Reprint: Special Pleading and the World of Canuck TV

YOU KNOW, when it comes to Canadian TV in crisis, it really is the ongoing debate that never ends. I reprint this one because, sadly, it would be nice for people to gird themselves a bit for the next few weeks -- and prepare once more for the foolishness. As I write this intro, I'm coming from a WGC council meeting where we've heard about the regulatory climate over the next few months. The big issue is -- wait for it -- another CRTC hearing.

I know, I know, one wishes to die -- but this one is the big one. A broadcasting policy review. The first since 1999. This is the make or break one for creatives in the industry. A similar hearing in 1999 changed the rules on TV and killed Canadian drama series overnight. In fact, everything the Writers Guild said would happen at that 1999 hearing basically came true.

So if you're thinking about sitting on your hands, and you draw a paycheque from your creative labours, my advice to you is this: quit your special pleading. And suit up.

***

originally published 3/23/09

THERE'S A FALLACY of argumentation that's known as "special pleading." It's a tricky one, and it takes many forms, but the basic definition of special pleading comes down to this:

A presentation of an argument that emphasizes only a favorable or single aspect of the question at issue.

"Special Pleading" is often offered up as a way to try to deflect or change the subject, rather than rationally or coldly examine the issue at hand with logic and a full examination of the facts. As a tactic, it's as old as the hills. But there's something about our age that, far as I can tell, has lead to the spreading of Special Pleading like kudzu.

First, you remove the control rods. For all the faults of contemporary journalism, the way it's supposed to have gone for the last few decades is that you don't take sides. You try to maintain neutrality and present both sides.

That sort of fell by the wayside in the last few years, as the rise of talk radio, and the internet, too, made it OK to retreat into eddies and cul-de-sacs where only one view was ever expressed. When people talk about the death of civility in politics, I think a lot of the time what they're reacting to is the rise in the unchallenged tactic of special pleading.

Sometimes special pleading takes the form of trying to frame the argument in such a way that refutation is impossible, or meets such an impossible standard of proof that there's no way back.

"You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists," is an example of this kind of thinking. Now, simple logic should tell you that there's a whole lot of daylight between these two extremes, but when a top government official maintains that this statement is so, the premise of the argument is so extreme that, if enough people accept it, it becomes a powerful disincentive to explore or challenge the premise. Similarly, "if you don't support the war in Iraq, you are against the troops." This is classic special pleading. There is no burden of proof with which you could refute that argument to someone who believes it.

Part of the reason why "Special Pleading" arguments are so hard to crack, and people who believe them so hard to reach, is because of the built in walls that deliberately shut out any of the avenues of logical debate. If someone says, "You can't judge cops' behavior in the course of their duties unless you've been a cop, because you don't know what it's like," there's no way to counter that argument.

Of course, the problem with arguments that rely on Special Pleading is that their very insularity almost guarantee that there can be no fresh thinking or data, or news, or reality that permeate and change that thinking.

Now, as is my cant (and by dint, I would say, of the current historical moment) the examples I use above come mostly from the left or liberal side of the political spectrum. But I don't mean to suggest that arguments of special pleading are the exclusive province of the right. I find myself frustrated with people I agree with politically all the time, when I hear them utilizing arguments that amount to Special Pleading. If I can't immediately conjure up lefty arguments of special pleading, maybe it's because they fit so nicely into one of the political right's other fave argument tactics of the last few years, the "appeal to authority." But that's getting off on another horse...

The basic rule that's violated in argumentation by special pleading is this principle in philosophy: if you claim a distinction, there should be a relevant and substantive basis for making that distinction. It should be verifiable. When something is not verifiable, because "access to the truth" is claimed by one group, or you ignore any evidence that doesn't support your claim, the way forward is nearly impossible.

So, for instance, claiming that any criticism of Israel's actions in the Palestinian Territories or Gaza comes from a place of anti-semitism -- should be something that is verifiable. If you can't verify it, then besides being slanderous, it's a form of special pleading.

Special Pleading is ripe now for all sorts of reasons -- one of the big ones being the fact that the internet tends to flatten out facts and truth. At first glance, it may be difficult to tell whether someone's making sense, or is some sort of loon.

I think everybody in the Canadian broadcasting firmament should keep special pleading in mind this week. We're going to be entering a very interesting time.

We have a Conservative Heritage Minister, James Moore, who is very much of the opinion that the CBC should be forced to compete more, and should "live within its means." He doesn't think that it should compete with the Private Networks for advertising or for programming.

There's plenty of people who agree with him, both Inside the CBC and out. They will make all sorts of arguments that the CBC has lost its way, is now chasing ratings, betraying its foundations by not having a service that plays classical music, etc. This ignores the fact that a few short years ago the main argument used against CBC Television was that no one was watching. Now ratings are up, but it's still not good enough.

A full examination of the CBC 's mandate and what would need be done to rationalize it for the 21st century would probably be healthy. In fact, there's been plenty of those studies made in the past. Most of them have been ignored by governments of the day because they usually seem to suggest that the CBC is being asked to do too much with too little. No one wants to take on the politically difficult task of whittling down that mandate, and nobody wants to own up to funding it at a level where it can accomplish everything you're asking it to do.

When you see huge articles about the layoffs at CBC this week -- for they are coming -- I want you to ask yourself if you're hearing all sides of the argument, or if there's a bit of special pleading going on.

The other fascinating thing that's going on in the cultural sector is that the Private Networks, Global and CTV, are agitating heavily for relief from their obligations, blaming the economy and a broken business model. The Heritage Minister has indicated that he's amenable to these arguments. How will that relief come? Carriage fees? Direct investment? I have no idea. But when the news comes down, you owe it to yourself to see if you're getting the full picture of what is going on.

Canadians pay 34 dollars a year for the CBC. Free market types use a type of "special pleading" when they talk about how the CBC has all these advantages and doesn't "compete" like the private networks do. But what does that actually mean? After all, Kirstine Leyfield, the CBC Executive, unearthed a fairly interesting Nordcity study in an op ed she published in the National Post this weekend.

So the CBC competes with private broadcasters. But what is a private broadcaster in Canada anyway?

Nordicity, an independent firm specializing in broadcasting, valued the federal regulations that provide private broadcasters with the right to substitute U.S. content at between $270-million and $330-million. Other provincial and federal government subsidies such as tax credits and the Canadian Television Fund add another $165-million in cash support to the privates. Canada, in short, has a heavily subsidized media industry in which private companies compete for public money, and the CBC, in turn, competes for advertising dollars.

When viewed in that light, suddenly the framing of the argument changes. James Moore is talking about offering relief to the private broadcasters -- who already receive substantial public investment. By what token, then, can he entertain that notion, but slam shut the very same considerations for the CBC? Special Pleading.

Here's another case of Special Pleading at work, broadcasting style: and this one hits a bit closer to home. I've mentioned a few times lately that the level of flak I've gotten has risen. Along with the flak there's been plenty of contradictory statements made. I've been told by people that I can't stop blogging because too many people read what I read and nobody else says what I say. I've also been told by people that they could never do what I do. We've seen anonymous letters go around in the last week about the Canada Media Fund that are extremely alarmist, and based in no fact whatsoever. Yet producers won't speak up. ACTRA speaks up, God love'em, they always do, and not always wisely, but what I hear everywhere I go is that somehow what I do, nobody else could do because they have too much to lose.

This is the very essence of Special Pleading at work. Cause I'm going to tell you this right now: I aint special. I read about what's going on in the industry. I talk to people. I say things on this blog and sometimes I have to walk 'em back. I'm also, essentially, a self-employed freelancer. So you would think that if anybody had something to lose by sticking a head up and saying something about the industry, it's me.

And yet....my phone still rings. I'm getting jobs. I'm busy. I'm not a pariah.

Now, either that means I must be the most talented sonofabitch who ever lived and worked in Canada, or the whole idea that you can't speak up and add your voice to the debate in this industry is a bunch of bullshit. A copout. An appeal to special pleading.

I'm gonna pull the pin out here. I am not the most talented sonofabitch who ever lived and worked in Canada. In fact, I dare say that I've ate and drank and spent time with several people I think are way more talented than me in the last five days alone.

On Friday night, a group of writers gathered together, and one of the people in the group had a very heartfelt thing to say. He told me that it wasn't that he was scared to say something -- it was that he felt overwhelmed. He didn't know what it was possible for him to do.

Well, I think that's a fair proposition. It's so easy to feel helpless, and like you can't do anything. I know what that's like.

The next few weeks are going to be crucial for the direction of the industry. So what can you do, you yourself, without any power?

You can read the coverage. You can be that reality check and make sure that both sides of the argument are getting told. If they're not, you can write a letter to the editor. (#1 thing you can do.)

In your groups of friends and relatives, when you hear the cant about how the CBC should live within its means, and how the private broadcasters need relief -- you can speak up and ask people to examine their feelings about that. What do they really mean? What assumptions do they make? What do they get from the CBC? What do they get from the private networks? What does each cost them? What does each give back? Make sure all sides are represented and discussed. If the broadcasters are offered relief, what should they be required to give back? And do we accept their assurances that this is an unmitigated disaster at face value? Once you give up something, it's very difficult to get it back. Don't allow the arguments to descend to Special Pleading. You have a right to question whether these companies deserve relief. Broadcasting is a public trust. That's the way it's supposed to be, anyway. (#2 thing you can do.)

Pay attention to the Heritage Committee, who will be holding hearings on changes to the TV landscape in a few weeks. This is the process that got the odious provisions of Bill C10 stripped out last year. There is power in the process. Write a letter. Keep informed. Do not leave it to someone else to do. (#3 thing you can do.)

You can forge a relationship with your constituency office, and your MP. Sooner or later there is going to be an election. And culture will be just as unlikely an issue this time as it was last time. Introduce yourself as a constituent and a taxpayer. Get them thinking of you as a worker, as a taxpayer, and not as that boogeyman living high off the hog on the government dime, going to galas. (#4 thing you can do.)

If that little voice of yours has been silent for this time, up til now, then I'm afraid to tell you that you have now lost that luxury. The changes that are going down now are real, they are systemic, they are major, and they will decide whether you have a job within five years. All the special pleading you've done up to now to justify not raising your voice? It's over.

It really is now...or it's never. And then all that safety-silence will have bought you out of the industry, anyhoo. Welcome to the endgame, cutlets.