It's not even my birthday...

Yet my dear friend kooky Val gave me a present in the form of one of her nutty "News releases". The title of this one is "Rogers Cable Will Censor Howard Stern TV for Abusive Comment: Why isn't Sirius Canada doing the same thing?". We'll just ignore the fact that it appears in the Radio section of her site even though it's about a TV channel on a cable service. We'll also ignore the fact that she probably meant to use the word "Content" not "Comment".

Let's take a look see at what she has to say:

In their June 6 news release, Rogers used the words uncut and uncensored to describe the material available. However, in their web site FAQ section under the question "is Howard Stern really uncensored?", Rogers states:

...Please note that if a program fails to meet Canadian Broadcast Standards due to abusive comments or undue discrimination or for another legal reason which fails a Canadian Broadcast Standard - Rogers will be forced to remove the affected episode.

Note the use of "...", I use that all the time because I'm a hack who is too lazy to write correctly regardless of how many boring ass composition classes I've taken over the years, but correctly used and in this context it means that she intentionally omitted something. Let's see what that line is from Rogers web site:

The Howard Stern episodes are all available in the original format provided to Rogers. This means nudity, swearing and other mature dialogue and situations will be shown with no overt censorship.

well that would seem to be a pretty important line, I wonder why she left that out. Maybe her next paragraph will shed a little light on her reasoning:

This intention to censor Stern does not appear in the Rogers news release although it is both important to potential subscribers and newsworthy. It is a current acknowledgement from one of Canada's largest communications and broadcast conglomerates that Stern's show features some material that contravenes Canadian broadcast standards.

Oh I see now, she was trying to twist Rogers statement into saying the exact opposite of what it really said. Val is a clever one. Remember kids, if people don't say what you want them to you can always use quotes out of context to make it look like they did. See Val when you use their entire quote it's plainly obvious that their intent is to NOT censor any of the Howard TV episodes. It also is not a "current acknowledgement from one of Canada's largest communications and broadcast conglomerates that Stern's show features some material that contravenes Canadian broadcast standards". It is a statement that they are aware that something COULD happen on the show that COULD contravene the Canadian Broadcast Standards Act, and that IF that happened they WOULD remove that ONE episode. It is also not "newsworthy" to report that a media conglomerate WILL comply with federal law, if newspapers started doing that the business section of the Globe and Mail would be 2000 pages long every day.

On forward we trudge through Val's nonsensical gobbledygook.

"The situation with Rogers and Sirius is exactly the same, Howard Stern programming being offered on a subscription basis," says Toronto anti-violence activist Valerie Smith, "but the companies are taking two very different approaches. Rogers is attempting to conform to Canadian law, while Sirius Canada is ignoring it."

That's right kids, Val Smith went out of her way to get a quote from noted anti-violence expert...uhh...Val Smith. Geez, how did you manage to get a quote from her when she never seems willing to talk to any other media outlet on this issue. You must have some clout lady. Seriously who the fuck quotes themselves? I should start writing blog entries in the 3rd person. It would seem so much more official and noteworthy. I don't even know where to start ripping apart this quote though, she bases an argument on an out of context quote and then tries to compare a cable company to a radio company using her twisted quote. My logic professors would have torn their hair out trying to talk to this woman. Geez Val, if you are so concerned with the content on Sirius maybe you should make a formal complaint. Oh you did? And they're ignoring you? Sucks to be you.

Thanks, Rogers, for highlighting the situation. Let's hope that whatever regulatory and/or political pressure inspired them will also force Sirius to adopt similar measures to Eliminate Stern's trademark misogyny and abusive comments directed at other vulnerable groups.

Thanks? She's thanking Rogers for providing Howard Stern to 10 times as many homes as it is currently available in? And what is this "trademark" misogyny and abusive content you refer to? Why do you never provide an example? Why do I have a feeling that the total amount of time you've listened to Howard Stern in your lifetime is roughly the same as the amount of time I've spent reading Cosmo? What "vulnerable groups" has he attacked? Please provide out of context quotes with dates so that I can slap you around with the complete quotes.

She finishes off her release with quotes from the various Broadcast Acts. She includes the relevant paragraphs from the Pay Television, Specialty Services, Television and Radio acts, showing yet again she doesn't know what category her argument is about. I'll deal with the Pay Television Regulations as clearly that is what Rogers is offering.

3.(2) No licensee shall distribute programming:

(b) that contains any abusive comment or abusive pictorial representation that, when taken in context, tends to or is likely to expose an individual or a group or class of individuals to hatred or contempt on the basis of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age or mental or physical disability;

There's some pretty important words in there that people like Val and her ilk like to gloss over. I find it humourous that someone who habitually uses quotes out of context seems to skip over that passage of the Act every time she reads it. Also please note Val, the bit about "hatred or contempt". That's the governments silly little way of making sure the Act doesn't quash satire. If it wasn't in there the Broadcast Standards Council would be inundated with calls from Newfoundland, every time Air Farce did a newfie joke, well only if those inbred newfies could figure out how to get their phones out of the cod they're stuck in. See that, I made a joke where I ridiculed someone based on where they live, and that's protected, as much as you wish it wasn't Val.