https://twitter.com/BarackObama

American politics have always been of serious interest for Canadians. Not only does the American President affect Canadian politics and procedures, but American elections are also just a heck of a lot more interesting to watch than our own. There’s something incredibly exciting about sitting around with your friends and watching the votes come in, as Wolf Blitzer and his associates furiously tap screens that zoom in and out on the states (CNN went very high-tech this year). Last night’s Barack Obama vs. Mitt Romney battle was no exception—and as always, in and amongst the surging patriotism and mountains of hope, there was absurdity. Here, we bring you some of the election’s biggest WTFs.

1.)  Mitt Romney, on election day, tells reporters he only wrote a victory speech. That worked out well.

2.)  Mitt Romney takes forever to concede, finally addressing the public early this morning. He was scrambling to write his defeat speech, okay?

3.)  Donald Trump calls for a revolution when Obama wins. Tweeting things like, “We can’t let this happen. We should march on Washington and stop this travesty. Our nation is totally divided!” and, “This election is a total sham and a travesty. We are not a democracy!” business mogul Trump made it pretty clear that he was upset with the night’s results. Some tweets were deleted, including the outrageous, “More votes equals a loss…revolution!” Trump’s strong dislike for Obama is no secret (remember when he insisted that the President wasn’t American?), but this is ridiculous. What exactly is Trump hoping to gain? Being upset with the election’s outcome is one thing; deciding that it’s proof of an unjust system (and thus cause for revolution) is entirely another. At least NBC’s Brian Williams commented on its preposterousness.

4.)  Karl Rove says calling Obama’s victory in Ohio is premature. Even as CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, and even the Conservative Fox News said the state was Obama’s, Romney advisor Rove said, in an interview with Fox, that with 991 (20 percent) of the state’s votes still uncounted, it was too soon to know. This caused anchor Megyn Kelly to address the network’s number crunchers directly and find out if they, given Rove’s assessment, stood by their projection. They did. And, turns out, they were right. Woo!

5.)  Richard Noyes alleges that the liberal media was biased against Romney. The Media Research Centre’s Research Director Noyes wrote an editorial, published today by Fox News, which listed five reasons why this supposed bias was a major cause in Romney’s loss. Among them were accusations that the liberal media defended biased debate moderators (who were in favour of Obama), tried to hide the truth about America’s poor economy, and attacked “Republicans as liars for statements that were accurate.” If I’ve learned one thing in journalism school, it’s that no media establishment is completely without bias—it’s literally impossible to be 100 percent neutral, in any circumstance—and that goes for both political camps. Also, Noyes should give America more credit than that: it’s a smart country, and its people can tell when they’re being fed nonsense. Plus, the media is an overly used and very easy target when pointing the finger. Why is only the liberal media to blame?

6.)  Ann Coulter is…still Ann Coulter. A sore loser, the Conservative writer tweeted: “The good news is the promise of continued massive unemployment among young people.” Ugh.

7.)  People think Justin Bieber is American and urge him to vote. This caused the Canadian (HUZZAH!) pop prince to take to Twitter, saying, “im 18…but i cant vote…im Canadian.” Sorry to crush the hearts of 14-year-old girls everywhere else, but he’s ours.

8.)  Obama beats Justin Bieber for the most retweeted post on Twitter of all time. Shattering Bieber’s record of over 220,000, Obama’s “Four more years.” tweet (featuring a heartwarming photo of Mr. and Mrs. Obama in a sweet embrace) has been retweeted over 680,000 times. Confession: this is actually a total FTW. Obama FTW!

Creative Commons photo by Flickr user Daniel Villar Onrubia.

The CRTC’s in the news again, this time for proposing that journalists can lie, as long as no one gets hurt.

Last week the CRTC asked the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council to review its ban of unedited version of the Dire Straits’ 1985 song “Money for Nothing.” The 25-year-old hit, which has since started climbing on iTunes, was banned from Canadian airwaves after a complaint over its use of the word “faggot.”

But days before Straitgate, the CRTC quietly published an amendment that would punish the broadcasting, through radio or television, of “any news that the licensee knows is false or misleading and that endangers or is likely to endanger the lives, health or safety of the public.”

The amendment would replace the current wording, that “a licensee shall not broadcast […] any false or misleading news.”

CRTC sources told the Toronto Star the amendments aim to clarify the regulation, as the current text is open to legal loopholes. The amendment also clarifies “obscene” material as either the “undue exploitation of sex” or a dominant sexual characteristic combined with “crime, horror, cruelty [and/or] violence.”

Tech law expert Michael Geist blogged about the proposal, pointing out one small weasel word: “and.” Once again, the amendment concerns the broadcasting of “any news that the licensee knows is false or misleading and that endangers or is likely to endanger the lives, health or safety of the public.”

“It would perfectly permissible for a broadcaster to air false or misleading news,” he wrote, “provided that it not endanger the lives, health or safety of the public.” Geist also noted how much closer the amendment puts us to U.S. regulations.

The proposal comes weeks before the expected launch of Sun TV News in March. The channel generated controversy last fall for its attempt at Category 1 status, making it a must-offer for digital and satellite providers. Critics dubbed the network “Fox News North,” noting references to the controversial right-wing broadcaster in its application.

Before its approval, the channel prompted a scandal implicating Margaret Atwood and eventually George Soros, a rumoured ousting of the head of the CRTC, and an actual resignation from the project head. Although Sun TV generated much unfounded hysteria, hints at Fox News North have been copious throughout the coverage of this proposal.

But not without reason. This month’s shooting spree in Tucson, Arizona made many Americans think twice about overheated political discourse, propagated by many mainstream outlets.

Minutes after news that congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords had been shot, a Palin PAC image of her district in crosshairs went viral, as did clips from enflamed talk radio pundits and savage television “debates.” To quote Pima County sheriff Clarence Dupnik:

“I think it’s time as a country that we need to do a little soul searching because I think it’s the vitriolic rhetoric that we hear day in and day out, from the people in the radio business, and some people in the T.V. business […] it may be free speech but it does not come without consequences.”

Although many now draw a link to the suspected gunman’s mental health issues, that many Americans automatically thought of their violent news media is telling.

CRTC’s proposed change would make it okay for media to deliberately lie, as long as nobody’s hurt. The results could be ineffective at best. After harm takes place — an assassination, a stampede — it will be hard to find a solid link between one isolated news story and an event.

The reality is that social reaction to media coverage is often cumulative. According to agenda-setting theory, media can’t tell people what to think, but rather what to think about. Media shape the public psyche, not through individual reports but through larger thematic decisions about what merits coverage and how issues are framed.

The CRTC’s proposal is bad for journalism and democracy. Not only does it allow for lower-quality broadcasting, it could divert public attention from wide-ranging media issues by pigeonholing individual cases.

That our broadcast regulators would concern themselves more with public offence than public good is disconcerting. Critics left and right have decried the changes as dangerous for democracy.

If implemented, the changes would take effect in September. If you’d like to speak up, you have until February 9 to submit a complaint.