- Ms Kaye is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Mary Carlisle is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Prem Gill is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Nancy Flight is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Justin Everett is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- John Westover is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Nora Etches is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Edward Henderson is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Bharadwaj Chandramouli is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Dean Chatterson is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Marius Scurtescu is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Robert Parkes is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- James Murton is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Susan Doyle is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Vincent Strgar is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Helen Spiegelman is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Subir Guin is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Kimball Finigan is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Joanne Manley is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- David Leach is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
CanCon Adapts to a Wild New Media World
Satellite radio, TiVo, iPods change the game.
When the SCTV sketch comedy show moved to the CBC, the network said it needed to fill in the half-hour with another two minutes of programming, which would also have to feature distinctly Canadian material. Rick Moranis and Dave Thomas indignantly rose to the challenge by creating The Great White North. Bob and Doug McKenzie, a pair of tuque and parka-clad, beer-drinking hosers, sat in front of a map of Canada and talked about nothing in particular.
Surprisingly, Bob and Doug became the most popular segment on SCTV, hosting events across Canada, cutting a comedy album and even starring in a feature film. However, the characters weren't well-liked among the SCTV cast, some of whom thought they supported the American stereotype of Canadians as well-insulated hicks. Try to create something distinctly Canadian, and you rarely satisfy everybody.
Well, the latest round in the struggle to create and preserve the Canadian media industry revolves around satellite-broadcast subscription services.
This summer, the CRTC granted broadcast licenses to the Canadian branches of the US-based satellite radio services XM Radio and Sirius Satellite Radio. The broadcasters must have thought the struggle was over. Their satellite signals already reached most of the population of Canada, and all they had to do was buy advertising and get their receivers in stores in time for holiday shopping. Canadians would soon be listening to largely commercial-free music in dozens of specialty channels for a monthly subscription fee.
The hitch was a protest filled by Canadian media corporation CHUM. CHUM had proposed its own digital subscription audio service, which would be broadcast from terrestrial stations. It would also be wholly Canadian-owned and meet or exceed the CRTC's mandated 35 percent Canadian content.
CHUM protested because Sirius' and XM's signals came from satellites and were ruled as exempt from the CanCon regulation. It wouldn't be competitive with the other services.
Protesting change
The CRTC stood firm and the satellite services officially launched in Canada. Each of them carried ten percent Canadian-produced channels of music, news and talk, as well as contributing money to Canadian artist development.
New technologies, such as satellite radio, digital audio over cable and streaming Internet radio, promise to change the way people get their music, news and talk. In the new media world, are Canadian content rules still relevant? Are they the only thing protecting us from American media domination, or are they more trouble than they're worth?
The Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission says the purpose of CanCon is twofold. Culturally, it creates a venue for the exposure of Canadian voices and talents. Economically, it supports the Canadian music industry; providing jobs and generating revue.
The struggle to get Canadian voices heard in the mediasphere began in the early days of radio. Even when the CBC launched in 1936, it had to fill out its 18-hour broadcast day with a few hours of American programming. There was no Canadian music industry to speak of, and Canadians who did attain fame either left for the US or were wooed there.
In the early 60s, the Board of Broadcast Governors, the CRTC's predecessor, was supposed to encourage the use of Canadian talent. Standard Radio offered to hire Canadian musicians and press records as part of its FM broadcast license applications. Instead of only playing live musicians during the evening, competing against television, the records would be played all day. The Canadian Talent Library still needed expertise and equipment on loan from RCA in the US to make the albums, but its recordings of Canadian artists were heard across Canada, the US and the UK.
'Necessary evil'
Starting in 1971, the CRTC required that commercial radio broadcasters must make 30 percent, increased to 35 percent in 1999, of their selections Canadian, as determined by the so-called MAPL system. MAPL is short for Music, Artist, Production, Lyrics; generally, as long as at least two of those four aspects were done by a Canadian, it was CanCon.
The CanCon policy has been criticized greatly over the years, particularly in several cases of the CRTC denying CanCon status from certain works of internationally known Canadian artists, such as rocker Bryan Adams in 1992, and adult contemporary singer Celine Dion in 1999. A few years later, a different set of critics scourged the Commission for bending the MAPL rules so that songs made by artists who live abroad and work with non-Canadian producers, like Shania Twain, count as CanCon.
Do Canadian content regulations actually help the Canadian artists? Particularly the ones who don't have the international success, such as the Vancouver-based "psychedelic Western noir" indie band Coal?
Nicole Steen, Coal's lead vocalist, says that "Regulating Canadian content is sort of a necessary evil."
"Because the US market is so strong, also the British market as well, I do think that Canadians have to have a fighting chance, just because it does seem that broadcasters don't want to give Canadian artists, or at least independent and up and coming artists a chance, until they've actually done something in the states."
Marcus Rogers, Coal's bassist and a producer of independent music videos, agrees. "I think it should be maintained, honestly. Although I like free enterprise, I think that we get drowned in signals from the US media, which is a massive corporation, in a sense. But they're not going to cater to our interests. They're just going to shovel the same material into our market that they use in their market. They don't do it to be anti-Canadian. It's business to them."
"Because of CanCon," Rogers says, "Coal received the opportunity to have some exposure in Canada. Without CanCon, the broadcasters in Canada may not have played us. I don't think they play Canadian artists out of patriotism. I think they play everything for money."
Despite criticisms, the consensus among Canadian artists, broadcasters and distributors favours of keeping CanCon. One of the few voices calling for its abolishment is the conservative Fraser Institute. An August 1998 report argued against it in terms of free markets and freedom of expression. The report recommended that the regulations on TV programs and radio selections be abolished and CanCon be moved onto a pay broadcast and that Canadian programming include flags that show how much government money went into subsidizing it.
'Feist'
Gregg Terrence, the president and one of the founders of Indie Pool, an organization that represents independent Canadian artists, also supports CanCon, but with reservations.
"We feel that Canadian content is a good thing, that it was good for Canada, that we should keep Canadian content rules, but that they are no longer effective, because you do not hear Broken Social Scene and you do not hear Feist and you don't hear Metric very much. Radio is not really participating in the breaking of artists the way it used to. That is the whole idea behind CanCon, not just to pad the revenues and profits and spins of successful artists."
Most of the CRTC mandated 35 percent is filled with massively popular, international artists -- the likes of Nickelback, Shania Twain and Avril Lavigne - who don't need the support. Emerging Canadian artists are left out in the cold. His solution is CanCon Pro, short for Progressive, a credit system for Canadian broadcasters, while leaving CanCon at 35 percent. Stations would receive smaller credits for international artists and bigger credits for emerging artists. This would encourage broadcasters to seek out and break new talent.
Indiepool publicly supported satellite radio, saying it would help Canadian artists even without Canadian content rules. "Certainly, subscription models are much better for emerging artists than advertising models, when it comes to radio," says Terrence. "Advertisers want familiarity, repetition. Subscription models, being Internet radio or satellite radio, must push the boundaries of what they play, and it helps emerging artists because they go much deeper into catalog."
Terrence sees the CRTC's decision regarding satellite broadcasters as a workable (one might almost say, distinctively Canadian) compromise. "If you're listening to music online, there's no Canadian content rules so there's zero control over the Internet, because it's an uncontrollable outside source. Satellite radio was a quasi-controllable outside source, so they got quasi-Canadian content out of it. When it comes to terrestrial radio, there's more ability to control those streams, so you should extract as much Canadian content as you can."
TiVo generation
Prior to the official announcement of licensing in the summer of 2005, there was already a grey market for XM and Sirius receivers in Canada, estimated in the tens of thousands and paid via US billing addresses. The satellite signals already covered much of Canada. The CRTC could either partially regulate it or drive it underground.
A famous Canadian, Marshall McLuhan, described media in terms of hot and cold. A hot medium, like film or radio, delivers the message directly to the viewer. A cold medium, such as reading, requires more audience participation to fill in the missing parts of the message.
The last decade has seen many media cool down. DVDs and personal video recorders like TiVo allow the viewer much greater control over what they see, not only timeshifting programming but skipping over commercials. Portable music players and satellite radio provides vastly greater choice than broadcast radio. The citywide wireless networks being built in some American and Canadian cities could deliver thousands of streaming audio channels to handheld devices.
With people having more and more control over their media intake, the idea that the state can impose control over that becomes implausible. The generation raised on iPods and TiVo will have even less patience for restrictions on what they read, see and hear. They will be accustomed to a vast variety of media choices, and they will "hunt and gather" for what they want, content restrictions be damned.
Both the CRTC and the broadcasting industry knows that media rules are changing. This spring, the CRTC will hold its first Commercial Radio Policy Review since 1998, with an official Public Notice sometime in the new year. This review will reevaluate CanCon and Canadian Talent Development, especially in light of new technologies. The CRTC turned down two requests from the Canadian Association of Broadcasters for a delay, so the industry can "assess developments in digital radio, in order to devise and propose a coherent and cohesive plan to ensure a successful digital transition for commercial radio."
Upping CanCon
In public speeches, CRTC officials have spoken of increasing CanCon from 35 percent to 40 percent, and also to support a greater variety of Canadian music.
Canada is in the unusual position of "sleeping next to the elephant": being the neighbor of the United States, perhaps the world's biggest producer of media and with whom we share a language. That reality has shaped Canada's media policy and industry ever since it became apparent that radio waves don't stop at the border.
Even our nation's geography works against the traveling artist, as Rogers observes: "Canada's a tough place to sell in. Geographically it's enormous, population-wise it's minuscule. Just shipping your stuff in Canada, or traveling in Canada, all these things are not that profitable. So, it's the geography and the population density. In Vancouver, it's almost hopeless. I don't mean to be negative, but now they want a couple of thousand bucks for a band to go over the border. Big tax in the union fees, and you don't get it back. And driving east, that's a couple of thousand bucks too."
If the Canadian music industry needs support, there are other ways to do it than restricting what companies broadcast and what people hear. Both satellite broadcasters agreed to pay a percentage of their gross service revenues towards Canadian Talent Development: six percent from Canadian Satellite Radio, and five percent from Sirius with the possibility of more if certain conditions are met.
Peter Tupper is a Vancouver writer. ![[Tyee]](http://thetyee.cachefly.net/ui/img/ico_fishie.png){kind=small}
- The Gem of Canadian Science that Harper Killed
- Who Mowed Down the Premier?
- Canada's Economy, Deconstructed (by a 12 year-old)
- Death in Remand: a Tyee Inquiry
- Now Is the Time to Talk up Big Ideas
- Sexism Tinges Criticism of Teachers' Job Action
- Bill C-38: the Environmental Destruction Act
- Death In Remand: 'A Gut Feeling'
- Bias in BC's Pesticide Decision? Follow the Bouncing Verbs
- The Ethics of Addiction Studies
- The Gem of Canadian Science that Harper Killed
- Sexism Tinges Criticism of Teachers' Job Action
- Now Is the Time to Talk up Big Ideas
- The Ethics of Addiction Studies
- Bill C-38: the Environmental Destruction Act
- Alberta Fills Pipes with Corrosive Denial
- Bias in BC's Pesticide Decision? Follow the Bouncing Verbs
- How Our Immune Systems Exaggerate Fear
- BC biotech company seeks approval for GM apple
- What's Behind BC's Doors?
- 'The Dictator'
- Death in Remand: Stacked Deck
- 'Moonrise Kingdom'
- From Financial Advisor to Occupier
- Seven Goals to Build the Conservative 'Dream'
- How Our Immune Systems Exaggerate Fear
- Who Mowed Down the Premier?
- Does Simon Fraser University Need a Men's Centre?
- Now Is the Time to Talk up Big Ideas
- Why Blackberry's Embrace of HTML5 Is Good Karma
66
Login or register to post comments
Ron Erwin
6 years ago
Comments on "CanCon Adapts to a Wild New Media World"
F the CRTC, what is the point of this group of mindthink police. A truly useless gang of self perpetuating thought thugs. Has anyone looked at our Charter to see how we castrate this diseased rat ?
If this isn't a symptom of Canadian malaise, I don't know what is.
allan
6 years ago
I think the CRTC is among the jewels of Canada's cultural safety net but, besides that, it also employs some very gutsy people who have on occassion told pompous a-holes in the commercial telephone industry to stop acting like pirates when dealing with their private clients.
But the greatest benefit of this small. but very important agency, is it's ability to thoroughly piss off people like Ron Erwin.
May it live on at least until Ron returns to his home in the south.
Ron Erwin
6 years ago
Can you see the damage the CRTC has done to the mind of Allan ? It's sad to think that FOX News hasn't been available to help him.
Martin
6 years ago
Ah yes, so nice to see the CanCon rules preserving all that culture we get from Vijay, Larry and Willy.
sdgreen
6 years ago
The CRTC should get out of the role of censorship!
Current technology allows anyone to gather news, music, tv programs from almost anywhere in the world.
The other issue here is that the support for music or film is artificial in that we the taxpayer are not only paying for the production, but also the right to listen to some very poor stuff.
The CRTC should only be involved in policing the media relative to broadcasting standards and frequency allocation, and even that is in question as that could be adequately done through Industry Canada.
Get rid of the CRTC.
Ron Erwin
6 years ago
You know, I'm amazed at all the Canwest/Global detractors, who think there is a master plot to brainwash them don't get on the anti CRTC and Canada Broadcast Act who are ultimately painting them into the corner they feel they are in.
And let us not forget how this group of useless bureaucrats gave us only two choices of Cable. Rodgers in the east and Shaw in the West.
What hypocrites you all are.
Stump
6 years ago
Yes. Let's throw away the CRTC, so that we can ensure more air-time for that quality American programming that stands so far above every other country's contribution to the arts and media.
Even America has the FCC. The CRTC is an important institution for Canada and is crucial to helping our unique culture survive the homogenization of corporate-funded entertainment. Sorry, that word you don't recognize is 'culture' RE. It's not just for yoghurt anymore.
Ron Erwin
6 years ago
Stump, why can't we have it all ? Are you really content with the CRTC controlling what you get to see and here ? I don't get it.
Stump
6 years ago
The CRTC can't really control what I see and hear anymore, because and Colin pointed out:
"Current technology allows anyone to gather news, music, tv programs from almost anywhere in the world."
So, the CRTC's regulations shouldn't be an impediment to a resourceful media consumer, therefore, their rules and regulations should be no impediment to you whatsoever.
Ron Erwin
6 years ago
Stump, then why do they exist ? Why are we spending money keeping them going. We all know they are redundant.
But they still have a negative influence.
Are you aware of satellite radio ? We don't here what they here in the US. I don't give a damn about Howard Stern, but the CRTC censored him as being not suitable for Canadian values.
Skip Tracer
6 years ago
All you have to do is listen to local commercial radio to see how hopeless the fight is. If you give them CanCon regulations they will only play Canadian music that conforms to international/US standard mediocrity anyway.
The only things saving us from music being totally reduced to a nostalgia fueled consumer-impulse trigger (in the form of rote, neutered pop songs endlessly repackaged and used to shill for everything under the sun) are the CBC, Co-op and the university stations. Support them.
Stump
6 years ago
Ron:
I don't think the CRTC is redundant. You do. I don't think they have a (wholly) negative influence. You do.
Ron Erwin
6 years ago
Stump, I don't get your opinion on this. Obviously you like being bullied by the government. Or you simply want to be contrary to me, that's probably it, because you are not being very logical about this.
And Skip Tracer, I would toast the CBC.
Stump
6 years ago
My opinion is that the CRTC despite its faults is an important tool in preserving and expanding Canadian voices in the media. Further, that role is crucial to our country's cultural sovereignity. Therefore, I have no desire to see it eliminated. Why is that illogical?
Why is disagreeing with you illogical? Fruitless perhaps....
Skip Tracer
6 years ago
I'm sure you would. Judging from what you write here you are obviously resistant to a world full of difference, real risk and abundance. Your view of broadcasting is not supported by the Economist magazine. They noted the effects of the free market on broadcasting and came to the conclusion that, for example, the BBC's programming diversity could and would never be matched by the private sector. You're no doubt aware that no private company has ever suggested they'd like to launch a broadly accessable, wildly diverse broacasting entity of any kind on the scale of the CBC.
Ron Erwin
6 years ago
Skip Tracer, I don't agree that the CBC can match the private satellite and internet choices we might get by any means.
If you have evidence that this land of a thousand channels is inferior to the CBC I would like to hear it.
village
6 years ago
The evidence , dear Watson , is in the content*
Ron Erwin
6 years ago
What ? The CBC has more to offer than their entire competition ?
You must be looking at life through rose coloured glasses.
I am amazed at what you all will put up with for the sake of being stupid.
Skip Tracer
6 years ago
Not surprisingly, you missed my main point: "broadly accessable" means one stop shopping for all Canadians regardless of ability to spare time and expense for other options. And, like television, this bold new universe consists only of heavily marketed, niche programming. Nobody does a cohesive, comprehensive mix like the CBC, BBC etc.
allan
6 years ago
Ron Erwin, please stop acting as though you really are that stupid.
The CRTC has the clout to force gaint telecommunications firms to toe the line. Now, perhaps you are a stock holder in such a company and think it's fine and dandy that it can abuse customers without repercussion while taking their money.
I'm happy I can phone or e-mail the CRTC and get almost immediate results after being told to pound salt by the company.
The CRTC has managed to keep a lot of U.S. media trash off Canadian airwaves. That, to me, is great.
If you want to hear or see it you can still access it in various ways, including moving out of Canada permanently, or looking for its webbased programming.
Ron, for you my friend, I'd recommend the former.
Ron Erwin
6 years ago
Well, I now have confirmation that Canadians are truly a hopeless lot of sheep being led to slaughter by the thought control police. 1984 took a lot longer to come than I thought.
How utterly sad. Now I know why I want this country to self destruct.
Skip Tracer
6 years ago
Ron "Yawn" Erwin fails to understand that the truest expressions of thought control can be found in the strategies of commercial radio stations.
Wanna go on this Ronnie boy? I'm cream you on this subject.
Skip Tracer
6 years ago
That should read "going to" cream you! ;-)
Ron Erwin
6 years ago
Skip, are you familiar with the Broadcast Act ?
This act essentially says that you cannot have a biased position when broadcasting.
This means that the broadcaster must balance a conservative position with a liberal position.
Boring.
In the USA you can actually position yourself wherever you want.
There is actually Republican radio broadcasts.
In Seattle we have KVI which is a conservative station and KIRO which is a liberal station.
I listen to both and it's interesting to hear the same story told in two entirely different ways.
The US also has a no call list and your phone number is transferable between telephone companies.
In all ways the USA is way better at offering CHOICE to their citizens.
CHOICE is a four letter word in Canada.
Stump
6 years ago
Ron:
You're endlessly complaining about the Tyee's bias, but you're touting it as a good thing now. Why the contradiction?
Ron Erwin
6 years ago
Stump, I have never complained about the liberal bias The Tyee has. I appreciate it.
Skip Tracer
6 years ago
Provided you have the cash.
Evidently devoid of a grammar component.
Wow. Two whole choices. That's less than we have to choose from in our upcoming election. And of course, referring to a relatively healthy "Blue State" media situation (same with SF, NYC and any other liberal arts friendly zone) I'm sure you appreciate the paucity of media choice in the "Red States".
Holy Mother of God. Are you on crack?
Skip Tracer
6 years ago
Maybe you can tell us all which entity the US has created for its citizens (or by its citizens) which offers as broad a range of easily accessable programming as the CBC.
Ron Erwin
6 years ago
A CBC station, have you seen one ? Carries a combination of major US popular television programs, sports, news, indigenous. It's nothing special.
This is all achieved by PBS,BBC,CNN,FOX,CBS,ABC,NBC,NRO,CBC,DIRECT TV in a harmonious combination of influences that is not matched in Canada.
It's all easily accessible to Americans.
Now we all know, that if you put your mind to it you can read , hear or see anything, but why do we need to go through the hoops ?
I don't get it.
Skip Tracer
6 years ago
Thanks for making my point. You list the BBC, CBC and PBS. Without them, the gamut is severely reduced.
Skip Tracer
6 years ago
And another thing or two!
The BBC and CBC exist as a result of govt. support and regulation (the CBC being, in effect, a CanCon creation of a sort) And your Republican Neo-Con buddies have had the knives out for PBS since Nixon's day. So that leaves, basically, what? You want to talk about propaganda and mind control? Fox News and CNN. Condescending third rate newscasts? Wherever Dan Rather can be found. Sorry Ron. The quality, refelective programming is the result of entities like the CBC, BBC & PBS standing against the current of the lowest common denominator.
Skip Tracer
6 years ago
Just to push it further:
Ron, do you think PBS would aid in producing or even dare to broadcast a modern, Iraq-focused equivalent of the excelent Vietnam documentary series "The 10,000 Day War" in the current climate? Obviously no purely commercial entity would.
Ron Erwin
6 years ago
Skip Tracer
I will admit that even the CBC does broadcast stuff that even I like.
I saw a show on the something 'Eye' ( passionate I think ) named Medicare- Shmedicare.
I won't bore you with the details, but basically it exposed a multitude of levels of healthcare we are living with whether we like it or not.
As well, because of the Christmas break I have enjoyed viewing CBC Newsworld during the daytime.
Have you noticed Don Newman ( I respectfully hope I got his name spelled right )
Has been sucking up to The Conservatives.
I guess he has to, but it sure is ENTERTAING me.
Thank You CBC
Skip Tracer
6 years ago
"Passionate Eye" is the name. And rembember that Andrew Coyne is a regular commentator on The National.
I have a family member who was all for the Reform Party some years ago. His dial was always tuned to CBC.
It would be interesting to know if Harper would dare to tinker with cultural policy right out of the gate if he (gasp!) formed a government!
Anyway, nice chatting. Happy New Year! May the Regulatory, Govt. Funded Gods ensure your viewing and listening days are rich and varied! ;-)
Stump
6 years ago
Ron:
Direct TV is not a network, it's a delivery system.
"why do we need to go through the hoops?
I don't get it."
I thought you neo-cons were of the opinion that we don't value that which we don't have to work for? Or does that only apply to the poor?
Seems you have a double standard staring you in the face. Oh dear.
Ron Erwin
6 years ago
I sit in amazement at how so many of you feel the need to be regulated. Are you afraid of yourselves ? or do you feel such a sense of superiority that although you are smart enough to separate the wheat from the shaft, but of course the average Canadian is too stupid, and may be negatively influenced by too much choice ?
I hope you are happy in your CRTC designed media world.
Skip Tracer
6 years ago
Lemmee get this straight: Ron Erwin thoroughly hoists himself aloft on the old petard and (sort of) sees the light...then he goes back to leading with his chin. What gives? Expired meds?
incredulous
6 years ago
All, it is pointless to talk about quality content since such judgments are based on subjective determinants and are largely individual.
There may be low-brow humour, senseless soap operas that cater to the lowest common denominator, vaccuous talking heads named Bambi mispronouncing foreign capitals read off a teleprompter and lesbian, dwarf, pregnant nuns throwing chairs at trailer-trash anarcho-syndicalist survivalists on Springer - and they may all originate from the USA - but you know what, that doesn't make their content inherently worse than Canadian content. If people want to watch drivel - that's their right, just as you may want to watch another insipid home renovation show. So - everyone please just stop using absolute value-judgment terms like "good content" and "bad content" - they are useless and reduce this discussion to a "you suck, no YOU suck" pissing contest.
Instead, let's focus on the real issue - how can the CRTC protect Canadian culture - or stymie the inadvertant encroachment by American content/culture? Better yet, let's ask if this is in fact necessary.
If you believe that Canadian cultural products/content/media requires this support in order to survive, then we part ways. When it comes to music, I honestly believe that artists like the Barenaked Ladies, Nelly Furtado, Shania Twain, Rush, et al. would not become extinct if there was no CRTC - they are global and enjoy huge commercial success - especially in the USA. They are bigger than Canada - they're global. So, let's take music out of the equation.
Let's talk about TV instead, because unlike Canadian music, Canadian TV is not popularly-oriented and not global. . . what I mean is, rather than the story, characters, acting, writing, et al. appealing to the viewership, giving them what they want and compelling them to watch, Canadian TV seems to have "watch this because it's Canadian" written all over it. I live here - I don't need my programming to bang me over the head in every scene reminding me of it - just get on with the drama, comedy or story please. Canadian TV doesn't speak to me becaus first and foremost it says, "Hey - I'm Canadian" - it doesn't make me want to watch it - except for Trailer Park Boys - which is friggin' brilliant - but it's as coarse, low-brow and vulgar as much of the American content that people like Allan, Stump and Skip Tracer bask but probably secretly watch and enjoy. Other Canadian shows which are successfull all focus on the fundamentals and often do well in other markets precisely because they speak to everyone.
Funnily enough, American movies tend to do very well internationally - of course they have more marketing muscle - but also understand that Bollywood exports successfully and regularly beats US imported content, and witness that fact that a handful of Korean television dramas dominate the ratings in China, Hong Kong, Taiwan and even Japan - what's up with that?
So, getting back on track - you could make the observation that content people want to watch usually correlates with cross-cultural/international demand - they focus on the story, characters, et al. which are by-and-large - universal, or at least more culturally accessible.
The bulk of Canadian content does not "show-well" in other markets(with a few exceptions) because they have been shielded and must follow rules by a heretofore virtual national monopoly, the CBC, which is a government-owned entity. It is not the responsibility of the government to retard the freedom, growth and breadth of Canadian content in the name of cultural preservation - rather it should get out of the way and allow enduring and compelling content made by Canadians made to be viewed by the world - and not just by Canadians. There's a difference. We should not be afraid to compete and export our cultural output to others - I mean, people around the world need to understand what happens in Dog River, dude.
Skip Tracer
6 years ago
You can "believe" all you want but you can ask the artists themselves, do some background research and find that CanCon regs were essential to building the Canadian music industry in the first place. I hate Canadian pop music but it was originally given a fighting chance by CanCon. Thank God we've made our contribution to mediocre, passionless, pop music that Starbucks can sell with their shitty coffee.
The CBC also keeps alive truly contemporay music that is the great great offspring of the classical tradition. You know, the stuff everybody ignores until decades after the artists are dead when they finally get its importance and appreciate it.
As for TV I'd like to ask you to compare Da Vinci's Inquest with, say, CSI. Which is better written, more true to life, more idiosyncratic and involving?
You know what the last great film made in BC was? McCabe & Mrs. Miller in 1971. An Altman film that was poetic, atmospheric and drew on the venal realites of frontier culture that still define this region. It needed to be made by an American. So you can see I'm not big on alot of Canadian productions ("On the Corner" being a notable exception. Local and universal. Perfectly realized.)
I do understand the reality of commercial pressure and if you think the govt can just get out of the way and great things will happen...well...NOT!
Also, WE are the government. Don't forget that. Maybe the CRTC needs a rethink. Maybe CanCon needs it. Sure. But we need to keep a seive for the baby as we drain the bathwater.
Stump
6 years ago
incredulous:
I don't trash American programming more than any other countries' just to clear up that misconception. The USA does television better than anyone. And I agree that the Canadian superstars would make it regardless. However, some CRTC rules, like ensuring there's a certain percentage of Canadians working on projects just makes good business sense to my mind, otherwise we're just exporting jobs in much the same way we buy ferries from Germany. I think that rules that regulate the themes and settings of programming are too parochial, but making sure we have a thriving media industry does help our country's culture.
incredulous
6 years ago
Skip Tracer - I understand where you're coming from but I don't agree. See, I don't really understand how or why the state in Canada has morphed into our cultural champion, or why its continued control of our media is seen as so critical. It's really akin to the ridiculous efforts made the French to ban the use of "englishisms" like "le weekend". Change happens, foreign cultural products become trendy - no explaining it. That the government MUST be around or else good things in the arts/media will not happen is impossible to prove - rather I think that the body of evidence swings the other way.
I'm not going to argue your preferences for Da Vinci's Inquest vs. CSI - again - that's personal. But I will say that we are NOT government. We elect people to specific positions within the legislature of the government to make laws, but the vast majority of the government is composed of civil servants who are unelected, likley unaccountable(especially in this regime) and - though they may mean well - often do not have the welfare of the Canadian viewing/listening/ media public firmly in mind - or else why did we have such a long CBC lock-out? Hey, maybe that WAS for the benefit of the Canadian viewing public after all. . .
incredulous
6 years ago
Stump - glad to hear that you're an equal-opportunity TV-trasher. Dunno if I agree with your last statement that mandating x% of certain jobs are given to Canadians is good business though.
Good business is doing something in the most efficient and productive way possible - which often runs counter to the ideas of job protectionism. It seems in Canada that most folks are focused on protecting job opportunities rather than creating them - especially in BC.
This is a losing proposition and a dangerous one. There are 2 billion+ Chinese and Indians ready to do your job for a fraction of your salary. There are Americans who will do your same job but at a much more competitive and produtive rate than you - heck, just go to Alberta and you'll find more motivated workers than what you find here in BC who don't have to pay $500K for a friggin shoebox to live in. Scared? You better be if you aren't prepared and ready to compete.
The old way of just closing your eyes and going on strike or drafting protectionist laws doesn't work and everyone, I mean EVERYONE needs to change their thinking. At the end of the day it's not hopeless - remember that these 2 billion Chinese and Indians will also be more rabid consumers so it'll all work out if people in high-risk jobs get retrained. And here's where the government's money would be VERY well-spent - retraining workers with new skills in less-outsourceable industries to allow them to move-up the income chain and keep working.
Maybe the money we spend propping-up the CRTC would better-spent ear-marked training, educating and turning-out more and higher-quality Canadian writers, directors, actors and artists who would create more and better content, thereby generating more job opportunities in their respective industries rather than restricting artistic and broadcasting freedom.
Stump
6 years ago
Gee, incredulous, I gotta tell ya, if you think 2 billion more rabid consumers is the answer to anything you might want to rethink your p.o.v.
Next you're going to tell me those cost-savings acheived by outsourcing will be passed on to the consumer, but I don't need a double helping of wishful thinking know what I mean?
Skip Tracer
6 years ago
Can I suggest you research the history of the Canada Council and CanCon in the early days so that you have a better grasp of the subject before posting?
Look, the business mind is still largely stuck in the 19th Century, particularly in BC. Its all short term profit taking. Rare is the businessman that thinks to support the arts unless the govt finds a way so that it benefits him. Thats pure fact. That is acheived in many ways and scores of studies have shown the positive impact the arts have on an economic level. Yet still govt support is necessary.
I know. I do extensive work with corporations and with arts groups. No govt. No arts. Its that simple because the arts aren't even on the radar of business here.
I don't care where the support comes from but I know that right now the predominant mainstream interest remains with "bread and circuses". In fact, it will always be so. I mean, who would have thought that in 2005, millions of North Americans would still believe in literal creationism?
True, but entirely indicative of the difference between purely market driven "art" and that which has freer rein. And DaVinci's *is* finding foreign markets now.
I'm sort of with you here but I think we should be grateful that the civil service exists because it is a buffer zone to protect us from sharp ideological turns.
BTW I'd like to second the Conservative party's call to investigate why the CBC demanded special exemption from whistleblower legislation. And the Canadian publishing industry should take a hit too.
Skip Tracer
6 years ago
An industrial training model doesn't create art. It creates product. That's why we have a Ministry for Industry. Right now, these things are easily confused...yet sometimes genuinely and usefully melded. Emily Carr is now turning out commercial designers. VFS and other private training institutes (aided by govt. policy BTW) are turning out commercial filmmakers and animators. Real art is not created this way. This is about marketing and careering.
incredulous
6 years ago
That's basically what happens Stump. Walmart - as insidious as it may be - is soley responsbile for the holding national inflation in the USA by many basis points. Dell has lowered average selling prices(ASP's) for computers, peripherals and electronics while achieving higher-than-industry average profits. Toyota is almost single-handedly commercializing the hybrid car - and making money doing it while lowering unit prices. That's the funny thing about mass production is that the economics get better the more you make something and a capitalist system generally keeps companies accountable to lowering prices or risk losing market share.
Also, what's wrong with more consumers coming on-stream in India and China? Why deny these people the same consumer privileges and birthright that you and your parents enjoyed? Remember that Canadians are among the biggest polluters on the planet despite our noble remonstrations and international hectoring and that you on a monthly basis - despite your good intentions - generate more garbage, waste and use more power than the average Chinese or Indian person does in many months.
Instead of selling these new consumers crappy products in wasteful packaging, let's sell them advanced and clean power technology, services, and cultural products. Is that such a bad thing? Keeps us employed and keep the customer happy with less pollution than selling wood, minerals and fish.
incredulous
6 years ago
Skip,
I agree with you - the original discussion focsued on content - so in my opinion art is in a different category. I would say that art and television are mutually exclusive so outside the field of discussion, though I do appreciate your attempt at lumping them together to attack my assertions ;)
I'm talking about jobs and the creation of media content, so the fact that VFS and Emily Carr are turning out graphics designers, directors, et al. is a good thing in that light. Let's have more or these people graduate and create content - these are the types of jobs, by the way, that are more difficult to get outsourced. Heck, we're the outsourcing destination for Hollywood in this regard. But then I guess it's only okay when WE do it to OTHER people, right?
The future of arts funding in Canada is a distinct and different discussion - even Da Vinci's Quest - as beloved it is by you and Stump(mysertiously so) would not likely qualify as "art"
Your humble servant, I remain,
Incredulous
incredulous
6 years ago
Sorry, forgot to address this old chestnut. While I agree with the last part "in BC" - business is not as Dickensian as you find in other parts of the world.
In fact, one could credibly argue that in the post-internet tech-driven world - in which I work - the concept of the start-up has overturned the whole marxist concept of who controls the means of production and distribution. In an enterprise where everyone is an "owner" there is a greater sense of participation in the exercise of - here it comes - wealth creation - and people work harder, are more demanding on the company and share in both the good and bad fortune of the company.
But getting back to the funding of the arts issue - not funding the creation of content for media (of which the arts is a small sub-group) - why is it that in the USA the primary patrons of every museum, symphony, major gallery, art school, etc. is supported virtually 100% by wealthy - gulp - businesspersons? Look at the patrons in the USA and you will see that private donations from individuals and foundations run by wealthy persons often dominate government donations.
Why can they do it in the USA and yet we can't? Is it because our rich people are stingier or care less about funding the arts? Maybe not in Toronto - where mutual-fund billionaire Michael Lee-Chin has put-up $100M for the new ROM extension on Bloor street - and certainly not in New York, San Francisco, Chicago, et al.
Maybe we just need more rich people in BC so they can fund the arts properly - that means more business - and not just grow-ops. And don't give me the line about rich people funding these types of projects for ego only - c'mon, that's always been the case. Think about the artist-patron system for the past few centuries - and tell me that the Renaissance would've happened without all the wealthy people wanting to live forever in oils or in sculpture. Like you said, doesn't matter where it comes from - sadly the lumpenproletariat cares little for art - maybe you should stop cavassing corporations and start playing golf at Point Grey, hmm?
I remain,
Incredulous
Skip Tracer
6 years ago
Philip Glass, when he lectured last year at UBC, pointed this out. However, though there is a greater "tradition" of philanthropy in the US the major museums and galleries etc. are a safe bet for this support and so they get it...and the business people get the cachet and tax relief etc. That's great. But at the development level there is not anywhere near the interest from big donors so its a pretty hard scrabble existence for those creating new or challenging work. Glass felt that Canada was closer to getting the balance right whereas, say, Holland was ridiculously generous to some really mediocre art!
The model of what a multi-millionare looks like in BC is still Jimmy Pattison, a car dealer who aquired other businesses and was ruthless in his dealings and not at all interested (as far as I know) in art.
I'd like to think that model will change. Yet unlike in San Fransisco, there isn't, so far, a rush of young dotcom dollars going into philanthropy here.
Correct me if I'm wrong. I just don't see a wave of interesting young tech-savvy entrepreneurs doing anything more than going to hip clubs and hitting the latest cool "room" to chow on some fused appy.
We have plenty of rich people parking their money here...but its largely in real estate development.
Stump
6 years ago
"Also, what's wrong with more consumers coming on-stream in India and China? Why deny these people the same consumer privileges....
Instead of selling these new consumers crappy products in wasteful packaging, let's sell them advanced and clean power technology, services, and cultural products."
I agree whole-heartedly with your second statement, but have difficulty reconciling that with the first.
Stump
6 years ago
And, relying on the wealthy for patronage may be fine for works of art and grand edifices, but we're discussing the mainstream media, which is a whole other ball of wax.
incredulous
6 years ago
Skip Tracer,
Maybe the reason why the tradition is greater in the USA is because people understand that if they don't donate money the state will not step-up - use it or lose it...or maybe they're just better at the marketing side of funding the arts. To echo your sentiment and paraphrase Malcolm X - "by any means possible" - wow, maybe we could actually learn something from the Americans. . .
Stump
6 years ago
Or maybe rich people dig a good tax break.
Stump
6 years ago
"art and television are mutually exclusive "
Now you're confusing content with delivery system.
"In fact, one could credibly argue that in the post-internet tech-driven world - in which I work - the concept of the start-up has overturned the whole marxist concept of who controls the means of production and distribution."
I'd like to hear your credible argument for that. Cuz I'm a little... incredulous.
incredulous
6 years ago
Sure - but who doesn't?
incredulous
6 years ago
OK - high-tech start-ups reserve usually 10%-30% of their equity to provide to their employees in the form of options - otherwise known as an ESOP (Employee Stock Option Pool). These options can be exercised for shares which can then be sold on a stock exchange if the company is publicly-traded, ie. has gone IPO, or can be exchanged for cash or the shares of another publicly-traded company if the start-up is acquired by a larger company - which frequently happens.
What this means is that the employees - typically EVERY employee from the administrative assistant all the way to the CEO - are owners of the company and have a vested interest and stake in its success. Of course, only a small percentage of start-ups ever reach a liquidity event, ie. IPO or acquisition, but the percentage is not as small as you might think - especially in places like Silicon Valley.
Options - once earned or vested - do not disappear if the employee leaves or is laid-off as long as they have worked long enough in the company - typically employees vest 25% of their options each year over a four year period.
What this means is that employees participate in the success of the enterprise (whether they stay or leave) - and that the squeeze put on the prole by the evil factory owner/bourgeoisie in search of profits is a non-issue... of course, there can be lay-offs, but no system is perfect, and this is usually a sign that the start-up is not doing that well.
Conditions that allow for the exploitation of the worker exist only in a climate of labour commoditization. Anyone can stand on an assembly-line and tighten a nut and if you're sick, old or too expensive, no problem, anyone else can take your place with minimal disruption.
The raison-d'etre of a high-tech start-up is to create a company that leapfrogs, disrupts (sometimes massively) or changes the rules of business to the extent that it can defeat entrenched competitors or change the rules of the game such that it can create, sustain and extend competitive advantage. Central to all high-tech start-ups is a very real sense of urgency and competition - need to do it fast and do it better than the other guy. As such, the employees are CRITICAL - and success cannot be achieved without the right employees. This, in turn, translates into employees being highly-valued - and viola - compensated and incented to succeed. And what better incentive than to participate in the potential ultimate value of the company.
Employee empowerment through ownership - no alienation from the fruits of ones labour - and workers of the world getting wealthy by owning the means of production and distribution rather than being exploited by it.
That's about as clear as I can put it - hope my argument doesn't stump you. Er- sorry - one bad pun deserves another.
I remain,
Incredulous
PS. We need more of this wealth creation rather than the Jimmy Pattison model so Skip Tracer can raise more arts funding 8)
Stump
6 years ago
"Anyone can stand on an assembly-line and tighten a nut and if you're sick, old or too expensive, no problem, anyone else can take your place with minimal disruption. "
I hate to burst another Internet bubble, but it turns out pretty much anybody with some math and computer training can code too, if the outsourcing trend is any indication. Further, the companies doing IPO's is a very narrow segment of the Internet. Hardly enough to change the way we do business so far it seems.
Also, I may be wrong, but isn't the "workers of the world getty wealthy by owning the means of production" pretty much a validation of Marx rather than a repudiation?
incredulous
6 years ago
Sure, and anyone with a piano can play a tune. . . and who says that coding is the main differentiator in a high-tech company? Also, why do you keep on talking about the internet eclusively?!?! I specifically wrote "high-tech start-up". This includes semiconductors, optical networking, enterprise software, networking, nanotechnology, et al. Why is it that when you hear "high-tech start-up" you automatically assume dot.com or internet start-up - stop it, you're better than that - or at least I thought you were. . .
Companies like RIM, Microsoft, Motorola(cellphone inventors), Apple, IBM, Intel, Lucent, HP, Sony, Samsung, etc. All of these global multinationals started-out as start-ups founded by entrepreneurs - why limit your discourse to internet-only companies - for that matter. . .
Umm. . . Google, eBay, Amazon, Yahoo, Netscape, etc. . .yeah, NONE of these internet companies that IPO'ed changed the way we do business. . .dude, go to bed - it's late and you need your sleep. . . you'll be more cogent tomorrow.
One last thing - I never said "repudiated" Marx - I said "overturned". . .as in what was on the bottom is now on top referring to the bourgeoisie vs. proletariat relationship.
I remain,
Incredulous
Stump
6 years ago
Well, I would argue that the stock market (one of the major underpinnings of the capitalist system) hasn't really changed much even with IPO-mania. The basic system is still much the same. And, big-thinking entrepeneurs, from Ford and Carnegie to Gates and Jobs have always been the part and parcel of that system to make it work. Revolutions in technology have always been catalysts for change, so I suppose 'high-tech' start-ups can lay claim to that function, but it's not a new phenomenon.
"Repudiated" vs "overturned"... I understand the distinction now. My error. I don't see a huge body of evidence to support your theory however. Maybe I need to spend some time in Silicon Valley.
Stump
6 years ago
Although I'm not a fan-boy, "Da Vinci's Inquest" is a far better crime drama than gimmicky tripe like "CSI - Miami or Las Vegas". I keep wondering how far they can take the franchise... CSI - Des Moines?
There's no way you can say television is incapable of art. If I go to the symphony to listen to a Mozart composition, hear it on a CD, or turn on a classical concert on PBS, the content remains 'art'. A difference in the mediation of the content doesn't (necessarily) remove the beauty and accomplishment of a work of art.
Stump
6 years ago
I need Coyote as my 'second' in this duel to define new school Marxism!
Skip Tracer
6 years ago
There's no way you can say television is incapable of art. If I go to the symphony to listen to a Mozart composition, hear it on a CD, or turn on a classical concert on PBS, the content remains 'art'. A difference in the mediation of the content doesn't (necessarily) remove the beauty and accomplishment of a work of art.
Thanks. That was exactly my point
(but I didn't get around to such a perfect articulation of it as that!)
The word "content provider" has come to be a neutered, catch-all term that abstracts the true and variable nature of what we create. It is often seen as the filler between ads by many.
Stump
6 years ago
"It is often seen as the filler between ads by many."
That's more than mere viewpoint. It's reality. Just look at the $$ per minute spent on ads vs programming.
Also worth 'overturning' the common wisdom that tv viewers are the consumers of the product.
What most people forget is that the audience is the product. The broadcaster is the supplier. The advertiser is the customer.
incredulous
6 years ago
Good point
This is also a good point. Though I would claim that any catch-all term that abstracts necessarily neuters - but the emphasis is appreciated.
Yeah, where is Coyote anyway? I see him posting on the string about the Squamish pulpmill closing - but I have nothing to add to that story. . . Coyote is the reason why I started posting. He's a judgmental bully who descends into ad hominem attacks to hide his lack of substantive insights. Also, like most zealots - he employs hermetically-referential arguments, eg. it says so in Kapital, so QED. . . I need to - struggle - against him.
Thanks for playing guys - it's been fun.
I remain,
Incredulous
Skip Tracer
6 years ago
I don't recall growing a penis in the last little while.
I remain,
An enemy of the patriarchy
incredulous
6 years ago
Sorry Skip - meant "guys" in the non-gender specific sense. . .