Thursday, August 2, 2007

CSI and History: A Match Made in Mammon

JAIME WEINMAN, among others, has reported on the CRTC's final decision telling Alliance Atlantis that, um, no, CSI:NY reruns really don't belong on The History Channel, despite the fact that New York is a place where historical things, um, happened.

Alliance Atlantis has not yet announced how it’s going to deal with this ruling. Part of the point of the article was that the CRTC can make rulings, but there’s not necessarily any real mechanism for enforcing them. So it’ll be interesting to see if Alliance will comply with the order - thereby giving up one of the few obvious ratings-getters on History - or try to find some way around it. They could always replace it with CSI: Miami and claim that David Caruso is a historical artifact.
Playback had this to say:

In a July 25 letter to Alliance exec Elizabeth Duffy-MacLean, the feds conceded that "while an occasional episode may deal with a current or historical event, the series is clearly one that is about forensic investigations, not history or current events." AAC has been given until Jan. 1, 2008 to take "the necessary measures" to remove the show.

WGC chief Maureen Parker cheered the decision, remarking in a statement that the CRTC made the right decision and "restored integrity to the Canadian broadcasting system."
You could be forgiven if you choked a bit on that last one. I did. Anyway, Maureen Parker really does deserve credit for this -- she was the one driving it from the start. But let's step back for a second and ask, "what does it really mean?" "what does it really change?" and "what questions does this raise?"

First, to put things in perspective, CSI:NY has been running on History since last year. They have til Jan 2008 to remove it from their schedule. That means a solid year of pimping those reruns of a property they have an equity stake in. So don't cry for Alliance Atlantis.

Weinman states, and this is true, that there is really no mechanism by which the CRTC can force History to remove the reruns. That's true as far as it goes. But Alliance Atlantis is set to go before the regulator soon with its plans to merge, get bought, or otherwise corporately fornicate with Canwest Global and Goldman Sachs. So now may not be the time to thumb your nose at the regulator.

Especially since, with the CHUM/CTV decision last month, the CRTC seems to have awoken from a slumber and suggested that maybe they will occasionally do their jobs.

It's a measure of just how laissez faire the whole system has become to corporate interests that all this seems to be coming as a surprise. I'm sure that AA never gave a second thougth to the whole CSI thing; just as CTV thought they could bulldoze the "twin sticks" prohibition when they went before the regulator.

The companies are not used to being told "no" by the CRTC. They've gotten what they wanted for so long, that it's kind of set things a bit on edge.

It would be wonderful to think that this new muscle on the part of the CRTC is going to benefit the viewer, long term, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

In the short term, though, it's definitely good news for any cable subscriber who wonders why they're paying for all these channels that never seem to be showing what they got their license to show.

It happens everywhere, I'm sure, but in Canada in particular, we've gotten used to the rinky-dink process of shovelling programs bought over three or four channels, some with nominal or (in the case of History) non-existent connections to the themes they purport to represent.

But before everybody gets all gee whiz fight the power here, understand that I don't think that Alliance Atlantis did anything particularly wrong -- under the terms of the way the game's been played the last few years, I mean. All these channels are showing stuff they shouldn't be showing -- stretching their purchases till they snap. If the result is a shoddy and confusing viewing experience for the audience, well, what do you expect? They're corporate. They pushed. Nobody said no. What did you think was going to happen?

Now that the CRTC has started saying no...it'll be interesting to see if anything changes. Or if Gary Sinise's face will now be used to sell The Food Network, cause, hey, New York's got a whole lot of restaurants. And with that "In Case of Choking" poster displayed prominently in every one of them, well, um...that's close to forensics...isn't it?

7 comments:

ME said...

While it is true, there is no official mechanism for them to forcibly remove the show, there is one thing they can do. At their next license renewal, they can discount all airings of the programming as invalid and it will put them offside on their conditions of license.

I should think they'd be quick to react given they're going before the commission in September for the CanWest/Alliance hearings and want to at least seen to be trying to comply.

Well done, Maureen! I think she should go after JAG next ... it's the same idea - total fiction loosely based on true incidents, sort of like Law and Order is ripped from the headlines.

Dwight Williams said...

Yep. It's time we went after Terms Of License("TOL") violators for this sort of stuff.

Peter said...

How will I survive without being able to mainline CSI goodness into my brain from four different channels simultaneously?

I might just go into withdrawal.

Seriously.

Geoffrey Firmin said...

Has the CRTC ever taken away or refused to renew a television license because of a terms violation? Have they ever held a license holder to conditions? Just curious.

Is there any way to read submissions to the CRTC re. CTF online?

ME said...

There have been cases in the past where, on renewal, specific channels have been slapped around for fudging various things ... CanCon spend, percentages of CanCon in primetime, etc. Vision TV comes to mind, instead of the usual 5-7 year license renewal they only got 3 years and had to come back and prove they'd mended their ways. Traditionally they have been soft on enforcement (otherwise there would be no TV Tropolis) but it seems Von Finckenstein is trying to actually give the Commission some of its teeth back. High time. Whether or not you agree with his decisions, you have to admire that he's got them all shaking in their boots and that hasn't really happened in over a decade.

The hearings will be interesting ... I've seen CanWest's benfits package proposals and they are not confidence inspiring. Everything is also spent out over 10 years, and I've never seen the commission allow anything past 7 (concurrent to license term) so I expect they're in for a smackdown in September.

I do believe if you wade through the CRTC site, interventions are a matter of public record and you can indeed read them.

Dwight, I'm used to COL (conditions of license) and that's what most of the broadcasters I know use as abbreviation. I don't disagree with you, but there'd be a mighty long list of violators.

Geoffrey Firmin said...

I did some "wading" through the CRTC site and could find nothing. Perhaps they are not posted yet.

Dwight Williams said...

Caroline: I don't doubt that the list of COL violators is likely a long one. Not for one second.