Who appears to start ball rolling on censoring political ads?

Locutus

Adorable Deplorable
Jun 18, 2007
32,230
39
48
62
Matt Wolf ‏@mw_wolf


Someone didn't like terror ad #cdnpoli #LPC #CPC #NDP







Matt Wolf ‏@mw_wolf

So @jmcguirecbc acknowledged their copyright argument was weak. Had to find other fix... #cdnpoli #CPC #LPC #NDP




Wow Peter Mansbridge...MT @mw_wolf: Somebody quite happy when the political ad 'problem' was 'solved'... #cdnpoli



related: Networks shouldn’t censor political ads | Lilley | Columnists | Opinion | Toront
 

damngrumpy

Executive Branch Member
Mar 16, 2005
9,949
21
38
kelowna bc
This is about property rights to material not about censorship at all.
The company that produced the story owns the rights to the info.
Same as Ford owns the rights to the name Ford Motor Company.
If someone wants to use the material they seek permission the
same a and in fact is Copy write and is subject to law.
During the last US or was it the one before the Republicans used
a Bruce Springstein song and he being a Democrat told them to
refrain or he'd seek court action.
I for one believe the company or the independent reporter owns the
copywrite to the material he or she produced and the government has
no business making laws to circumvent their special needs at the
expense of the owner of the materials rights.
Anything copy written is not in public domain even if it is broadcast
electronically or in print. Not censorship its the owners of material in
a free enterprise society. If the don't want one party or the other to
use their property that is the prerogative of the owner of the material.
The tories are upset cause they can't indiscriminately make up negative
ads that often distort the facts. Yes the others do it but not to the same
degree.
 

Zipperfish

House Member
Apr 12, 2013
3,688
0
36
Vancouver
And the CBC is not a Justine Trudeau campain vehicle.

How so? If the CBC cover of Trudeau was all flattering, then there would not be any fodder for Conservative attack ads, would there?

One of the steps before posting is to make sure that your argument has some kind of internal consistency.
 

IdRatherBeSkiing

Satelitte Radio Addict
May 28, 2007
12,761
334
83
Toronto, ON
How so? If the CBC cover of Trudeau was all flattering, then there would not be any fodder for Conservative attack ads, would there?

One of the steps before posting is to make sure that your argument has some kind of internal consistency.

I have yet to see an unflattering piece of Justine on CBC in my limited viewing of the CBC.

As an side point, now that the CBC doesn't have hockey (aside from a breadcrumb given to them by Rogers), I see no real reason for continuing their existence.
 

Zipperfish

House Member
Apr 12, 2013
3,688
0
36
Vancouver
I have yet to see an unflattering piece of Justine on CBC in my limited viewing of the CBC.

Then why would the Conservatives be using CBC footage for attack ads? Connect the dots. You can do it.

As an side point, now that the CBC doesn't have hockey (aside from a breadcrumb given to them by Rogers), I see no real reason for continuing their existence.

no I don't see much point in keeping the CBC TV channel. CBC Newsworld makes money. I like CBC News website, though only because it's not behind a paywall. And they should definitely keep the overseas component.
 

IdRatherBeSkiing

Satelitte Radio Addict
May 28, 2007
12,761
334
83
Toronto, ON
Then why would the Conservatives be using CBC footage for attack ads? Connect the dots. You can do it.

What the Conservatives use is footage of Trudeau saying something stupid. Yes it may have aired on the CBC but they cut out the glowing excuses or non-explanation offered by the CBC reporter.

That is based upon the ones I have seen of Trudeau, Iggy and Stephan Dion. There may be ones I have not seen. And there may have been unflattering reports on the CBC of Justine. I just have not seen them. I tend to only watch the National by accident and Mercer/22 minutes.
 

Locutus

Adorable Deplorable
Jun 18, 2007
32,230
39
48
62
A premature copyright objection from the Parliamentary Press Gallery

Earlier today, the 300 or so members of Canada’s Parliamentary Press Gallery received the following notice in their e-mail inboxes:
CANADIAN COPYRIGHT LAWS
Ottawa, Ontario
October 9, 2014

The Canadian Parliamentary Press Gallery is troubled by reports the government is considering an exception to Canadian copyright laws that would give parties free reign in using news content for political advertisements.

Journalists report facts and balance them with context to ensure their stories are fair. Political ads, particularly during election campaigns, are by nature one-sided. Giving political parties the ability to selectively use news stories runs counter to the neutrality we strive to provide to Canadians every day.

The proposal is not yet formal. We await further details.

Laura Payton
President, Canadian Parliamentary Press Gallery

As a member of the Gallery (and a former member of its board of directors), I believe this notice was premature. Here’s why:

1. No legislation or formal proposal has been made by the government.

As Gallery President Laura Payton (Laura, who now works at CBC, and I were colleagues in not one but two Parliament Hill newsrooms, CTV and Sun Media) notes, “the proposal is not yet formal”. Indeed, the news stories which played such a seemingly central role in the files out of every Parliament Hill newsroom today are all based on what are essentially leaked documents. Documents are rarely “leaked” just because the leaker thought it would be a good thing for Canadians to read about the leaked material. No. The ‘leaker’ almost always has a motive. I do not know the ‘leaker” in this case and therefore I — and the board of the Press Gallery, presumably — should be cautious about any speculation. But we do know that the Conservative Party of Canada has issued several fundraising letters recently in which it points at the “media party” on Parliament Hill as its enemy. I may be overly suspicious or cynical but the statement issued in the name of the Press Gallery feeds right into the narrative the Conservative Party is using to help raise money. I believe we should not make it so easy for any political party to use our actions as journalists to raise money.

Second – and more importantly — the Gallery should not have provided commentary on this rumoured legislation precisely because it is a rumour. Whether the Gallery endorses or opposes this legislation is beside the point. What is very much at issue here is that there is no formal proposal. NGOs and politicians tell journalists all the time that they will not comment on “hypotheticals” and for good reason. A comment on a “hypothetical” sets up a situation where a politician or an NGO has to change his/her/its position when the variables of a hypothetical situation change. Today’s outrage, then, might become tomorrow’s celebration and the credibility and reliability of the organization/individual that had to do the flip-flop is compromised. Similiarly here, the Parliamentary Press Gallery has staked out a position on a ‘hypothetical’. It should have waited until legislation was tabled.

2. The Parliamentary Press Gallery has no role or stake in copyright discussions

The constitution of Canada’s Parliamentary Press Gallery does not expressly set out any objectives or “reasons for being” for the organization but, as a former director, I feel confident in suggesting that its membership — the 300 or so journalists who work on or near Parliament Hill every day — feel that the Gallery’s first and only role is to facilitate, co-ordinate, and assist its members as they go about the job of ”reporting, interpreting or editing parliamentary or federal government news, and who are assigned to Ottawa on a continuing basis by one or more newspapers, radio or television stations or systems, major recognized news services or magazines which regularly publish or broadcast news of Canadian Parliament and Government affairs and who require the use of Gallery facilities to fulfil their functions.” (See Section 4 in our constitution) Nothing in the rumoured changes to Canada’s copyright laws would appear to impact on any of that. What may be at stake is a property right dispute. And the vast majority of gallery members do not have any property rights at stake here. I’ve worked for the Globe and Mail, the National Post, CTV, Global, Canwest-now-Postmedia, and now Sun and it’s the same everywhere: The content under my byline is owned by my employer. It is their content. Those corporations have an interest in how and where content they own is used. I and most of my Gallery colleagues have no claim to it. So if the government is contemplating copyright changes, our collective employers may have an issue. But, aside, I assume, from gallery members who are freelancers and might hold some copyright to their work, most gallery members do not have a “rights” issue here.

And, let’s also remember that, so far as “rights holders” are concerned, Canada’s Parliamentary Press Gallery includes employees of CBC as well as China’s state-owned media Xinhua News Agency; it includes members who work for Rabble.ca but also those who work for billionaire Michael Bloomberg; it includes journalists from the Wall Street Journal alongside those who work for Russia’s ITAR-TASS and the Vietnam News Agency. We are a diverse group. A statement issued on behalf of such a diverse group of gallery members is almost certain to contain dissenters (This post is evidence of that).

The Gallery did not seek consent of its members before issuing the statement it did though, as Laura Payton told me this evening, some members of her board were consulted. (The board, incidentally, is all-volunteer and does very good and often thankless work to preserve and protect the rights of journalists working on the Parliamentary Precinct.)

That said — and Xinhua, TASS notwithstanding — there is likely one motherhood issue that all or 90% of gallery members would wholeheartedly defence that that is freedom of speech. University of Ottawa scholar Michael Geist and Gallery member Paul Wells have written that, if you consider it in a certain way, the government’s rumoured changes enhance, protect, or codify free speech rights. (And let me point out that both Geist and Wells have subsequently pointed out that, based on the leaked documents we have, the government’s proposals and arguments are, at the very least, to so narrow that it would be hard for the Conservatives to claim a free speech defence)





Michael Geist ‏@mgeist

Copyright shouldn’t be used to stifle free speech but gov plan wrongly has 2 sets of rights: 1 for politicians & 1 for rest of us


But from a Parliamentary Press Gallery perspective the issue is clear: If it’s about copyright, that’s up to rights holders (our employers) to address. If it’s a free speech issue, then, perhaps there is a Press Gallery issue to address.

But in any event: Gallery members should be encourage to report vigourously and actively about this story. But the Gallery itself would do its membership better service by withholding its opinion at least until the government tables a formal proposal and then, it should only offer an opinion on the free speech aspects of the bill and leave the copyright issues to other groups.


A premature copyright objection from the Parliamentary Press Gallery | David Akin’s On the Hill

le excellent comment:


Dan Cummings says:
October 10, 2014 at 12:11 am

Laura Payton presents herself as the President of the Parliamentary Press Gallery.

However, she writes “free reign” instead of what she meant — “free rein”. It’s a horse term and means allowing the horse to run free of reining, to not be ‘reined in’.

In my experience, this kind of illiteracy is rife in the writing coming from the PPG.

Then she says “balance them with context” which is to show she has no concept of what the word “context” means. Context isn’t about balance, it’s about the current and historical environment within which news facts can be understood. Twisting the context, as too many PPG members do, or apparently not understanding what the concept means, is why so many news stories from Ottawa are just awful.

I can only imagine her explanation of the inverted pyramid, the reson ‘lede’ is spelled that way, or why she usually abuses the word ‘lead’ by using it when she means ‘led’ — read her writing, you’ll catch it.
When something is put into the public domain via news media, it should remain in the public domain. For media employees to believe they can act as gatekeepers on what the public can see, after it’s already been made public, shows they have a warped idea of the role of the fifth estate.

Geist has it wrong. I like him and he usually has it right, but not this time. Such a change would not create “2 sets of rights”. It would simply make explicit that news content placed in the public domain would remain in the public domain — that is, an individual or organization couldn’t withdraw incriminating video once broadcast via the air, cable, satellite or internet to a public audience. It would remain available for re-play, reference and re-use by anyone, within a political context. It would also remain subject to standard copyright law, especially for commercial usage.

Here’s an example. Let’s stay TV station CXYZ has a weekend reporter who shoots video of the local MP smashing his car into another car and then drunkenly stumbling out and cursing at the camera. It runs on 11 pm news saturday night and 5 people see it (small station, everybody else watching hockey). MP calls station owner, his pal, demands it be burned and reporter fired. According to PPG outrage today that would be okay. Station owner owns the video, so can destroy it. But Bob Video had his DVR on and captured the recording. He sent it to his friend in Ottawa who knows someone at a political party. It’s been publicly broadcast, but PPG apparently feels the political party (not the MP’s) can’t use it in a political ad without approval of station owner (who wouldn’t give it). An extreme example, but the video of the drunken MP would be much more powerful than a claim by a fired junior weekend reporter that it happened. I contend it’s in public domain.

The same is true with Justin Trudeau’s crude remarks about CF-18s last week. In the public domain. It’s the same access argument media members make all the…
 

Locutus

Adorable Deplorable
Jun 18, 2007
32,230
39
48
62
Copyright And Political Ads: Insight Into a Certain "Consortium"



The news networks themselves are emerging as a major element in the unfolding story of copyright, campaigns and political ads. It seems that this is getting to be less about copyright and more about a certain "consortium".


Regarding the possible legislation concerning the copyright aspects of political ads, I’ve now seen documents that indicate that there was a “consortium” of the major broadcasters formed this spring at the initiative of the CBC to deal with this issue. They apparently deliberately chose to leave Quebecor (Sun Media) out of the discussions. They agreed not to air political ads that include content from each other or even third party broadcasters and that this consortium was necessary because copyright law no longer worked to justify their position.


One of the documents says:


“The goal is to keep news content from being used without permission. In past we fought this stuff using legal threats, but shifts to laws w.r.t. copyright and fair dealing have made this a less effective route. This ‘consortium’ we think would limit the activity.”
(emphasis added)



Here’s the batch of documents, which a third party has obtained via ATIP. Readers may wish to focus on pages 58, 64, 83, 86, 89, 110, 112-113. 116-117, 122, and 137 for starters.

All this could be of considerable potential interest to, at the very least, the CRTC, Elections Canada, and the Competition Bureau.


Spoiler alert: the names Peter Mansbridge and Jennifer McGuire figure very prominently in these 137 pages.


No doubt, more to come.


HPK

EXCESS COPYRIGHT: Copyright And Political Ads: Insight Into a Certain "Consortium"






Dean Skoreyko ‏@bcbluecon

The original media consortium looking to ban Conservative ads in May was made up of CBC, Radio Canada, CTV, Rogers and Shaw





Dean Skoreyko ‏@bcbluecon

So basically, the only news orgs not to join this ad ban was Postmedia, Sun News and TorStar



CBC won't air Conservative attack ads - UPI.com


goddamn cbc man:

Your Moral And Intellectual Superiors


Fauxtography at the CBC.


It's not the first time.


video here: Your Moral And Intellectual Superiors - Small Dead Animals






A premature copyright objection from the Parliamentary Press Gallery.


More commentary: Brian Lilley dissects the latest attempt by the Media Party to protect Trudeau.


video: Oh, That Liberal Media! - Small Dead Animals
 

damngrumpy

Executive Branch Member
Mar 16, 2005
9,949
21
38
kelowna bc
Copywrite law and transparency are different things and yes the press and media
or an author or a writer of music should have a say in the law that will govern the
ability to make a living as other citizens have input on the laws of the day thet
affect them.
If I were a person in media or a song writer or performer I wouldn't want some people
using my produced work to further their own ends even if they were prepared to pay me.
 

Locutus

Adorable Deplorable
Jun 18, 2007
32,230
39
48
62
The Tories and the TV networks: Who is censoring whom?

A Conservative plan to safeguard attack ads draws an attack of its own, and creates a thorny dilemma for networks




Fair dealing? Networks want the right to ban the use of their footage for attack ads

For at least as long as Stephen Harper has led it, which is nearly as long as it has existed, the Conservative Party of Canada has believed Canada’s big news organizations are out to get it. Now Conservatives believe they have proof.

Our tale begins on Oct. 8, when CTV News reported that the Harper government is preparing changes to the Copyright Act that would allow political parties to use material from news broadcasts in their political ads. Parties wouldn’t need broadcasters’ permission. They wouldn’t have to pay. Any news footage a party liked could be plucked and inserted into a broadcast ad, surrounded by the party’s spin.


more


The Tories and the TV networks: Who is censoring whom?
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,677
310
83
66
Saint John, N.B.
The CBC has got to go. The absolute arrogance of Mansfield to even raise this "issue". There needs to be a law protecting the broadcast of political speech........

Funny the CBC had no problem with this in 2006:


The Trudeau quote at least has the benefit of being true..........
 

Locutus

Adorable Deplorable
Jun 18, 2007
32,230
39
48
62
Copyright and attack ads: Progressive mayor uses Sona image to attack conservative challenger



Karen Farbridge is the the four-term left-of-centre, progressive mayor for the city of Guelph, the city and federal riding that is ground zero for the robocalls controversy.

Farbridge is facing a stiff challenge from Cam Guthrie who is pitching ideas familiar to small-c conservatives.

Last week, the Farbridge campaign bought a half-page of ad space in the Guelph Tribune and divided that space into two spaces, a positive ad on the left which clearly has the candidate’s name on it and an attack ad, on the right, which does not have the candidate’s name on it. In it, the Farbridge campaign insinuates that candidate Cam Guthrie has the same political morals as Michael Sona, famous now in political circles as the federal Conservative campaign worker in Guelph convicted of a robocall offence. Last week, at a sentencing hearing, Crown prosecutors were pressing the judge to put Sona in jail for up to 20 months.

The Guelph Mercury reports that Farbridge has had to a) ‘fess up to being behind that ad and b) defend her role in what apparently has become a “toxic campaign.”

Guthrie is complaining “That photo was taken several years ago at a public event and used out of context.”

For those outside Guelph, though, this attack ad is notable for two things. First, it’s the first one I know of in which a “progressive” uses Sona specifically to go after a “conservative” candidate. Do you think the federal Conservatives will get attacked with Sona and robocalls? Second: Neither the Farbridge campaign nor the Guelph Tribune owns this image. It is, in fact, a picture taken by a Guelph Mercury photographer. If you look closely at the fine print, you’ll see that the Farbridge campaign provides credit which is apparently all that is required under the fair dealing provision of Canada’s copyright laws. There is a bit of a debate right now at the federal level as to whether political parties ought to be able to lift “news images” for their own messaging purposes. The Harper government is proposing some legislative amendments that would expressly allow political parties to do just Farbridge is doing to Guthrie.


Copyright and attack ads: Progressive mayor uses Sona image to attack conservative challenger | David Akin’s On the Hill