Evening Star

Ha, that was supposed to be a letter "b" followed by ")", not an emoticon.

Thanks for the link to the earlier thread. First off, I agree with Nicky about the academic centre on conflict resolution. The point of a research centre is to build knowledge and develop policy ideas. Even Conservative policy is heavily influenced by academic think tanks. I don't claim to be an IR expert but a number of these proposals suggest a change in policy (making them 'new'?). Even John Ivison claimed in the critical National Post piece that was linked to in the earlier thread that "The Liberals would put Africa back to the top of the list of international aid priorities. This seems to be a more sensible idea than the Harper government’s obsession with Latin America." So this would be a change. The approach that they suggest taking with Africa definitely sounds worthwhile to me. As for India, Canada has never had the close ties that we should considering that it is a) the world's largest democracy, with a somewhat comparable social democratic streak, a Commonwealth nation, c) a major source of immigration to Canada, and d) a highly creative and advanced culture with a burgeoning economy. I have to hope that was the Liberals are proposing here will go further than what the Conservatives have done so far. The Conservatives have shown near-total disinterest in promoting Canadian culture and I have to believe this would shift to outright 'principled' opposition to the idea were they to ever gain a majority. Canada Global Scholarships are also an excellent idea that would encourage immigration by bright and talented young people and also strengthen our universities.

Anywho, M. Dancer raises a valid point, yes. So to elaborate, the proposals in the document strike me as a good way to embrace and benefit from a globalized economy while still promoting liberal (as distinct from social democratic) values. Highlights for me include: - The recognition of China's and India's importance and eagerness to develop partnerships in economic as well as technological, cultural, and environmental areas. At least in the case of India, this seems to be a bit overdue if anything. - The eagerness to renew aid to Africa, focusing on projects such as microfinance and private sector growth - Making empowerment of women in the developing world a priority - The idea of developing an academic centre of excellence in international conflict resolution - The idea of Canada Global Scholarships (although no party really seems to be tackling the real crisis issues facing higher education as it is) - Recognition of the importance of our cultural exports

This document that they released a couple months ago. I finally got around to reading it recently (tipped off by a post on this board actually): http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:GKJP3CO8Vp4J:can150.ca/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/canada_world_jun2010.pdf+liberal+global+network+strategy&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca&client=firefox-a

Couldn't find a thread about this. Thoughts? I was actually surprised by how sensible and well-thought-out this seemed to me.

They choose to record in Canada because there are high-quality studios and producers in Canada. Cancon requirements stimulated demand for music that was produced in Canada (since if a piece of music is performed or recorded in Canada, that counts for a credit under the MAPL system), which stimulated the emergence and growth of these studios. Even Sylvia Tyson, who, like you, opposed the regulations on principle, acknowledged the importance of regulation in stimulating this growth in this 1975 interview: http://archives.cbc.ca/economy_business/the_media/clips/6301/ (The Guess Who did mostly record at Number Nine Studios in Toronto, even if "American Woman" was recorded in Chicago.) Bryan Adams did not get rejected because he lived in the UK. "Everything I Do" did not initially qualify as Cancon because both music and lyrics were co-written by a non-Canadian. However, the criteria were actually revised because of that specific case such that if both music and lyrics were co-written by a Canadian that could count for a point in the MAPL system. As a result, "Everything I Do" did end up qualifying. Bush_cheney2004 is right that, at least since Seagram's was bought out, the big labels are still mostly not headquartered in Canada but major inroads have been made in other areas. More label offices did appear in Canada after the CRTC emerged and intervened. Correct. Media Coporations do not represent the public's interests, they cater to them. They cater to their customers' (and shareholders') interests, which is not exactly the same thing.

This was more or less what I meant by "assimilated", not that there was something bad about their music. (I like Paul Anka and the Four Lads too btw.) I agreed that it was a poor choice of words.

To be clear, ToadBrother, I wasn't at any point trying to pass judgment on the artistic worth of Canadian artists before or after Cancon. Believe me, I am the last person who needs to be lectured on the greatness of Joni Mitchell or Neil Young. But all the pre-CRTC artists you mentioned were (exceptionally talented) artists who moved to and recorded in the US with American producers for American labels. One thing that cultural protection and subsidies have enabled is the development of an industry and support network in Canada for Canadian artists such that many post-CRTC artists, including Rush, have not always had to leave. This was just not there prior to the CRTC. Healthy musical scenes and communities have been able to develop more freely within the country. And in fact, sometimes international artists have come here. Where you see restrictions on your freedom as a consumer or taxpayer I also see greater freedom for artists to be able to create in Canada and begin to gain greater access to the marketplace. Smallc has articulated well much of what I was trying to say. (Thanks!)

Actually, tbf, with Cockburn, I was thinking of a VideoFACT grant in the 80s, which was not an early stage in his career.

(Heh, and I'm trying to figure out how I'm responsible for cultural imperialism!)

At least we agree on something! (Rush is actually a good example of a band who have remained in Canada, btw, aside from Peart, who moved to the US in the past decade. Many of their classic albums, including Permanent Waves and Moving Pictures were recorded in Canada with the producer Terry Brown, who has been in Canada since the early 70s.) I wasn't thinking of Joni Mitchell or Neil Young, both of whose careers began only shortly before the CRTC era, when I made the "assimilated" comment btw. I was thinking more of earlier artists, e.g. Paul Anka or the Four Lads. Actually, you could argue that there was a distinct earlier Canadian country sound with artists like Hank Snow. So maybe "assimilated" was a poor choice of words, I'll grant. Still, it was after the CRTC and Cancon were established that we began to see major Canadian hits on a regular basis (e.g. the Guess Who's "American Woman", which was the first Canadian #1 on the US Billboard charts, even though the Guess Who remained and recorded in Canada and made a very public point of it). It was also then that we started to see studios emerge, that an industrial infrastructure developed. Canadian artists did and do still need international success to do extremely well commercially. However, the development of this infrastructure and of a national support system made it more possible for artists to get started on that path. Sarah McLachlan, the Barenaked Ladies, and Bruce Cockburn are examples of internationally successful artists who benefited not only from Cancon but from actual government grants in the earlier stages of their careers.

You're right. I never said that government protection was required for music to flourish in any context. But sometimes it may be helpful. The US is much more heavily and densely populated, making it easier and more potentially lucrative for young bands to tour and develop a niche audience. Importantly, it has also been a centre, if not the centre, of the popular music industry for as long as there has been a popular music industry. As a result, prior to Canadian content regulations, Canadian popular music talent simply migrated south and assimilated. For an industry to develop in Canada - something that has very real economic benefits, not just cultural ones - and for more talent to remain, become cultivated, and achieve international success, regulations and intervention have been helpful. Since the late 70s, some of the biggest names in popular music have been recording in Canadian studios such as Little Mountain, which was unthinkable prior to the 'CRTC era'. (More later.)

As far as a Canadian Fox-style network goes, I'll drop it, OK? I just don't think they should be treated differently than other networks within the existing regulatory regime or that politicians should be influencing the makeup of a regulatory body in order to further the interests of a regulated network. That's it.

Alta4ever, have I done something to you personally? Why the animosity in your replies to me? At least M. Dancer has engaged with my arguments using facts and reasoning (and has swayed me to some degree). So you'll sacrifice one special interest for another. I just want to watch what I want to watch, and I don't give a damn about cultural protections, and the fictions of arms-length regulators, who clearly have just as many axes to grind as anybody else. See, I guess I just don't see public institutions such as the CRTC as special interests in the same way that corporations - who pretty much by definition have a special interest in making a profit for their shareholders - are special interests. Fellowtraveller is right that the agency works within the legislation and regulatory framework developed by a government. Our democracy isn't perfect but imo we do still fundamentally have elected, responsible governments. To an extent, they ARE or should be still responsible to the public, not just to a particular group of shareholders from a privileged class. And a public interest (that in my opinion, evidently not in yours, is not always met by the workings of the ‘free’ market) is what should guide the frameworks within which regulatory bodies act. It is not that I have too much faith in people or think that one group of people is better than another. It is that I am wary of any one group having too much power. In order to counterbalance the power of corporations, I feel that some level of government intervention can be useful. It is possible that, as I think you may be suggesting, I simply see public cultural institutions as working in the public interest and not as a special interest because they work – or have worked previously - in accordance with the values and ideological leanings that I personally happen to hold. If that is the case, since those are my values, I’ll admit that I hope they continue to do so! I don't need regulators or the governments to tell me a single thing that I watch or listen to. They have no business doing it. I'm a free agent, not some bizarre container that crappy Canadian content (crappy in large part because it's been protected by artificial barriers) can be dumped into. As I have mentioned previously, at least in the area of music, I don’t think Canadian content is crappy. It is thriving, successful, and internationally recognized – and here, I am talking about commerical, international marketplace-recognized success NOT my own artistic judgment – due in no small part to public support and Canadian content regulations. One only needs to consider the state of Canadian popular music and what passed for a Canadian music industry before 1970 to recognize the difference. You completely miss the point in point one, if people don't watch it advertisers stop buying advertising space. If you reread the post you were responding to, I did not miss this point. What I said was “The consumers who matter are the corporations who advertise. They do care about reaching a large audience but they may also care about other things: appealing those portions of the public who have more money to spend, supporting messages that work in their own interests as opposed to information programmes that may communicate information that works against the long-term interests of big business, etc. “ I recognized your point when I said “They do care about reaching a large audience”. However, I was simply pointing out that this is not their sole concern. Reaching an audience that happens to have money to spend would e.g. be more profitable than reaching a larger audience in terms of sheer numbers. It is not a strictly democratic system. Also, corporations could conceivably have other interests. M. Dancer has directly responded with facts to this last point and I’ll defer to his knowledge here.

You know, if the government were simply advocating that the CRTC should not regulate the licensing of non-spectrum-dependent cable networks at all, that would be another issue. It's a little worthy of concern though if we're going to preserve the existing regulatory regime but it appears that people close to politicians are exerting influence. So I agree with you here, ToadBrother, that politicians are another powerful group whose influence needs to be watched and checked. I think I basically broadly agree with the NDP on where they see a role for regulations and government involvement in preserving some checks and balances of power. (I'm sure many of you don't but these suggestions seem reasonable to me): 1. Protecting Canadian content and promoting Canadian artists and creators 2. Supporting community broadcasters and alternative media 3. Restricting cross-media ownership and protecting against media concentration while accounting for regional realities 4. Requiring private media companies to create an information ombudsman to ensure the journalistic integrity and social responsibility of news corporations 5. Limiting the foreign ownership of Canadian media and telecommunications industries 6. Strengthening the rights of media and telecom consumers; and 7. Enforcing “net neutrality” with clear and transparent rules to protect Canadians’ right to access freely the content of their choice. At the end of the day, ToadBrother, I suppose that, in this country and in my lifetime, my experience has left me with much more trust in arms-length public sector regulators and cultural organizations than in large media corporations. I certainly don't think they're perfect or that they don't need to be watched and checked as well.

To be clear, my initial comment about Fox News was sort of a cheap shot: I don't like or respect Fox News and wasn't that excited about the possibility of a similar service becoming a mandatory part of cable packages in Canada. I don't think it should be censored or anything or treated differently from other news services. I'll have more to say about the rest of the discussion -- which is quite interesting -- tonight, when I have more time.

Maybe I'm digressing though. In any case, the real issue here is the question of whether Harper and people closely connected to him are exerting excessive influence within a media chain and an ostensibly independent regulatory body. If this is the case, I do not see how this could work in the interest of the consumer at all. (Ultimately, I'm not necessarily saying that a Fox News-style network should be censored in Canada, just that it should be regulated like any other news network without interested interference by politicians.)

Why is that so if facts and knowledge always get a good audience? Some points: i) When it comes to TV, the consumer is only the viewer in a rather indirect sense. The consumers who matter are the corporations who advertise. They do care about reaching a large audience but they may also care about other things: appealing those portions of the public who have more money to spend, supporting messages that work in their own interests as opposed to information programmes that may communicate information that works against the long-term interests of big business, etc. (Chomsky has written about this.) As such, it is useful to have regulations here. ii) The public can only choose from the options that are provided to us (and can scarcely judge the fairness of a source without prior information). Media corporations can thus potentially have a great deal of power to determine what options are available in the marketplace of information and ideas. Again, regulation can help to try to ensure that news coverage is fair, accurate, and not overly swayed by the influence of powerful individuals or groups.

Was specifically referring to the CRTC's Canadian content regulations for radio here, if that wasn't clear, sorry.

Don't you guys think that this level of influence in media and arms-length regulators is a little problematic though? Plus, I don't know about you but I don't exactly think that Fox News is a model of fair and balanced reporting that should be emulated in this country. As a popular music academic, I can say that it is pretty much a matter of consensus that the CRTC (and Cancon regulations) are responsible for the flourishing, probably even the existence, of a successful music industry in Canada. It has been tremendously valuable to Canadian culture. I do actually agree that it has become a victim of its own success in a sense: Now airwaves are saturated by the biggest hits by a handful of global stars who don't need the regulations. I am of the opinion that this would be best resolved by more nuanced regulations. Not that this is directly related to the G&M article but I do want to put in a word for the CRTC amidst all the naysayers.

But even those comments aren't a defence of the current rulers of Iran. Nor are they proof of anti-Semitism: They are opinions on the policies and behaviours of specific governments, not attacks on Jewish people as a whole (including the Jewish-Canadian population). In any case, they do not reflect the NDP's official policy, as indicated by Layton's subsequent actions.

How has the NDP supported the rulers of Iran?: http://www.ndp.ca/press/statement-on-situation-in-iran

Not that union workers necessarily do en masse, mind you. I think I agree with your general point about the NDP (although the NDP does own the two Windsor ridings). I just disagreed with the equation of pro-Palestinian policies with anti-Semitism,

(One can support a Palestinian state without being an anti-Semite.)