Jump to content
The Official Site of the Montréal Canadiens
Canadiens de Montreal

Quebecor Announcing A " Fox News Canada" Channel


frostyHAWK

Recommended Posts

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/nation...article1598301/

Steven Chase, Susan Krashinsky and Grant Robertson

Ottawa and Toronto — From Thursday's Globe and Mail Published on Wednesday, Jun. 09, 2010 5:17PM EDT Last updated on Thursday, Jun. 10, 2010 11:18AM EDT

Quebec billionaire Pierre Karl Péladeau is attempting a major shakeup of television news in Canada, with plans to launch a 24-hour cable channel modelled on the right-leaning U.S. network Fox News.

It is a shot aimed directly at CBC and CTV, which for years have dominated the all-news format in English Canada. For months, Mr. Péladeau's Montreal-based media empire, Quebecor Inc., has been putting together plans for a channel that will tap the same conservative sentiment that has made Fox News a major contender for ratings in the U.S.

To operate the upstart news network, Quebecor has enlisted a former senior aide to Prime Minister Stephen Harper to oversee the operations. Kory Teneycke, who served as director of communications to Mr. Harper in 2008 and 2009, has been appointed vice-president of business development at Quebecor Media Inc. and will lead the new project.

If approved by the federal broadcast regulator, the gamble takes Mr. Péladeau outside of his comfort zone of Quebec, where he dominates French-language media.

Though he ranks among the country's wealthiest print and television magnates – with an empire that includes the Sun chain of tabloid papers in Alberta, Manitoba and Ontario – his focus is mostly on assets in his home province.

An application for a licence was submitted to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission late last week. Though Quebecor's plans are not yet public, a source said a formal announcement on the venture is “imminent.”

Mr. Teneycke has been working behind the scenes since last summer to investigate the feasibility of a news outlet that would speak to conservative-minded Canadians. The strategy would seek to spawn new audiences in English Canada, while also hoping to steal disgruntled viewers from CBC and CTV. The proposed channel has been informally referred to in political circles as “Fox News North.”

Sources say Mr. Teneycke pitched the proposal to Quebecor last year and has been trying to prove the business case ever since. It's an attempt to mine what Mr. Teneycke believes is a largely untapped market for more right-of-centre TV news, according to people familiar with the plans. The envisioned Canadian station would offer conservative-minded opinion shows – although news and opinion would be clearly separated rather than blended.

If licensed, the new channel will be wading into a market that consists of national 24-hour news offerings CBC News Network and CTV News Channel. The president of CTV News, Robert Hurst, said he believes there is room for more competition: “Come on in, the water's fine,” he said. “The more Canadian voices, the better.”

CTV, which is owned by the same parent company as The Globe and Mail, also operates news channels CP24 and BNN. Mr. Hurst said CTV News Channel is also looking at ways of bringing more diversity of opinion to the airwaves.

“It'll be an interesting project to see whether the appetite for right-wing news is the same in Canada … I would say the broadcast discussion in Canada is much more milquetoast than it is in the United States,” Mr. Hurst said.

The new channel is also courting a prominent Canadian right-wing pundit. Ezra Levant, a conservative author and activist, is being seriously considered as a host for one of the new station's anchor opinion shows, sources say. Mr. Levant and Mr. Teneycke have worked together as far back as the 1996 Winds of Change conference, a precursor to the unite-the-right movement.

Mr. Levant rejected the suggestion he's in line for a job. “I have no contract with any network whatsoever. I have no offer from any network whatsoever,” he said.

Mr. Teneycke refused to discuss his employer's plans. “When Quebecor has something to announce we'll announce it and right now I am afraid we don't.”

However, Quebecor's bid could face a hurdle that would stall the channel. According to sources familiar with the plans, Quebecor is seeking a “must-carry” designation for the channel. Such status would guarantee the network a spot on basic cable, and a pipeline to almost every home in the country – but it's a long shot to be approved.

Since the CRTC has largely stopped approving such licences, unless a broadcaster can argue it serves a public need, the company may have to settle for a standard cable licence. That would require Quebecor to negotiate carriage deals with each cable and satellite company and hope that viewers subscribe to the service on their own.

Quebecor already operates the French-language cable news channel Le Canal Nouvelles (LCN), and analysts believe the cable channel will feed into its other businesses, such as Internet, cable and a wireless phone service that is starting in Quebec later this year.

so we've become the enemy...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The last thing we need is another news channel and definitely not a conservative one,we don't want to go anywhere near the right wing of our nieghbours down south.

Need proof of the evils of right winged conservative politics... Don't need to look an further than Ann Coulter. She's pro-American and anti everyone else. She's said things about the muslims, said that the US army should march in and force them to believe in god and if they wouldn't accept, that they should be killed.

She also said that Canada was lucky that the US lets Canada exist on the same continent. She went on to say we're just like Venezuela, except colder (basically that Canada is a third world country).

No thank you... I've heard enough from Fox News, don't need to hear that drivel in Canada.

You think I'm joking about Ann Coulter, just look it up yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You think I'm joking about Ann Coulter, just look it up yourself.

Ya, Coulter's screwed up, but I'm pretty sure brain damaged psychopaths like her are a minority.

But, if they are going through with this idea, hopefully the channel has some credibility. I've seen and heard too many laughable (that's fear induced nervous laughter by the way) O'Reilly and Beck segments that I hope never infect the minds of Canadians. Such as this

.

Anyways, I've got no problem with different points of view being aired, or having their own channel dedicated to them. Like I said, I hope it has some credibility. But I see no reason why it should be a part of basic cable like they are requesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ya, Coulter's screwed up, but I'm pretty sure brain damaged psychopaths like her are a minority.

But, if they are going through with this idea, hopefully the channel has some credibility. I've seen and heard too many laughable (that's fear induced nervous laughter by the way) O'Reilly and Beck segments that I hope never infect the minds of Canadians. Such as this

.

Anyways, I've got no problem with different points of view being aired, or having their own channel dedicated to them. Like I said, I hope it has some credibility. But I see no reason why it should be a part of basic cable like they are requesting.

Actually, on Fox News they aren't the minority they are the usual. Sean Hannity is another one who had a show on Fox News, he's just as bad as Ann Coulter.

I'm with you, different points of view would be nice. But I fear it'll be more of the same... Different points of view will be allowed as long as it doesn't go against the conservative way of thinking (or make em look silly).

Freedom of speech... As long as you watch what you say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) Actually, on Fox News they aren't the minority they are the usual. Sean Hannity is another one who had a show on Fox News, he's just as bad as Ann Coulter.

2) I'm with you, different points of view would be nice. But I fear it'll be more of the same... Different points of view will be allowed as long as it doesn't go against the conservative way of thinking (or make em look silly).

3) Freedom of speech... As long as you watch what you say.

1) Ah, you'll have to excuse me. I don't pay attention to that group of low lifes so I don't really have a good measure for how psychotic they are. :lol:

2) That's my fear as well. Man, would I love to hear what that channel has to say after filtering out all the crap. That clip of O'reilly is the symbol of what I fear from that channel. A show that claims to educate people quotes studies that are straight out fake. These fake studies support hateful ideas, and thus O'reilly is supporting hate inducing ideas by spreading lies.....

3) Ya, or "sure we'll get into a discussion with you, as long as you don't mind we create lies and edit the truth to support our ideals." :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i can just imagine canada becoming a fascist theocrazy full of tea-party protesters like our neighboors to the south, they had a fanatical creationist as a president a few years ago, he had the nuclear codes and saw the end of the world as a ''good thing'' that makes me very nervous, imagine it now, harper gaining majority, scrapping the npt to build nukes and then go joyriding like bush would of done... i am exagerating sure but i do not trust someone who thinks we lived at the same time as dinnosaurs to lead our country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Need proof of the evils of right winged conservative politics... Don't need to look an further than Ann Coulter. She's pro-American and anti everyone else. She's said things about the muslims, said that the US army should march in and force them to believe in god and if they wouldn't accept, that they should be killed.

She also said that Canada was lucky that the US lets Canada exist on the same continent. She went on to say we're just like Venezuela, except colder (basically that Canada is a third world country).

No thank you... I've heard enough from Fox News, don't need to hear that drivel in Canada.

You think I'm joking about Ann Coulter, just look it up yourself.

Colter is an idiot, but I don't think she means those things literally, she's trying to be funny (just not very good at it)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Colter is an idiot, but I don't think she means those things literally, she's trying to be funny (just not very good at it)

Unfortunately, she's completely serious. She's a huge idiot, who can't see past the United States of America and Fox new supports this type of drivel.

I really don't want to see this type of controlled news here. There's a reason I'm very happy here in Canada, when I grew up in Michigan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, she's completely serious. She's a huge idiot, who can't see past the United States of America and Fox new supports this type of drivel.

I really don't want to see this type of controlled news here. There's a reason I'm very happy here in Canada, when I grew up in Michigan.

as long as harper controls the crtc, stuff like this will be allowed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So... people are allowed to have freedom of speech, as long as their views are centre or left wing?

"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

(Before anyone calls me a conservative/ republican/ whatever, I'm Libertarian)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So... people are allowed to have freedom of speech, as long as their views are centre or left wing?

"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

(Before anyone calls me a conservative/ republican/ whatever, I'm Libertarian)

Well... I, for one, will vote 'yes' to a degree. It boils down to freedom of speech and what types of freedom of speech infringe or hurt other people. I think the consensus amongst Canadians is that left thinking, or liberal ideology, is less likely to infringe or exploit say... Muslim Canadians that have never had anything to do with any sort of terrorism or wrong-doing, while right-wing thinking (sometimes) appears to single out minority groups, such as Muslims, and paint them to all be Osama Bin Ladens. Freedom of speech is a funny topic, 'cause it often times leads directly to hate, stereotyping, racial profiling, etc. etc. etc. I, for one, would rather not have a right-wing news channel in Canada if it ends up being comparable to Fox News from down South. In fact, I would be adamently opposed to it. That's my two cents, anyway. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well... I, for one, will vote 'yes' to a degree. It boils down to freedom of speech and what types of freedom of speech infringe or hurt other people. I think the consensus amongst Canadians is that left thinking, or liberal ideology, is less likely to infringe or exploit say... Muslim Canadians that have never had anything to do with any sort of terrorism or wrong-doing, while right-wing thinking (sometimes) appears to single out minority groups, such as Muslims, and paint them to all be Osama Bin Ladens. Freedom of speech is a funny topic, 'cause it often times leads directly to hate, stereotyping, racial profiling, etc. etc. etc. I, for one, would rather not have a right-wing news channel in Canada if it ends up being comparable to Fox News from down South. In fact, I would be adamently opposed to it. That's my two cents, anyway. ;)

this

also didn't the guy standing next to p.peladeau said '' we are not looking to report news, we are looking to make news ''entertaining''

somewhat like lcn and fox news; like that worked out.

i am not a liberal by any means, i'm more of a centrist but if fox news is any indicator then this sun news channel will just be a neocon propaganda channel.

As for you being libertarian... i will just say that i disagree COMPLETELY with that political view and leave it at that, i just don't see how having little to a non existant government is gonna stop companies like bp from acting wrecklessly and thus making half the golf of mexico a huge sea of death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, she's completely serious.

Why do you say that? When she told that Muslim student to "ride a camel", do you really think she actually believed a Muslim in Canada owns a camel? She's not a satirist in the sense that she's not really a left-winger trying to make right-wingers look dumb (like Colbert), but she does try to humerously exagerate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Freedom of speech is a funny topic, 'cause it often times leads directly to hate, stereotyping, racial profiling, etc. etc. etc.

It's preferable to the government getting to pick and choose what is acceptable. Look in the US at Michael Richards or Don Imus, the government didn't have to do anything, the people decided they didn't want to hear that sort of speech. It's essentially "you have the right to say what you want, and I have the right to ignore you".

I, for one, would rather not have a right-wing news channel in Canada if it ends up being comparable to Fox News from down South. In fact, I would be adamently opposed to it. That's my two cents, anyway. ;)

I wouldn't try to block it, but I certainly wouldn't watch or support it. I think Fox News does a disservice to the USA, but at the same time those on the right would say the same thing about shows like the Daily Show or Real Time. You can't have it both ways, so no attempts should be made to block this channel. However, hopefully most Canadians would not support it and it would run out of money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this

also didn't the guy standing next to p.peladeau said '' we are not looking to report news, we are looking to make news ''entertaining''

somewhat like lcn and fox news; like that worked out.

i am not a liberal by any means, i'm more of a centrist but if fox news is any indicator then this sun news channel will just be a neocon propaganda channel.

As for you being libertarian... i will just say that i disagree COMPLETELY with that political view and leave it at that, i just don't see how having little to a non existant government is gonna stop companies like bp from acting wrecklessly and thus making half the golf of mexico a huge sea of death.

You can't say "freedom of speech, but only if I agree with your viewpoint".

Either everyone has freedom of speech, or nobody does.

I certainly won't watch this channel if it ends up happening, but I certainly won't be signing any petitions to keep it out. In fact, were there a protest against it, I would be in the counter protest for it. That's right, I would be supporting a channel who's views i adamantly disagree with, and that I will never watch.

And RE: Libertarianism, I think you're misunderstanding the view. You're confusing it with anarchism. I have no problem with an environmental protection office in the government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't say "freedom of speech, but only if I agree with your viewpoint".

Either everyone has freedom of speech, or nobody does. * never said that, just don't trust peladeau to bring ''news''

I certainly won't watch this channel if it ends up happening, but I certainly won't be signing any petitions to keep it out. In fact, were there a protest against it, I would be in the counter protest for it. That's right, I would be supporting a channel who's views i adamantly disagree with, and that I will never watch. i would boycott it if it became like fox news.

And RE: Libertarianism, I think you're misunderstanding the view. You're confusing it with anarchism. I have no problem with an environmental protection office in the government.

Libertarianism describes a range of political beliefs that advocate the maximization of individual liberty in thought and action[1][2] and the minimization or even abolition of the state.[3][4] Libertarians embrace viewpoints ranging from a minimal state (or minarchist) to anarchist.[5][2][6][7] Libertarians have a variety of views on natural resources and property rights to which the terms "left" and "right" often are applied.[2] Some libertarians reject being described as "left" or "right."[8] so i take it you're a minarchist.

The most common form of libertarianism is based in classical political liberalism. These libertarians take liberty and property ownership to be inviolable natural rights and resist most collectivist approaches to social organization. This form of libertarianism is difficult to place on a conventional left/right, progressive/conservative scale: advocates often support left-wing issues, such as broad freedom from search and seizure, freedom of the press, and other civil liberties more generally but, in the same breath, support traditional right-wing positions such as gun ownership, the free market, capitalism, and strict property ownership.[2]

free market capitalism is a failure, it's basically about frauding someone else based on their stupidity.

strict proprety ownership i can agree with.

from what i've seen recently, libertarians are against regulation, they say it just ''takes away our money for nothing'' i just don't agree with that.

IMO we're in a post capitalist world and most european countries like switzerland, finland and norway have it right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^

I could argue back, but this thread is going off topic.

I'll say one brief thing, I didn't choose Libertarianism for practicality, I chose it because it's a fair system.

Now, back to the Faux News Canada thing- yes, Fox in the USA is garbage, but IMO freedom of speech is basically the most important thing in a free society. I don't think we should be blocking a channel just because some people are offended by it. Do you have a right to free speech? Yes. Do you have a right to not be offended? No.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, back to the Faux News Canada thing- yes, Fox in the USA is garbage, but IMO freedom of speech is basically the most important thing in a free society. I don't think we should be blocking a channel just because some people are offended by it. Do you have a right to free speech? Yes. Do you have a right to not be offended? No.

I'm not sure if you are responding to my post or several posts, but I don't mean to say people shouldn't go through there lives without being offended. What I feel strongly about is that no person should be subjected to the kind of drivel that promotes hate and stereotyping because that has real world implications other than being offended. If some moron watches too much Fox News and gets worked up by all the double speak and fear mongering they promote, then said person goes out and beats a minority some night while out drinking (completely random hypothetical situation), then that's freakin' awful. I'm very devoted to liberal thinking, left-wing ideologies, and welcoming to different lifestyles. However, when said ideology or lifestyle seriously infringes or impacts another person's well-being then I think it should be censored. Who should decide, you might ask? Certainly not the people running Fox News. Certainly not the people who are going to running this new news channel in Canada.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if you are responding to my post or several posts, but I don't mean to say people shouldn't go through there lives without being offended. What I feel strongly about is that no person should be subjected to the kind of drivel that promotes hate and stereotyping because that has real world implications other than being offended. If some moron watches too much Fox News and gets worked up by all the double speak and fear mongering they promote, then said person goes out and beats a minority some night while out drinking (completely random hypothetical situation)

But what about if someone hearing a left-leaning show goes out and kills someone because they work for a big bank? Or because they are a member of the military? I don't like a lot of what's on Fox News, but there is rarely anything directly suggesting violence, and censorship is censorship, I don't think individuals can pick and choose what they think is "acceptable speech". Plenty of people on the other side of you want shows like Real Time taken of the air, or look at some of the outrage after Louis CK on the Daily Show called the pope a pedophile. South Park spelled this out well about the drawing of Muhammed: if you limit free speech to try and keep people safe, you sacrifice democracy's core pillar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if you are responding to my post or several posts, but I don't mean to say people shouldn't go through there lives without being offended. What I feel strongly about is that no person should be subjected to the kind of drivel that promotes hate and stereotyping because that has real world implications other than being offended. If some moron watches too much Fox News and gets worked up by all the double speak and fear mongering they promote, then said person goes out and beats a minority some night while out drinking (completely random hypothetical situation), then that's freakin' awful. I'm very devoted to liberal thinking, left-wing ideologies, and welcoming to different lifestyles. However, when said ideology or lifestyle seriously infringes or impacts another person's well-being then I think it should be censored. Who should decide, you might ask? Certainly not the people running Fox News. Certainly not the people who are going to running this new news channel in Canada.

You can't pick and choose. You can't have one, but not the other.

You want to know what I find ironic? Is that the same argument from the left which says "the right promotes negative stereotyping", negatively stereotypes the right wing.

It works both ways too, what if somebody goes out and kills a cop because the "left wing media" told them that cops are brutal and use tasers too quickly? Or what if somebody kills the CEO of BP because the left wing condemns the oil spill? The hypothetical situations work both ways. To censor something is a slippery slope, and once you censor one group, well then what about this one? And what about this one? And that one, and the other one? The South Park episode with Muhammad addressed this perfectly, either everyone has free speech, or nobody does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...