picked over RAI - they (as far as I know) don't have a finite number of licenses they can issue.


----------



## Sheerin (15 Jul 2004)

As mentioned in the article RAI was refused becuase of TLN...

I'm fine with Al-Jazera being licensed, hell, if I were able to understand it I'd probably watch it (i'm a bit of a news junkie!).  

I'm acutally quite sickened that CHOI is not having its license renewed.  I don't necessairly agree with what the radio personalties were saying (albeit,i've only seen the worse that was printed in the globe and mail) but if it bothers you,why can't you change the station or better yet turn off the radio???  Same thing for those people who complain about Howard Stern, don't listen to him!!!!


I'm sorry, but the CRTC should not have the right to revoke licenses becuase of content.


----------



## Bert (16 Jul 2004)

The line between acceptable freedom of expression and unacceptable freedom of expression and measures to enforce
both are always contentious.  Usually CRTC licenses are extremely well put together documents with input from
all parties involved.  If the CRTC is withdrawing a license, its not on a whim.  At least something is legally argueable
if the CRTC revokes a license.  I don't know the full story on CHOI, but for some reason that may not be completely
disclosed publically yet, CHOI may not be operating under the terms of the license.  Al-Jazeera would have to abide by 
similar terms in the CRTC licensing process or pop goes its possible future license in Canada.


----------



## SFontaine (16 Jul 2004)

cheeky_monkey said:
			
		

> What's so bad about CBC? I don't see anything wrong...



Ahahaahahahahahahahahaa.

Dude.. When sovereignty was handed over to Iraq I switched to CBC to see how they were spinning it and I learned that the early handover was a "panic move" because "everything was going wrong in Iraq"


----------



## Lance Wiebe (16 Jul 2004)

The CRTC has twice refused Fox News a license to operate in Canada.  Their rationale was theat we already have an US all news station (CNN).

The fact that CNN, CBC News, and CTV News are all left wing, and are extremely biased in their views seem to mean nothing.

Closing CHOI-FM and allowing Howard Stern is another comparison.

Now we will have two anti-Israel networks, Al Jazera and CBC.

It is obvious to me, that the CRTC is also biased in their leanings.


----------



## Gunnar (16 Jul 2004)

CTV news is biased to the left?  That's where I get the most up to date, real news when I need an antidote to the CBC and their ilk.  Are you sure?  CTV is usually the first to post military stories, and often posts those hard to find stories about what Canadians actually did in Afghanistan today, as opposed to the CBC who would rather we had no military at all, and sent a troop of social workers with teddy bears to Afghanistan.


----------



## Infanteer (16 Jul 2004)

Seeing how anyone can get satellite or use the internet to find the news sources they want, I don't think there is too much worry in what the CRTC does.  If someone wants to find something, there a plenty of unregulated sources to find them that the average Canadian has access to.


----------



## Firepower (16 Jul 2004)

Yeah I'm with Gunnar on this one. The CBC, which gets our tax money to cover news that is important to Canada, wouldn't even air the documentary of our troops in Afghanistan(which is excellnt by the way).


http://www.cda-cdai.ca/Munro_%20Award/rmaspeech_pritchard.htm


> Veteran documentary producer Garth Pritchard, who filmed the aftermath of the infamous "friendly fire" bombing in Afghanistan, accused the CBC last night of betraying its mandate to tell Canadians of their soldiers' heroics overseas.
> 
> "The national broadcaster has totally misled Canadians and abandoned its mandate to tell the story of what our military is accomplishing in places such as Afghanistan,"....




An if you watch the crawler at the bottom of the screen on CTVNewsnet, you often catch small stories about our troops over seas. Example: Soldiers injured when the Halon gas system went off in their LAV, didn't see anything on the CBC about that, or on their website.


----------



## mclipper (16 Jul 2004)

I was reading in the paper this morning that Shaw Cable has said they are not going to carry Al Jazeera.  They said that the cost of having someone monintor the station 24 hours a day is not worth it.  I wonder how many other cable providers are going to say the same thing?  Maybe none of them will carry it.


----------



## Bert (16 Jul 2004)

I don't agree with all CRTC rulings, amendments, and licensing processes.   Yet if you've ever sat in a public meeting or been
involved in a CRTC licensing processes, you'd know they consider many things and not just content.   If the CRTC rejected Fox's
news channel, I'd like to know the real context behind the decision.   

You should know too Lance that every news service has bias; the bias of the process, the bias of the reporter, the bias of
the interviewees, the bias of the viewer, etc.   At 18:00, most Canadians are not looking for indepth contextual stories but
headlines and whats happening around the world in 20 minutes.   YOu can't provide a total context in that timeframe.
CTV's news is primarily headline based and CBC Newsworld provides additional contextual and socials stories.   The BBC
has a different funding base and associations with other news gatherers and broadcasters including CBC and CTV and is 
able to prepare more extensive services.   CTV and CBC just don't have the funding to be as extensive and can't provide 
the same service (pay for foreign reporting operations, analysts, and news gathering).   You'll notice CBC contracts BBC's 
news coverage and thats for a reason.   

Personally, I don't known how left CBC or CTV leans.   One can say that western media (North American and European)
is leftist in general, particularily in the US.   I generally like to get my news (the news that really interests me) from
several sources to get a better context for whats happening.   Relying on anything for a complete and total picture
of an event makes for a narrow perspective.


----------



## Cloud Cover (16 Jul 2004)

reference Fox News: it is available on Rogers in SW Ont.... did anybody catch the interview on the "The Current" on CBC radio this morning? The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council doesn't think any of the cable  carriers will want to carry the channel, as the CRTC wants the carrier to police the content. The CBSC says this will be impossible, therefore any breaches of ss. 318-319 of the CCC.will have to be dealt with after the commission of the offence. These offences are "full fault" or subjective mens rea offences, which means that Al Jazeera would be allowed to make full answer and defence of Islamic fundamentalism in a Canadian court of law. If this occurs,and they are successful, this will have serious implications on Canadian anti-terrorism legislation-  it may prove impossbile to prosecute on other terrorism related offences. As a lawyer, I can tell you that it would be a mistake to think for a minute that the DoJ has not thought this through, and reached the same conclusion. However, in my personal opinion, they are not intervening for public policy reasons. [i.e. political sensitivity/vulnerability to a prospective electorate in a minority government] Comments?


----------



## Bert (16 Jul 2004)

Interesting.  There are inclusive areas between public security and broadcast mandate.

I'm not a viewer of Al-Jazeera but from my understanding, Al-Jazeera isn't a supporter of Islamic
fundalmentalism per se.  They have been criticized for broadcasting inappropriate material like
dead bodies, captured soldiers, focusing on anti-American events, any possible
Bin Laden video or audio tape, being a point of message distribution, and criticzing other
governments and their actions in the region.  Its been suggested Al-Qaeda could
embed messages in tapes provided to Al-Jazeera.

If Al-Jazeera was given a chance to pursue broadcast in Canada, the news network would 
have to go through CRTC public hearings and licensing processes like any other broadcaster.
This is a first in Canada of this nature and likely get extra scrutiny.  

The government would have to tighten up laws and directives relating to the CRTC
and public security providing a more definite demarcation between offences of
broadcast mandate and offences that are in the public security domain.   This may
not be a bad thing.

I agree that if the carrier is responsible for content of Al-Jazeera they certainly wouldn't 
want this on their systems.  It is impossible to monitor it in-progress, decide on censorship,
provide alternate programming, and take heat for the CRTC after the fact.  This costs 
money, manpower, and time.  There are other ways of pre-distribution to the cable 
carriers but likely no one will want to pay for it.  

In a way this is kind of funny.  Anyone who has been through a CTRC licensing process
understands all the crap, talking, waiting, discussion of content, distribution, business
cases, legalities, funding, adherences, market to audience, etc.  If Al-Jazeera could
get through all this with CRTC approval, then I'd say its an option.


----------



## Military Brat (16 Jul 2004)

weee hooo!!

now i can toon into al jazeera and listen to men with turbans on their heads speaking arabic raddling off about how teh americans are imperialists and how osama is the savior. 

jesus, please save my soul.


----------



## Lance Wiebe (17 Jul 2004)

I did some searching, and I found that the CRTC is once again going to listen to arguments for/against FOX News.


> Fri Jul 9, 2:23 PM ET
> 
> 
> OTTAWA (CP) - The federal broadcast regulator Friday called for public comment on a request to import two U.S. specialty channels to be carried on cable companies' digital tiers.
> ...



Of course, I know all comments on news is biased in one way or another.  CTV is not left/right wing when it posts its headlines.  However, CTV is left wing biased when the talking heads start offering their spin on the news.  Did any of you watch the Conservative Party of Canada leadership race on CTV?  Disgraceful.  Same as the election coverage.


----------



## Infanteer (17 Jul 2004)

> weee hooo!!
> 
> now i can toon into al jazeera and listen to men with turbans on their heads speaking arabic raddling off about how teh americans are imperialists and how osama is the savior.
> 
> jesus, please save my soul.



Military Brat, you have shown no sign that you wish to be a mature member of this forum.  Your posts have constituted nothing useful for the most part, and you bring discredit to people who strive to make this board a meaningful and informative place.  Despite being warned twice in the same week, you still insist on posting this sort of drivel.   I'm sure most of us will be quite relieved to know that you are now officially banned from Army.ca.   We'll be watching.


----------



## Scott (17 Jul 2004)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> > weee hooo!!
> >
> > now i can toon into al jazeera and listen to men with turbans on their heads speaking arabic raddling off about how teh americans are imperialists and how osama is the savior.
> >
> ...



THANK YOU


----------



## Goober (18 Jul 2004)

I get my news from http://news.google.ca/ and http://slashdot.org/ if I see something interesting I cross reference it with various other sites.

My TV only has 3 channels, and 2 are fuzzy.


----------



## Fruss (20 Jul 2004)

Goober said:
			
		

> I get my news from http://news.google.ca/ and http://slashdot.org/ if I see something interesting I cross reference it with various other sites.
> 
> My TV only has 3 channels, and 2 are fuzzy.



What???  you can watch 1 TV channel??  what a lucky one!!!  I don't even own a TV!!   :
But I have to agree with you..  google news and slashdot rules!!  But for breaking news, I think the best is CNN.com..  it's up to date almost all the time..


----------



## kiltedtradesman (23 Jul 2004)

Do you want to compare.   The stories are the same, but the point of view just reflects the opinion of their intended viewers.

http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage      (Oh look, 30 C     sunny with clouds in Tehran)

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/

http://www.cbc.ca/news/

Not much of a difference between the news being reported.   To see a quick reflection of an opinion, try looking at the polls on Aljazeera.




 :soldier: :soldier:   Moving....     :soldier: :soldier: I'll take the trench...     :soldier:


----------



## The Bread Guy (26 Nov 2009)

Reviving necro-thread with the latest from the CRTC....:


> The Commission approves a request to add Al Jazeera English (AJE) to the lists of eligible satellite services for distribution on a digital basis and amends the lists of eligible satellite services accordingly ....


... including a tidbit from the sole dissenting opinion:


> .... While it is true that Canada cannot expect other countries to adhere to our standards of journalistic objectivity, I would argue it is incumbent on this country, through its regulator, to do what it can to encourage other jurisdictions to adopt such standards themselves rather than to lower our standards to accommodate foreign services. What we are in effect saying with this decision is that since it’s impractical to demand that others adopt our high standards, we will tolerate journalistic bias by others that we would not tolerate from services originating here.
> This will only create a journalistic double standard in our news offerings that undermines our capacity to demand storytelling excellence from our domestic services thereby cheapening our overall broadcasting system. It’s also a missed opportunity to send a message internationally about levels of journalistic standards and codes that we consider important enough to demand from all news broadcasters who wish to operate in this country. Adding diversity is necessary, but not at any price....


----------



## vonGarvin (26 Nov 2009)

> Canada cannot expect other countries to adhere to our standards of journalistic objectivity





:rofl:




Oh, wait, they were being serious?  Have they even seen Canadian "journalism" lately?


----------



## Strike (26 Nov 2009)

I recall hearing a radio broadcast on CBC where Steve Chan (of CTV) was reporting on behalf of Al Jazeera.


----------



## The Bread Guy (26 Nov 2009)

Strike said:
			
		

> I recall hearing a radio broadcast on CBC where Steve Chan (of CTV) was reporting on behalf of Al Jazeera.



Not to mention the sterling guidance of former CBC bosses in the middle-upper echelons of AlJazz English - this, from the Managing Editor, speaking earlier this month at UWO:


> *The Canadian who heads the English division of Al Jazeera broadcast news told a London audience yesterday he has found "no hint of interference" from the government that funds the Mideast-based network.
> 
> By contrast, Tony Burman, managing director of the network largely funded by the Emirate of Qatar, said when he was editor-in-chief at CBC News he was fully aware of what the Canadian government wanted from its public broadcaster.
> 
> "There is a solid firewall," between the Qatar government and Al Jazeera English, he said. And the operation is also separate from Al Jazeera's main Arabic service.* .... Al Jazeera English, Burman said, has a large network of journalists who live in the countries they cover rather than parachute into those countries, as is done by some news organizations.  And it has a large bureau in Israel, *to tell both sides of the Gaza conflict*, he said.



Zat right?  

Anyone wanna pitch a loonie into the pool for when we can see/read a story on AJE CONDEMNING Palestinian terrorists for targetting civilians? 

That said, I'm OK with AJE being available on cable - if I can read Taliban propaganda online and realize how dopey it can be, why not AJE?


----------



## vonGarvin (26 Nov 2009)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Anyone wanna pitch a loonie into the pool for when we can see/read a story on AJE CONDEMNING Palestinian terrorists for targetting civilians?


I have only see AJE when I was overseas.  I personally found the reporting to be rather balanced.  It also offered a different world view on events.   

As for their website, take this  story as an example.


> *Palestinians reject Israeli offer   *​The 10-month suspension will not halt building in East Jerusalem or construction already approved
> A Palestinian official has described Israel's proposed 10-month suspension of settlement construction in the occupied West Bank as mere "propaganda".


The story quotes Palestinians, Isrealis and Americans.  The story, to me, sounds rather neutral.  In other words, just reporting facts.


----------



## The Bread Guy (26 Nov 2009)

I missed that piece - thanks for sharing that, TV.  If the TV coverage is as inclusive in its sourcing, AJE may be less biased than my own (admitted) bias (based on limited sampling) leads me to believe.

I'm still intrigued, though, by Burman's statement that he "knew" what the Canadian government wanted re:  coverage, but Qatar has no such "expectation".  We'll see if that changes if/when he moves on from AJE at some point...


----------



## 40below (26 Nov 2009)

The Arabic language AJ is an anti-semitic cesspool, but the English version is about as controversial and slanted as CNN or BBC World. It's actually balanced to the point of being bland.


----------



## tango22a (26 Nov 2009)

Lucky Us!!

Just what we need another propaganda outlet spewing more slanted bovine excrement in competition with the normal spraying of slanted bovine excrement by our own Canadian broadcasters.


tango22a


----------



## Journeyman (26 Nov 2009)

tango22a said:
			
		

> Lucky Us!!
> 
> Just what we need another propaganda outlet spewing more slanted bovine excrement in competition with the normal spraying of slanted bovine excrement by our own Canadian broadcasters.
> 
> ...








Wow. 

Have you actually heard Al Jazeera - English? 
Did you read any of the preceding posts? 

Trust me, you'll get more credible, balanced news from AJE than from most western news outlets (and I refer only to credible sites, not Fox). 

Today, for example, there's a story on "Hundreds 'deserting' Afghan Taliban." Did you see that covered on CBC? Nope -- they're focused exclusively on torture allegations.



And if you need to find it in a hurry, the time in Mecca is in the top-left corner


----------



## vonGarvin (26 Nov 2009)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Today, for example, there's a story on "Hundreds 'deserting' Afghan Taliban." Did you see that covered on CBC? Nope -- they're focused exclusively on torture allegations.
> 
> And if you need to find it in a hurry, the time in Mecca is in the top-left corner


I looked for that story about the torture allegations on AJE.  Couldn't find it...


----------



## tango22a (26 Nov 2009)

Journeyman;

Possibly I am confusing AJE with Al Jazeera, which as far as I am concerned is just Islamist propaganda. And, before you ask, I have not seen AJE as it is not available on cable here yet.


tango22a


----------



## Journeyman (26 Nov 2009)

http://english.aljazeera.net/

Enjoy


----------



## tango22a (26 Nov 2009)

Journeyman: 


Thank You,


tango22a


----------



## X-mo-1979 (26 Nov 2009)

Good.
I'll gladly watch it when it arrives.
For now I'll go back to watching a room full of old men discuss if any taliban were tortured...Nahh I'll just wait until credible news arrives.

Too bad we couldn't get a Al Government.Might be less B/S.


----------



## jeepsport (27 Nov 2009)

I'd definitely watch it. From what I've heard / seen so far they are more credible than fox, or CNN where they allow all sides to weigh in on various stories. I don't know why people get so up in arms about a middle eastern news station.


----------



## Rheostatic (27 Nov 2009)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> http://english.aljazeera.net/


Also, http://www.youtube.com/user/AlJazeeraEnglish


----------



## Journeyman (27 Nov 2009)

Rheostatic said:
			
		

> Also, http://www.youtube.com/user/AlJazeeraEnglish


Thanks. I've had the text page bookmarked for some time; I didn't know that streaming video was also available.


----------

