Canadian Television Channels
A person challenged me on Fox News' assertion that their programming was not allowed on Canadian TV. I did a simple Yahoo search and what did I find?:
The term "Canadianization" is used by some Europeans as a metonym for their fear of the audience fragmentation new satellite technologies would bring to their orderly systems of state supported public service broadcasting. ----- see link above.
Canadians had a cornucopia of specialty channels on cable, albeit the mix was controlled by the CRTC (Canadian Radio and Television Commission).
It appears with only a two minute search that Canada CTV and CBC News have a state-controlled monopoly similar to the four channels exclusively available in Britain up to the 90's.
Please, a variety of replies from Canada to enlighten and tell The Truth.
posted by Chief RZ @ 29.1.06
15 Comments:
CTV is a private broadcasting corporation, and the CBC is only partially state owned, and it certainly doesn't have a monopoly on anything... And that's the truth.
Thank you. This will begin my further investigations of this question.
Let me ask you some more. Do you now, or could you receive the Fox News Channel on cable? What channels are available on CTV? The CBC partially state owned is an interesting answer. By state, do you mean the Canadian federal government? Do they hold power the decisions for all the provinces there? I look forward to getting more facts and Truth out of this first question of which anyone has offered any personal factual information.
Fox News. Good grief! It took me another two minutes to retrieve what I was looking for:
The CRTC also regulates which channels broadcast distributors must or may offer. Per the Broadcasting Act (at 3.(1)(t)(i)) the commission also gives priority to Canadian signals—many non-Canadian channels which compete with Canadian channels are thus not approved for distribution in Canada. The CRTC argues that allowing free trade in television stations would overwhelm the smaller Canadian market, preventing it from upholding its responsibility to foster a national conversation. Some people, however, consider this tantamount to censorship.
and
Fox News: Until 2004, the CRTC's apparent reluctance to grant a digital licence to Fox News under the same policy which made it difficult for RAI to enter the country - same-genre competition from foreign services - had angered many conservative Canadians, who believed the network was deliberately being kept out due to its perceived conservative bias, particularly given the long-standing availability of services such as CNN and BBC World in Canada. On November 18, 2004, however, the CRTC approved an application by Fox News to offer its services to Canadians. Fox commenced broadcasting in Canada shortly thereafter.
So, what Fox News reported was The Truth in 2004.
the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Radio-television_and_Telecommunications_Commission
Why "certain people" dance around the subject is beyond me, but from my short time on this blog and from what I have heard about Dan Rather's falsified "documents" and thesmokinggun.com (see below on Oprah), I don't see how our liberals in the USA will be able to fool people any longer, except with emotions.
American's don't understand that Canada has had to put in a lot of effort to remain, culturally, Canada.
The CRTC is accused of censorship, but its primary responsibility in the case of Fox News was to consider the effect of yet another American News channel on the Canadian airways. It's not that we want to censor out American News. It's that we're Canadian! And we have the right to forge our own identity and culture however we choose. We live above the most powerful nation on Earth, and with only 30 million people, would not be able to protect ourselves from the US's cultural influence were it not for this "censorship".
Too bad so sad I guess.
We are Canadian.
Mercuda--Thanks for the adult reply. I can talk with you logically.
I agree that Canada is a smaller, independent country that should protects its heritage and history. The Hungarians wanted to do that also from 1945 until 1990.
I read about the "American invasion of movies" in the 80's. I do not want the hollywood type movies to influence Canada.
My point was that people, and I have read some who wanted a different point of view, wanted to make their own choices on news.
As you can see from this blog entry, I don't jump to conclusions, but take my time (four minutes) to find out facts!
When I visited Canada, I did see self-reliant people and even now wonder, "what happened"?
Please, were you the person who I asked about this question:
Can 1-2-or 3 people decide to create a doctor's office and offer services to only those who pay cash?
If Canada feels so strongly about protecting its culture, perhaps it could reciprocate and consider the feelings of Americans and ban the export of Celine Dion, William Shatner, Jim Carrey, etc. Why is it fair for Canadians to economically exploit America's culture, but not the other way round?
It's not as if your talent is bad because you export tons of it. You have cheaper locations that you promote to US companies to use in Vancouver. Why not simply compete? That's the best way to keep your culture alive, by healthy competition.
And of course, Canadians often smuggle their dish from America so they can get around the ban.
If Canada feels so strongly about protecting its culture, perhaps it could reciprocate and consider the feelings of Americans and ban the export of Celine Dion, William Shatner, Jim Carrey, etc. Why is it fair for Canadians to economically exploit America's culture, but not the other way round?
It's not as if your talent is bad because you export tons of it. You have cheaper locations that you promote to US companies to use in Vancouver. Why not simply compete? That's the best way to keep your culture alive, by healthy competition.
And of course, Canadians often smuggle their dish from America so they can get around the ban.
"Why not just compete? Thats the best way to keep your culture alive...."
Yeah that seems like a great idea. That way Canadian Networks can compete with American Networks to make the next filthiest reality television show, and forge the next wannabe singing sensation.
What are we talking about when we say "healthy competition"? Correct me if I am wrong, but going into a cage with a 1000 lb gorilla for a wrestling match isn't exactly "healthy competition".
To answer your question Chief RZ... No.
"Why is it fair for Canadians to economically exploit America's culture, but not the other way round?"
I'm not sure this question makes much sense. How do Canadians exploit American culture? We don't. As for competing, Wiarton Willie (thanks for the early spring btw) is right. We can't!
mercuda--
Thanks for the answer. It does appear that the present Canada government was, in fact, a socialist country. I can not believe that a few people can't offer their services in exchange for cash, check or money order. In the US, it is allowed. We have the free choice to go to a more public--'teaching hospital'--heavily subsidized by federal and state money; a more responsibe 'for profit' hospital that accepts a mix of patients; or a purely profit hospital that requires payment (and accepts insurance).
I don't agree with exploitation by force, but there are influences all around, especially with the WWW. China is trying very hard to keep its people behind their 'bamboo curtain', but someday, they too will overthrow their communist oppressors.
Except for the fact that China is ruled by a party calling itself "The Communist Party", I am curious as to how China is in any way communist.
When it comes to health care, you speak of "free choice" as if everyone has the best options available to them. Even Canadians know this isn't the case. You must be able to afford health insurance in the U.S., and we know that many cannot. In any case where you do not have health insurance, you risk bearing catastrophic costs in case of major or sometimes even minor illness.
Any private profit gained from sick people is a symptom of the disease of capitalism. And you would think that the right-wing moralists would be the first to see this, but these very moralists destroy their own philosophy through their advocation of free market capitalism.
Oh, China is not only a communist country, but also enslaves its people. The Truth: From around 1993-98 I had a friend who was from (quanjo? sp) province in China. She was here on an ESL program with university. She was poor, but we exchanged her understanding of SAS statistics interpretations for my teaching her "American English" including some slang and common usage. She did relate to me some of the opressive actions by China and the fear people have for that government.
Everyone has all options. No one in the USA is prohibited from taking out any health insurance, nor paying cash for services! Many? Really? Many people choose not to take out health insurance so that they will have their money, and the power to find the best care. I paid for my own insurance when I started teaching. It amounted to about 7% of my net income per month. Even you must agree that is not too much. Of course, I would have health, auto, home, and other types of insurance. It is affordable, u n l e s s --- a person has decided to engage in risky behaviors. Then the premium does increase, but that is that person's own decision. You and I should not have to cover for that person's choices. He or she is and was free to take out insurance before the began to engage in risky behaviors like unprotected sex, illegal intravenious drug use, or merely sky diving.
As far as profit is concerned, that is that person's pay, or renumeration for years of education. A payback so to speak. It is not a disease, but a natural result of hard work. Sort of like building a house. Would you or some of your friends like to go to school 4 years after high school, then 4 more years of medical school, then 2 years of residency, then work for no money? Of course not! That person needs to recoup their invested time and money. A charge for services rendered is expected and understood by most rational thinking people who also work. The right-wind moralists is your first use of what I might call "name calling", which is not too productive in a discussion. I may have used the term "liberal" already, so we are probably even. I do support and will fight for freedom, including the freedom to choose whatever vocation I might be happy with. Pursuit of happiness is in one of our documents.
Allowing in US broadcast content does not mean that you would not be able to have public TV stations. PBS does very well in the US market as does BBC America. But it would mean your commercial channels would have to compete.
How could Canada compete? Hmmmm, let's again review:
US content providers often film in Vancouver or Toronto...why is that? OH BECAUSE YOU ARE MORE COMPETITIVE!
Canadian talent does not fail in the US market, see William Shatner Celine Dion, and a ton of other people.
So, your talent is good, your location and rates are good....uhh, what's the problem?
The problem is that you'd like to keep a nice little closed market for yourselves and also have the luxury of selling into the US market. Is this any different from soft timber or any other protectionist ploy?
Actually,
Issues related to both softwood lumber and the beef industry had been transferred to an international third party mediator. Maybe you'd hate to find out the outcome of this process was in favor of Canada's position? What has the US done about it since then? Nothing.
Nice try though.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Post a Comment
<< Home