As I alluded to below, Michel Arpin, the Vice Chair wrote to the Globe & Mail in response to John Doyle's column of Thursday, January 22nd, where he stated the following: (edits are mine)
The man with considerable influence over the amount of drama and comedy that airs on Canadian TV says he's not interested in watching the stuff. Couldn't care less. He'd rather read a book.
This is, by any standards, an incredibly indiscreet, out-to-lunch remark.
Now, to be charitable, it's possible to speculate that Arpin was, ah, pulling the reporter's leg. Being a wag. Just goofing around. That's implausible, I think. Me, I've see Arpin in action at CRTC hearings. All pursed lips and bristling skepticism, I saw him treat what he calls "the unions" with the air of an impatient parent hearing out the teenagers on the some newfangled trend in music or technology.
It's the way it is with culture snobs. But for a vice-chairman of the CRTC to take this position is outlandish.
He should - in fact, must - explain himself and his crackpot position. And apologize.
Doyle's column picked up on my original post here. Those who wrote to the CRTC in the wake of my original post recognized the response to Doyle's column, since it was a truncated version of the email we received from Mr. Arpin.
A frosty response to a bunch of bloggers is one thing. But you know, now we're talking about something in the public record. Given the chance to truly clear the air or assuage the issues of credibility Arpin's insensitive and impolitic remarks raised, the man instead chose to stonewall.John Doyle (Michel Arpin, You Need To Explain - And Apologize - Review, Jan. 22) quotes an answer I gave to Playback magazine, where I said: "I'm a news and documentary consumer. I'm not that interested in televised fiction or even feature films. I would prefer to read a novel."
As far as the quote is concerned, you must appreciate that the interviewer had asked me to name my favourite show; I felt it was inappropriate to do so, given my position with the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission as vice-chairman in charge of broadcasting. Rest assured that, throughout the year, I watch all types of television news and documentaries, as well as drama or feature films.
Why is the response offered simply inadequate? (And keep in mind, I stop well short of joining Doyle to ask for an apology. I don't expect apologies from bureaucrats.) When issues are raised, I do expect a straight answer from public servants.
So let's break it down.
- The answer does not meet the credibility test.
Arpin would have us believe that his position as CRTC commissioner shackles him from mentioning a particular show. But Polticians are asked their favorite films, books, and music all the time. James Moore, the current Heritage Minister, gave several interviews when he was installed as Minister where he discussed his personal likes and dislikes. This is not the answer of a man who is being careful. This is the answer of a man who doesn't have an answer, or who doesn't care. - Having said he cannot take a stand, he actually does the opposite.
The question he was asked was "What are your favorite television programs?" Mr. Arpin did not choose not to answer. He instead did what he said he could not do: expressed a preference. "I am a news and documentary consumer."
That is a preference. And had he stopped there, well, maybe I would have grumbled. There probably would have been a whole lot of, "hey, no kidding, you can certainly tell." Nothing beyond that.
No. We're here because, on the way to being extra careful to remain impartial, he chose to go way further than asked, by saying, "I'm not that interested in televised fiction or even feature films. I would prefer to read a novel."
That is an extraordinary statement that is simply not explained or clarified in any way by a late-letter grudging declaration that he indeed watches news "as well as drama and feature films." It's also not the answer of someone who's trying to be careful and impartial, as Arpin claimes he was doing. It's very partial, and dismissive. Does it sound in any way like a careful answer? No, it doesn't. It's far more likely that it is what it appears to be - an expression of his true feelings. - It gibes with other anecdotal evidence.
In Doyle's column, he calls out Arpin's statement as typical, and exactly in line with his conduct toward presenters at CRTC hearings during the last little while. Now, Doyle's an observant guy, but not exactly a seer. Anyone who watched CPAC during a hearing last year could see exactly the same attitude that Doyle wrote about. It wasn't particularly hidden. Over the last several days, I've received several emails with off the record "Arpin stories," that I choose not to pass along, because since I can't prove them, they're hearsay. But let's just say they weren't out of line with the attitudes expressed in the Playback interview.
I think most Canadians, being decent and reasonable people, understand that occasionally you get turned around and say something you don't mean to say. The problem is that the statement's in character with past statements - so the argument that he didn't mean to say what he said strains credulity. - The statement deliberately does not deal with the crux of the issue.
In the original interview that started all this trouble, Arpin brought on the "what's your favorite program" question by his answer to a previous question, where he was asked, "Will Canadian drama on our television screens be an issue again at hearings in 2009?" His answer: "The decline in Canadian drama is an issue that the unions regularly put on the table. It's documented. I'm sure they will bring it to the top of the pile at the hearings." Again. This statement is perfectly in line with what he has said on the record before.
Which is that the issue of Canadian drama on Canadian screens is a "union issue."
But it's not. It's, in fact, part and parcel of the mandate of the very commisison on which Arpin sits as Vice Chair. Arpin is deliberately choosing to focus on the tree and not the forest here. The outrage we are expressing isn't because he likes news better than drama, or even that he'd rather read a book.
Where he chooses to dismiss and ignore it.
Mr. Arpin is hopelessly compromised as a commisisoner because he is clearly biased. And everything he's done since this interview makes him seem more, not less, so.
Here's where we sit right now:
After having the scripted TV industry neatly and nearly decimated by a rule change favourable to the Broadcasters in 1999, creatives have spent the last several years trying to rebuild. Toronto has lost the lucrative industrial TV and TV movie business that once sustained it. Pockets across the country eke out little shows here and there.
And though it's been hard, we have still persevered and achieved something: CBC's ratings for scripted programming are up from a few years ago, after falling precipitously after the 1999 rule change, the fragmentation of audiences and the heydey of million plus hits like DaVinci, and The Newsroom.
Yes, flashy U.S. dramas with a hundred times the advertising exposure, promo support, simulcasting on two channels and blanket magazine and newspaper publicity draw in the 1 to 2 million range. But CBC dramas with exponentially less exposure manage to draw numbers within shouting distance of a million -- against Idol. Against Heroes. Against House.
And for the first time I can remember, we have a Canadian comedy that draws over 1.5 million viewers a week, and a Canadian drama that does the same, on the air at the same time. (Corner Gas and Flashpoint.)
Spending on homegrown stuff has dropped, although they're spending more now because license renewals are coming up. Well documented elsewhere is the huge rise in spending on U.S. programming.
But on the horizon, we have a host of challenges, and a whole bunch of chances for the CRTC to completely change the face of broadcasting again. Companies like Canwest and CTV are making noises that they want to reduce their local news output...even close stations, and stop serving certain markets altogether. So much for the CRTC's vaunted "local programming fund." Wonder who will be left to apply for it once Canwest closes all its stations outside of Vancouver, Toronto, and Winnipeg. Hear that, Michel? No more news!
Then there's this: the New Media hearings. The CRTC has already ruled badly -- against the interests of consumers and in favor of telecom companies, when it comes to issues of net neutrality and traffic shaping by ISP's. Now those same ISP's are gearing up to fight any efforts for Canadians to preserve their creative voices on the internet. They'll do it by lying and distorting the truth, and ruthlessly lobbying and protecting their profits. And they have at least one commissioner who's shown in the past that he's much more sympathetic to the big money than to, you know, citizen taxpayers.
And I'm not even going to get into the debacle of the Do Not Call list -- a decision who's mishandling has made things worse for Canadians seeking relief from aggressive telemarketing.
When I first posted my reaction to Arpin's Playback interview, I and several others who wrote to the CRTC's Chairman, Konrad von Finkenstein (konrad.vonfinckenstein@crtc.gc.ca) quickly received the following reply, which was directly to Arpin, cc'ing us.
Michel,
I would suggest you reply to [Mr McGrath] directly and explain your
interview.
Respectfully, Mr. von Finckenstein, the explanation has not been forthcoming. The questions about Mr. Arpin are still too grave. If the CRTC is to be seen as the impartial steward of the radio, television, and telecommunications system, as outlined in the Broadcasting Act, then as the representative of the Canadian public you must direct your Vice Chair to be more forthcoming on these issues, or to recuse himself from hearings involving issues that could impact the fate of Drama and Comedy on Canadian TV screens.
Enough is enough.
If you have questions or concerns about the conduct of Mr. Arpin and the CRTC in this matter, may I suggest you write the following people:
Your member of Parliament. Presuming the Government survives its budget, this is the sort of thing that could be raised in Question Period next week or the week after. (Right about the time the CRTC is taking all those "how come we can't see the Superbowl commercials" complaints.)
The Honourable James Moore
Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages House of Commons Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6
or
Parliament Hill:
Telephone: 613-992-9650
Fax: 613-992-9868
Fax: 613-992-9868
Department:
Canadian Heritage
Les Terrasses de la Chaudière, 12th Floor
15 Eddy Street
Gatineau, Quebec
K1A 0M5 Telephone: 819-997-7788
Fax: 819-994-1267
The Honourable Pablo Rodriguez, M.P. Liberal Party Heritage Critic.
Ottawa Office:
House of Commons
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6
Constituency Office:
7450 Les Galeries d'Anjou Blvd, Suite 530
Anjou (QC) H1M 3M3
Phone: (514) 353-5044
Fax: (514) 353-3050
His Email:
Rodriguez.P@parl.gc.ca
The Honourable Charlie Angus, M.P. NDP Party Heritage Critic
Ottawa:
House of Commons
Ottawa Ontario K1A 0A6
Tel: (613) 992-2919
Fax: (613) 995-074
His Email: angusc@parl.gc.ca
2 comments:
Think of all the other, better ways he could have answered that question -- "As a Commissioner I won't show favoritism. But I will tell you I watch every Canadian show that airs and there are some great ones!". Or maybe -- "I watch something homegrown every night. I wish more people did."
Even "On the island. Off the Island. I just don't care anymore." would have been acceptable. Because it would have said "I watch television."
But by going the way he did he was clearly embracing the tired, old intellectual stance. "I'm too intelligent for TV. If I must -- news and quality documentaries. But overall I'm busy bettering myself with the classics."
Ten bucks he spends his time with some dog eared right-hand reader or old copies of "Allo! Police!".
Our problem is we keep letting these guys off the hook instead of taking them on. I'm convinced the message from the blogosphere shaped the "carriage fees" decision and not handing Arpin a pass for an equally dismissive response might change the attitude at the CRTC the next time a working artist appears in front of them.
Arpin's non-response epitomizes the nature of privilege and arrogance. His original words said, "I'm better than you." And his response indicates that scraping us off his shoe is just an unpleasant necessity.
Denis, my respect for Mr. von Finckenstein has gone up yet another notch on the strength of that cc'ing of his note to M. Arpin to yourself and other commenters. He had to know that doing that meant the possibility of public quotation of that note, and he did so anyway.
Post a Comment