Our public (and private) intellectuals spend an incredible amount of time debating and considering and investigating things emerging out of that foreign content and of which we have no control or say in. Of our own issues? Almost nothing: 5%, a number below "statistical significance." Of our own stories? Almost nothing. Of our own problems? Of our own issues? Of our own information? Of our own national conversation? Canada in Canadian media is statistically insignificant (and that's the technical term to represent 5% or less). Furthermore, Canadian media are not just comfortable with this -- they want to further it. That 5% seems to bother them, like a grain of sand in an oyster's mouth.
You can say, But even the American media don't produce their own shows. But they do commission them; and they are commissioned for American audience tastes. You can also conceive of American media in a more holistic sense that doesn't simply stop with American broadcasters and theatres, but includes the American companies hired to produce the American stories. We had Salter Street until Alliance Atlantis shut it down.
You can say, But it is inevitable because America is so much bigger. But there are models of much smaller markets being much better served. It also doesn't change the fact that all positive and possible functions of the media (excepting through foreign escapist entertainment) has been lost to Canada.
You can say, But it isn't the government's role to regulate this. But I have not suggested any kind of remedy -- government or otherwise -- to the fact that on almost all counts of "value" Canadian media is an abject failure, or "statistically insignificant." In fact, it is much more essential to recognize both government and private complicity in the current state of things than it is to embark on an ideological rant arguing one or the other. The fact that neither recognize this as a problem suggests how comfortable we have all become.
You can say, But the fact that Canadians are watching what they want signals that Canadians are getting exactly what they want. But surely the fact that we have no national media of our own is the perfect evidence of the complete failure of the national media. How can it be otherwise? The Canadian media has nothing to contribute, nothing that connects with the interests and needs of Canadians. Maybe the problem starts with Canadians, maybe the problem starts with the Canadian media; I'm not attributing cause here either. I am identifying a phenomenon.
You might disagree with me. You might think that Canadian media is not statistically insignificant. Well then I ask you; in what way, or in any way, can the Canadian media be said to be successful? If you are happy with statistical insignificance, there's nothing left to say. If you think the media doesn't have a role to play in a democracy, well then there's nothing left to say. If you think that Canadian issues -- particularly around our own social problems, our own political leadership vacuum, even our own innovations and contributions -- are being well served (developed, promoted, and distributed) by the Canadian media, well then I would be very interested in finding out where. It isn't on the television and it isn't on the movie screen, the two dominant mediums of our time.
Benedict Anderson once identified that nations exist only in as much as they are imagined by its inhabitants. Marshall McLuhan added that the content of media is an externalization of the human imagination. The Canadian non-presence in the Canadian media suggests an extremely limited presence of the nation in the imagination of Canadians. Recognizing the phenomenon is not a value judgement: it is in deciding what to do from this point that we make use of our values. In any event, to ignore the problem or to not recognize it as a problem is to make a value judgement.
And I am not saying anything new here: the recognition of a similar problem in book publication, radio, and theatre led to the Massey Report (1951-7). Since then, Canada has developed an internationally respected and (more importantly) nationally used book, radio, and theatre industry. Of course, these mediums have all been pushed aside by the dominant media of our time. Maybe once the internet supplants television we'll finally start a national discussion and decide to become a leader in the field. Sort of like how we're waiting with Green technology instead of becoming leaders in the inevitable future. Of course, so long as we don't have a national conversation to talk about such things, we'll never know whether we are or we aren't leaders; we'll never need to confront problems we aren't aware of. We make the choice on a daily basis. Heck, we could reach the point where we never even knew we existed in the first place.
"Quick: change the channel. It's another History Special on 'Canada'"
G
[Proofreader's note: this article was edited for spelling and typos on October 12, 2005]
Note: http://www.vivelecanada...
Resting On Our Laurels: The Problem Of The Canadian Media
Posted on Monday, October 10 at 12:03 by gorianContributed By
Topic
Article Rating
(0 votes)
Options
Stumble It!Comments
view comments in forum
Page 1 2
And the strange thing about "media" is that it isn't what happens behind the scenes that really matters -- the media functionally determines public space and public discourse. All media is out in the open -- it's right there before us. Go down to Union Station in Toronto and you'll see that this important public space has been transformed into an advertisement for Global's American programming. Nothing 'conspiratorial' about that: just the fact of the matter.
G
When we look at the histories of only two of the economic conspiracies to control the world, the Bilderbergers and the Trilaterals, it becomes quite clear that their main power is built on propaganda, which means media control, plus, of course the control of money creation, carefully hidden from the public.
It is their ongoing, long term plan to brainwash and mislead the public into believing the unbelievable and submit themselves to control and mental enslavement. A form of mass hypnosis some "charismatic" rulers have been and are masters of. As Josef Goebbels stated, the constant repetition of the same lie will ultimately become the truth. The sad fact of life is that people love dictatorships, as it frees them from thinking. Democracies always self destruct, as we can see and observe right now with increasing dictatorial powers given to certain sectors under the guise of economic theories.
This has been going on since the beginning of history, originally started and used by the religious clergy, but has become the norm under the Soviet and Nazi regimes and perfected to a degree by American capitalists the nazis and communists could only dream of. All religions and all would be rulers always use the same methods and techniques and are tied by subconscious connections with predictable actions.
While the nazis and communists openly admitted it and used Propaganda Ministries, in recent times it has been handed over to the intellectual conspiracy of a self interest ruling sector, who have taken over the media, the economics and many science and other departments of the universities to make certain that mind control starts at an early age, and its inevitability becomes a science and established fact.
In Canada, Mulroney was the first PM who established a propaganda branch within the PMO, under Bill Fox, to sell the idea of the FTA. Fox's memo on the technique required has been leaked and circulated at the time, showing the underhanded mind manipulation he suggested, to cover up the details of the FTA and relying on public apathy and ignorance to get it passed.
Mulroney ignored Fox's advice and published not only the details of the daily negotiations under Simon Reisman, but sent out copies of the FTA to anybody who asked for it. I did and receieved the whole bundle. It backfired and he almost lost the battle , when 57% of the voters went against him, but he still got his majority and his FTA.
Chretien followed the Fox advice to the letter and kept the NAFTA under covers, then signed it in virtual secret, with only the controlled media singing its praises then and since.
The only hope for a change is the NET. It was the NET that killed the MAI in '97 and it is also the last hope that things may change for the better. Information control has always been the strongest weapon in the hands of the ruling classes and the NET is the first time in history when ordinary people have such power in their hands.
How they'll use it, or whether the rulers will permit its continuation are questions that remain to be answered?
Ed Deak, Big Lake, BC.
The real issue with regards to our media is the concentrated ownership of it and how that ownership is being used by a few individuals, families, and/or corporations to control the public debate and thus the direction in which we are likely to head. For instance, I can find more than enough stories and editorial/opinion about Canadian politics with reams devoted to criticizing the Liberals and trying desperately to put a positive spin on Stephen Harper. What I can't find in the Canadian media is discussion about things like the Canadian Action Party and debate about their ideas, pretty much anything to do with David Orchard (everything I hear about him I get from the internet), and generally anything to do with changes that might mean less power for corporations; majority of their stories and comments argue for a reduction in taxes, mostly theirs, and social programs and government spending for the public good (it seems to have escaped everyone's notice that the bulk of the criticizm of the CBC is being generated by their main competitors CanWest, Sun media, and the CTV).
One area in which I would agree with you where Canadian content is being suppressed is what is being offered for sale in bookstores, or I should say bookstore since Chapters/Indigo seems to own all of them now. I can't even buy David Orhard's book of the shelf in their store, as it is only available from them online and therefore recieves little advertising (I would think that a large number of Canadians would be interested in what a former leadership candidate of a major political party might have to say). I've noticed similarity in Chapters' treatment of other Canadaian political writers as well, most notably Mel Hurtig whose books are always buried in the back shelves and are never placed with the other new releases even when they just come out. This basically creates a situation in which one company, or more correctly the one person who is controlling that company, is determining what is available to the Canadian public and thus controlling the public debate.
And so, on the issue of content versus behind the scenes -- to a large extent, I would argue that the problem lies more in what we get than what goes on. Yes, you can argue that the behind-the-scenes determines what we get (ie the nastiness over at CanWest, or the anti-Canadian colonials in charge of Global and Rogers), but those things are only bad in as much as they prevent the Canadian media from providing its essential role in a healthy democracy. If Ted Rogers owns every single channel in the entire media universe, including the CBC, but still allows those channels to engage with the Canadian psyche, to explore and develop Canadian talent and stories, I don't have a problem with it.
What we have to realize in this country is that existing in 5% of our national imagination is dangerously low. A foreign perspective on all issues, including issues that relate to Canada, flood directly into the brains of Canadians on a daily basis.
Look at the Globe and Mail today -- John Ibbotson argued that it would be "FAIR" and just for America to invade Canada if we denied them oil. That they would be right to do so. Now, technically this is Canadian content. Even still, it is the direct result of our only being able to see our own issues, and our own lands through foreign eyes.
I am not an ideologue about who controls the Canadian media, public or private. What I see happening though on a constant and ongoing basis is the complete marginalization of this country -- not by Americans, but by Canadians themselves.
G
This is why I always have a little trouble with some aspects of this website, because the ideals it tends to portray aren't canadian at all, they are quite universal, and even more alive and well in the US and of course globally. Human rights, environmental rights, equality and anti-imperialism are NOT Canadian themes, in fact our governing institutions have always avoided them as much as possible. It is a global struggle, and there are many organizations that people here should look at joining. Sitting isolated will change nothing. Ok, that's a crappy message but I"m going to post it anyway.
Canadians who harp about our 'traditions' and our 'history of democracy' remind me of the cartoon I saw with the old man with the bicycle with the square wheels who claims "it was good enough for my dad and for me all these years so damned if I'm going to change". I just wanted to tell that anecdote, obviously John Ibbitson should but tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail. Could you imagine what would happen to an american journalist who said "if we quite paying China they should attack us". They'd never work again, which just goes to show how different our society is.
Canadians don't watch Canadian productions because they suck. I guess the question is why do they suck? Maybe it's like a tax write off or something. I doubt the conspiratorial thing, just because companies like CTV and Global are such a bunch of nobodies that they can't get their act together in any form. To think of them forming a conspiracy is laughable -- it would almost definitely back-fire, and to our general benefit. I think the issue is more like incompetance. They would only ever get their act together if they were penalized for not getting their act together -- like cutting off funding if they can't get Canadians to watch their shows. Now that would be a reform worth following up on.
Wasn't the whole "Great White North" thing supposed to be making fun of the Canadian tax system, and then became the biggest hit to come out of SCTV? I remember hearing about that, that they wanted to make fun of "Canadian content".
As for Ibbottson, somebody should really follow up on that. If he really said America should invade Canada somebody's got to do something about it. DOes anybody have access to the original article. I can't believe somebody, some Canadian, would be advocating (openly) the invasion of Canada. This is unbelievable and I kind of doubt it until I can see it for myself.
That is true about SCTV, except for the part about the Canadian Tax system, if you watch it, they never refer to the tax system, so I don't know where that comes from. They didn't want to make fun of canadian content, they wanted to make fun of their producers who were encouraging them to 'act more canadian'.
That's a good point about seeing the original article, although I've read Ibbitson's stuff occasionally and it wouldn't surprise me, but it also wouldn't surprise me if somebody took it out of constext.
Part of the problem with canadians is their constant obsession with the US, even to the point of being obsessed with their obsession. It doesn't take much to support canadian products, in fact you can go out and produce it yourself for a minimal cost. Kids nowadays have video phones and dozens of music production softwares. Is it all american? Not at all, the trouble here seems to be that its not canadian-its what it has always been-regional and local.
One of the biggest selling playwrights of the last two decades has been Norm Foster, a Fredericton playwright you hardly ever hear about, yet who still seems to have a play in most towns. Likewise, the festivals in southern ontario constantly feature canadian and local talent as well as Shakespeare, but Shakespeare at least performed by canadians. Wingfield's follies had a huge audience, and CBC personalities go around the country almost constantly on tours and with shows.
In practically every small city there is lots of cultural events, plays, comics, bands, poets, talks, and on and on. Again, the problem appears to be that those who attend none of those functions seem concerned that this is not translated onto a national stage, although it IS, they just don't like it or watch it. We can watch the Halifax comedy festival every couple of weeks, and of course the people from Codco seem to be everywhere.
On a per capita basis canadians have far more entertainment representation than your average american does. Those of the south, the midwest, and the northeast see all their features overridden by the propaganda machine in Hollywood. In Canada you actually have at least SOME equivalent representation, the Just for Laughs festival is huge, Cirque de soleil, the Royal Agricultural Winter Fair, are just a few national entities. In television BBC America shows Trailer Park Boys, and the prairies have Corner Gas. Another problem tends to be that when comedy is done, people often get offended or don't think it is realistic. But there's been lots written on canada's 'identity crisis' so when you can't identify yourself, it's hard to parlay it culturally.
Finally, an interesting study would be Canada's own Lion's Gates Films, which churns out a lot of product and gets pretty big name Hollywood personalities in it's films. Most don't quite make it to the big screen, but the company plays a co-producer role to many that do. I've watched several comedies, and compared to Hollywood they appear to me to be quite surprisingly 'canadian' or at least what I see as canadian. Although most americans could equally say it is american-just not an america that gets shown very often. Check out some of their movies and post back. I just saw "Eulogy", which was VERY funny, with big names, and you could DEFINITELY tell it was not your typical american comedy, although 'conservative' folk may not agree.
Here is the passage from Ibbitson (printed without permission):
"For any Canadian government to offer a warning, however veiled, that it might favour other countries over the United States in the awarding of gas and oil contracts is, as Big Daddy might say, mendacity, sheer mendacity.
Such favouritism would be impossible, unless the Canadian government were to formally withdraw from NAFTA, and then adopt an energy policy that favoured petroleum exports to other nations while imposing restrictions on exports to the United States. At which point, U.S. officials would either complain to the World Trade Organization or simply invade. In either case, who could blame them?"
G