THERE ARE SOME days when the fix isn't even the issue. It's the kabuki theatre that precedes it that gets your goat.
Let's recap:
In 1999 the CRTC was convinced by the Broadcasters to relax the definition of "priority programming" to include shows other than those expensive dramas. The Broadcasters said it would provide them with "flexibility." The creative unions like the WGC argued that it would kill Canadian Drama on TV.
The CRTC did what the broadcasters wanted and relaxed the rules. Drama and Comedy on Canadian TV was halved within a year, and declined further. Artists struggled over the next decade to gain back a toehold on the airwaves that the CRTC were supposed to be protecting for Canadians.
In that decade, consolidation in the Canadian broadcast industry went unchecked, and local station groups largely disappeared as stations were swallowed up by huge media companies. The CRTC did nothing about it.
A few months ago the CRTC floated the idea of requiring broadcasters to spend one dollar on Canadian programming for every dollar they spent on American programming. They chose not to implement this idea though. And they rubberstamped license renewals for a year.
Earlier this year there were a whole bunch of new media hearings to decide if the CRTC was going to regulate NOT the internet -- which was widely and soundly misreported -- but if it was going to regulate broadcasting activities on the Net, which included things like what the broadcasters do to stream on their websites. Since this is effectively the same thing they do in old media, the Creative Guilds argued that maybe, just maybe, the meagre protections of access and availability of CanCon could be extended to that medium. There were also Pie-in-the-sky musings like some sort of levy on cable co's to maybe support the creation of works by Canadians.
Today, the CRTC declined to do anything at all, again.
Meanwhile, channels that were supposed to be History channels don't show History. In fact, specialty channels increasingly just show the same reruns their parent companies shovel on their other networks.
The CRTC releases decisions and says things like, "the unions failed to make their case," when anyone watching the relevant hearing saw a desultory questioning of the guilds about issues that had little to do with their own presentations. It's one thing to go through the motions. It's another thing to not even really do a good job of that before declining to act.
The CRTC is supposed to protect the airwaves for you. Now, apparently local TV can only be saved if you pay more to the people who let it slide. Wonder if the CRTC will do its customary thing -- which is, you know, nothing. Nothing much at all.
You're welcome, Canada. Aren't you glad you've got the CRTC watching out for you?
And lest we forget what a great job serving Canadians the broadcasters are currently doing in new media, let's take a look at a Tale of Two Daily Show Sites.
2 rumbles:
Don't worry. As soon as the broadcasters tie up access to new media, they'll get some government fund to pay for it - oh, wait. that would be the new fund that replaces the CTF. Right.
"Earlier this year there were a whole bunch of new media hearings to decide if the CRTC was going to regulate NOT the internet -- which was widely and soundly misreported -- but if it was going to regulate broadcasting activities on the Net, which included things like what the broadcasters do to stream on their websites"
Well, that is a very interesting point Denis, and you're right... it's not being reported that way at all. It's a very important distinction... But by "broadcasting activities on the internet" do you mean "the activities of broadcasters on the internet" or "the putting of stuff on the internet by anyone".... I'm just curious what was really being asked for, and it seems my newspaper ain't gonna tell me.
Post a Comment