[CANADIAN TV] If you live in Canada and you read this blog, you might know this already. But just humor me for a moment, because if you weren't so up on the whole industry you might well ask yourself "Why the hell are there suddenly so many articles about Canadian TV in the papers?
Well, chickens, the CRTC has started hearings again -- a major TV policy review.
People like me - creatives - well, we kind of want them to reverse the 1999 policy decision that killed Canadian Drama (where the private networks won the right to count low cost reality and other programs as CanCon, not just expensive drama and comedy, and overnight the number of Canadian TV shows fell off a cliff.)
But the Private Networks and the CBC want something too. They want to get paid for cable carrying them. You think the cablecos will lose money on this? Check your spine, Caroline. They'll pass those costs right on to you!
What else do the broadcasters want? Well, more commercials! And no restrictions on product placement in shows! And ... uh ... oh yeah. LESS Cancon.
I'm just off a plane and way too tired to talk about this now. (A situation that might have to be remedied by tomorrow -- but stay tuned...)
But for the moment, let's just play another game. It's called "Denis links to stories that make him angry."
You can guess why if you want. I'll get back to you once I've slept some.
Ooooh, this makes me angry.
This makes me really angry.
And this makes me super duper pooper scooper angry!
Acccck... here ...so...angry.....can't breathe...
I'll fulminate. You read.
19 comments:
What are these articles trying to say exactly? They all seem to be either playing it down the middle of the road or actually hinting that the Networks aren't really out of line with their demands. Or am I just seeing that with my tired eyes.
Welcome back Denis
Dix, remember they who own the papers also control most of the networks.
There are so many things to chime in about.
The review is good ... there are so many things in the system that are holdovers from the 60s and 70s. But in the wrong hands (like the Harper governments, say), we may be looking at relaxing of foreign ownership and Rupert Murdoch owning a Canadian network.
Let's start with A&E, TLC, and Spike. The time has come to pull the plug ... start a Canadian feed of the channel subject to CanCon airtime and program production requirements. And time to ditch all the English language channels that are now available directly into Canada. Also time to kill the simulcast once and for all. It gives terrestrial an unfair advantage over cable ... either they all get it or no one does.
Next. The infomercial question. There's a darker force lurking underneath that. Most of the Canadian programming you see on weekend mornings is stuff that is placed on barter. Essentially, the producers get sponsorship money and buy airtime on the networks to run the shows. So, the networks in question are not only not paying a cent for the show, but making revenue. And demanding these babies be certified CanCon, too. Cheeky bastards. They're all doing it, terrestrials and cablenets alike. I could name names but I bet you know who they are. The Hon. Garth Turner was one of these producers before he hit the House of Commons.
Another problem. Local channels being carried nationally on cable and satellite has been a huge problem for the distribution community. In the case of a channel like Sun TV or TV Ontario or Knowledge Network, they're arguing for low fees as they are only seen regionally. On paper. True enough, they do get the additional carriage and it can screw your changes of someone else taking the show because it is airing in Toronto via satellite. So I can see the argument for them wanting carriage fees. Not saying I agree, but see the argument. I guess that's the price you pay for timeshifting. Only, you'll be paying more if everyone has their way.
My pet peeve in tv? The closed captioning credit .. you know the one ... "the following program is available in closed captioning courtesy of xyz corp". Bullshit.
I worked for a studio and every show we delivered was already captioned. And I've worked for an indie Canadian producer and same deal, every show we delivered had to be captioned. So essentially they're selling goodwill and profiting off a deliverable of a finished show. It has always irritated the heck out of me and nobody ever talks about it.
That's a start. Let the games begin! I'm thinking about what I should chime in with next.
Caroline and Denis smarty...me watching V For Vendetta, and then a V.I.P. marathon on Spike. "grunt"
OK, one more thing. The CRTC has been abysmal at holding channels accountable for flouting their conditions of license (TV Tropolis, this means you, but there are others). I'm not just talking CanCon, but what the channel applied to be and what it actually is. There needs to be a serious look at that ... if we aren't going to make them follow the rules, why go through all the hoopla of making them in the first place?
See what you started, Denis? And I'm just warming up (be afraid!).
Will, I'd argue you are the smarter one. Pamela makes more sense than the CRTC ever will.
Caro brings up a good point about some of the channels that were licensed as one thing (Prime - programming geared toward older Canadian viewers) and are now something else (Prime becomes TV Tropolis - dumping ground for US sitcoms primarily). What's up with that? Did they have to reapply?
Don't blow up, DMc. Who'd explain this stuff to me then?
I think the articles are middle of the road because no one outside the industry understands what's going on enough to have an opinion, so it's tough to reconcile the opinions of those inside the industry who are all touting their own agendas.
Caroline, I think you'll have to rip simulcast and American channels out of the audience's cold dead hands. And then you'll only have cold dead people available to watch Canadian shows.
I loved Brigitte Bako's comments. Apparently she and G-spot are the saviors of Canadian TV. Who knew?
my brain would fall out and my career would wither up and die if i responded with any degree of candor to the four news articles you posted. as for ms bako, I learned a long time ago to be very suspicious of anyone who uses the word "I" as many times as she does in that interview.
Hee hee hee.
Jutra: I'd forgotten about the infomercial thing. Nice catch.
Caroline: what do you DO? Where ARE you? Who ARE you? Aaagh!
Interesting "to the battlements" positions. But I'm way more pragmatic and less...feisty...on that point. Remember: audience centred: you cannot take anything away from the audience that they are used to. That is death and they will blame it on us.
That's not to say you can't turn the mojo around...more on that later.
The condition of license thing is kept purposely vague. I happen to not think that's the worst thing in the world. There's nothing uglier than being stuck with a loser format. But ... that leeway and decency about not challenging it needs to come with a stern talking to about "responsibilities."
As for Bako, words fail. Blueglow, if it's any consolation...I wrote two posts about it and deleted them both. I think the only way I can express my feelings is in a post about..um...a bunch of other stuff to.
But that's fodder for another day.
Okay, I feel better now. I was going to go off on the Bako interview but wimped.
"Caroline: what do you DO? Where ARE you? Who ARE you? Aaagh!"
If I told you, I might have to kill you. What do I do? A little of this and that. I'm here, in T.O. Who am I? I've been trying to figure that out, myself. Am I that exasperating? Some days, I guess.
If you'd brought back the Old Dutch, I might have filled you in ;-)
Blueglow: I have a weird feeling I may know you. Hmmm.
As for Ms. Bako, the mind does boggle. How does one get so, for lack of a better word, deluded? It is what it is.
Bako is showing some classic traits of Asperger Syndrome.
She deserves more sympathy than ridicule.
Funny, the interview with Richard Stursberg made me angriest of all. I feel like CBC was the greatest hope for Canadian creators, and it has been squandered again. But why should we be surprised? Richard Stursberg has not one qualification that I would value if I were looking for a network head. He says the job would "reflect his interest in television production." As opposed to, I dunno, say actually every having produced television. My sixteen year old sister has an interest in production too--she thinks wielding a handicam makes her an auteur--maybe she should run CBC next. Because I just don't think that Mr. Stursberg's additional qualifications--things like spearheading the purchase by Cancom (a sattelite provider) of Shaw (a cable provider). I don't see the connection with creative content or developing series or anything else the CBC really needs to be successful. One good show I believe Denis said. That's all CBC needs. And you can know everything about CRTC regulations and not know the first damn thing about how to get the most from the talent that is most definitely all around us. Now that would take a visionary leader.
This is part devil's advocate and part ignorance and curiosity: what does any of this mean in terms of getting more, better shows on the air and getting people to watch them? If they increase Cancon and take away all the Cancon cheats, do we have the capacity to make good shows to fill the gaps? If more money is injected into the industry somehow, wouldn't it be better to have fewer shows done well and promoted well than a greater number of shows with the same problems? How much of that is in the CRTC's hands?
This isn't the same environment as when the Canadian music industry got a huge boost from strict Cancon rules. This is a post-Bittorrent, post-DVD, post-pay-per-view environment where if you put more shows on that don't appeal to me, or shows the networks don't promote, or take away simulcast, or restrict the channels I'm allowed to buy, or increase cable fees too much, I have options. Do you think I'll wait half a year - or a few days - for episodes of House to make it to Canada? Or pay more for cable that has less of the programming I want? Or trust the Canadian channels to entertain me with more Canadian programming when they can't entertain me with the Canadian shows they have right now?
To be less longwinded ... my question is, what power does the CRTC have here to make actual significant change, or is this rearranging the deck chairs?
awww Diane...why'd you have to come to the party and get all realistic on our medievil asses.
Diane,
The sad thing about this is that you're right. Say things did change and make it more favorable for Canadian creatives. That would still just get us to the starting blocks.
But it WOULD get us to the starting blocks.
Which is why when I wrote that prescription for Canadian TV, there were 11 things on it.
Right now, the Canadian networks have a cozy, protected business, and a model where it's in their best interests to keep their Cancon low. Good writing/acting or bad? They don't care. Not a whit. Because their "own" shows don't figure into their profits.
But if they have to spend 7 percent of revenues, and if they have to air them in a good slot each week, BECAUSE they get all these breaks in the regulatory environment, then that's a start.
Then good writing over bad writing might start to matter. Then good people might not have to go to the US to get an ounce of respect.
The analogy is this: do you want every Canadian athlete to go to another country because Canada doesn't support sport? Should every Canadian musician leave because Canadians don't like Canadian music? What about authors? Scientists?
What kind of country are you then?
But what you're sensing here is exactly the same thing you figured in your "invisible networks" posts. The viewer isn't even talked about here. Not even in the equation.
See, to the broadcasters, it's their RIGHT to filter your access to US shows and give nothing back.
Doesn't that make you angry?
Still...this is only number 4 on my list. All this is about number 4.
Gidget Bako's "show," if you can call it that, is unwatchable. SHE'S unwatchable. For her to go off on the Canadian television industry is just... just... yes, words fail.
Diane, the CRTC does have the power to make the changes. They're just been reticent to do anything for years. Honestly, I'm not sure they have a collective wisdom that would allow the making of really positive changes, either. Some recent decisions have been, well, questionable to say the least.
That said, I feel like the whole system is hemorraging blood and CRTC has been putting on bandaids and operating on the wrong body parts for years. The entire system, not just broadcasting but cable too, has been duct-taped together based on a model that existed 30 years ago and which really doesn't fit anymore.
So is a radical amputation needed? I think so. Will it hurt? Probably. But in the end, it might allow survival, even if that which still lives isn't perfect.
There are lessons to be learned from the non-fiction community, btw. They've learned to adapt budgets, co-produce and generally stay afloat despite an unfriendly marketplace. And to still achieve success. I think the scripted community needs to re-examine itself and find new alternatives and models to go forward with. Will everything that comes out of that process be terrific? No. But you do need a certain critical mass of production happening before people can make a living and learn their respective crafts. Less doesn't always equal more. And it doesn't build an industry, it builds a clique.
Doesn't that make you angry?
Of course it does. I want Canadian stories on TV, I want our networks to be something other than Canadian ad generators for US shows. But I don't remember a golden age of Canadian TV, even before the CRTC rule changes gutted Canadian drama. The CBC isn't relying on American shows and even its good shows aren't thriving.
I don't know how you win this argument when what's best for our industry is not what the networks or the audience perceive as being in their own best interests. How do you get audiences mad when they don't want more Canadian shows? I want you to be able to, but I don't know that I've heard the right argument for it yet.
The best hope seems to be that we have to make painful changes the audience and the broadcasters don't want now in order to have a better industry in the future, but not such drastic changes that your audience flees to satellite, downloads, DVDs, the Internet, video games - the trends that've already caused viewership to decline for everyone.
But wanting those painful changes requires a leap of faith that despite the evidence of the past, we do have the talent who aren't going to flee to the US, the infrastructure to support them, execs who can spot them and nurture them ... and a CRTC who will force that to happen despite the lack of support from the audience and the networks.
I can't believe I'm saying this, but maybe the audience shouldn't be in this equation yet. Maybe this is the time for an eat your vegetables decision. And maybe I'll take that back when this bout of pessimism goes away.
Post a Comment