Misconceptions about LPC in the West

[blueblood]

Maybe I missed something in some earlier post... but I never referred to cuts. Unless you mean cuts to the CRTC's ability to regulate the business of media and prevent concentration.

The CRTC's existense is censorship and concentration. Kill this dinosaur.

[BC_chick]

socialists like BC Chick need to realize the conservatives are about decentralizing federal powers.

Then keep your nose out of our safe-injection sites, you socialist. People out here favour them. Can't have it both ways, you know.

Edited October 4, 2008 by BC_chick

[blueblood]

Then keep your nose out of our safe-injection sites, you socialist. People out here favour them. Can't have it both ways, you know.

Are those safe-injection sites funded by the city??? What a waste of money.

[kimmy]

Whatever the underlying reason may be for Quebec warming up to federalism, it doesn't change the fact that there is a misconception in BC that Liberals give more to Quebec than Conservatives do.

This has been my point all along and nobody has yet acknowledged it but Wild Bill.

The Conservatives give Quebec the same things they've given other provinces: respect for provincial jurisdiction, and funding to address areas of provincial jurisdiction. They've also given Quebec symbolic recognition of its historical uniqueness.

The Liberals, during the Chretien regime, gave Quebec a shower of bribes to try to convince Quebec voters that federalism was good for them.

Whether one party "gives" more to Quebec is beside the point; what is significant is what is being given. Most people have little complaint with the notion that Quebec is a unique province within Canada; most people have a big complaint with the lucre that was funnelled into Quebec during the Liberal regimes in a futile attempt to promote a centralist federal vision.

-k

[Kitch]

The CRTC's existense is censorship and concentration. Kill this dinosaur.

Censorship yes, but its intended purpose is not concentration... at least it wasn't. It was supposed to prevent people from seeing/hearing 'harmful/offensive' things. I BELIEVE it was also supposed to prevent corporations from holding too many media outlets in single markets.

I don't disagree that there should be no censoring of anything... unless we really don't believe in freedom of speech. But then the government has to take some sort of control over the media industry. I don't think I need to give my opinion on why concentration is dangerous... but a truly free market without regulation doesn't prevent this from happening.

ANYWAY, my initial point was that you can't deny that media has become concentrated in recent years and that COULD have resulted in the muting of dissenting voices of provinces that don't like Harper's policies.

[blueblood]

Censorship yes, but its intended purpose is not concentration... at least it wasn't. It was supposed to prevent people from seeing/hearing 'harmful/offensive' things. I BELIEVE it was also supposed to prevent corporations from holding too many media outlets in single markets.

I don't disagree that there should be no censoring of anything... unless we really don't believe in freedom of speech. But then the government has to take some sort of control over the media industry. I don't think I need to give my opinion on why concentration is dangerous... but a truly free market without regulation doesn't prevent this from happening.

ANYWAY, my initial point was that you can't deny that media has become concentrated in recent years and that COULD have resulted in the muting of dissenting voices of provinces that don't like Harper's policies.

Or we could open up the Canadian media wide open and not let companies like BellGlobe Media have a virtual monopoly.

bring on starz hbo and espn!!!

Edited October 4, 2008 by blueblood

[Pliny]

Censorship yes, but its intended purpose is not concentration... at least it wasn't. It was supposed to prevent people from seeing/hearing 'harmful/offensive' things. I BELIEVE it was also supposed to prevent corporations from holding too many media outlets in single markets.

I don't disagree that there should be no censoring of anything... unless we really don't believe in freedom of speech. But then the government has to take some sort of control over the media industry. I don't think I need to give my opinion on why concentration is dangerous... but a truly free market without regulation doesn't prevent this from happening.

ANYWAY, my initial point was that you can't deny that media has become concentrated in recent years and that COULD have resulted in the muting of dissenting voices of provinces that don't like Harper's policies.

How has the media become concentrated in recent years when we have the CRTC to protect us from that? Better write them a letter and get them on it.

Also, where have you seen a truly free market that you could make this judgment about it? The freest is probably in some foods where hygiene is the only regulatory concern. If you have a marketing board there is a chance that big corporations like Monsanto can take over. If the people don't support Monsanto it will not grow. If the government supports Monsanto there isn't much we can do most people will do nothing because the government supports it.

[Pliny]

Then keep your nose out of our safe-injection sites, you socialist. People out here favour them. Can't have it both ways, you know.

Does keeping my nose out mean you don't want any federal funding? Can't have it both ways you know.

I live in the Fraser valley and don't support safe injection sites so you have to speak not for people out here but for your people, whomever they are.

[Pliny]

Most people have little complaint with the notion that Quebec is a unique province within Canada; most people have a big complaint with the lucre that was funnelled into Quebec during the Liberal regimes in a futile attempt to promote a centralist federal vision.

-k

Spot on!

[Kitch]

How has the media become concentrated in recent years when we have the CRTC to protect us from that? Better write them a letter and get them on it.

Also, where have you seen a truly free market that you could make this judgment about it? The freest is probably in some foods where hygiene is the only regulatory concern. If you have a marketing board there is a chance that big corporations like Monsanto can take over. If the people don't support Monsanto it will not grow. If the government supports Monsanto there isn't much we can do most people will do nothing because the government supports it.

You're right. I don't have an example of a truly free market from which to make that judgement. I won't deny that. But, if I make that concession, then it would only be fair for someone to make the same concession about a truly communist society; that one has never existed (on a scale larger than a small village). People are quick to shut down Marxist thought on the grounds that there is no incentive for people to work therefore some will selfishly take advantage of the system. Well, in a free market there is no regulation so there is nothing stopping them from exploiting other people... as a way to benefit from the system selfishly.

You, likewise, can't make the judgement, like Blueblood did, that a truly open market would prevent/not allow concentration of media.

My point is that the CRTC may have been intended to serve that purpose (MAY have been), but in recent years it doesn't serve that purpose. Let's say the market did open up... more. Rogers, Canwest and Bell Globemedia (I think those are the corporations) already own a large number of media outlets. What would stop them from owning them all? Customers? The advertisers are the customers... not viewers/readers/listeners.

[jdobbin]

It's because he has withdrawn the federal nose from peoples' business.

Charest has indicated they want the Feds to back out even more.

How much do you think the Feds should back out? Some of the changes seem to encroach on federal powers. The provinces will ask until it hurts.

Edited October 5, 2008 by jdobbin

[blueblood]

You're right. I don't have an example of a truly free market from which to make that judgement. I won't deny that. But, if I make that concession, then it would only be fair for someone to make the same concession about a truly communist society; that one has never existed (on a scale larger than a small village). People are quick to shut down Marxist thought on the grounds that there is no incentive for people to work therefore some will selfishly take advantage of the system. Well, in a free market there is no regulation so there is nothing stopping them from exploiting other people... as a way to benefit from the system selfishly.

You, likewise, can't make the judgement, like Blueblood did, that a truly open market would prevent/not allow concentration of media.

My point is that the CRTC may have been intended to serve that purpose (MAY have been), but in recent years it doesn't serve that purpose. Let's say the market did open up... more. Rogers, Canwest and Bell Globemedia (I think those are the corporations) already own a large number of media outlets. What would stop them from owning them all? Customers? The advertisers are the customers... not viewers/readers/listeners.

your forgetting about our friends to the south.

A truly open market would prevent the concentration of media by more competition.

There is regulation in a free market system, its called tradeoffs.

[Wild Bill]

Whatever the underlying reason may be for Quebec warming up to federalism, it doesn't change the fact that there is a misconception in BC that Liberals give more to Quebec than Conservatives do.

This has been my point all along and nobody has yet acknowledged it but Wild Bill.

<sigh>, thus it has always been, BCc! It just seems to be the way many of our fellow citizens think.

Politics is about perception far more than reality. You point out that there is a particular perception out there on the west coast. Some others will immediately claim "Well, they are WRONG because of..."

This is absolutely irrelevant! It's going to do squat about changing everyone's minds!

At the same time, many of these same people will try to demonize their political "enemy" by fostering a bad perception about his character. So they DO understand about perception and politics but just can't see it when it affects their own beliefs!

I guess we all colour reality through our self-chosen sunglasses. Mine are Ray-Bans, like those of Jake and Elwood Blue.

[Kitch]

your forgetting about our friends to the south.

A truly open market would prevent the concentration of media by more competition.

There is regulation in a free market system, its called tradeoffs.

Maybe I'm mistaken, but media concentration is even worse in the states! Rupert Murdoch owns a whole LOT of newspapers and television stations. Ted Turner, I believe, owns(ed) a whole lot of them too. Relative to the population size of the U.S., there are very few people that have controlling interest in the majority of media outlets.

Where's the competition? Please explain to me how competition to own media outlets occurs anyway... I just can't see it happening. Let's say two companies own ALL TV stations, and the majority of people get their 'news' from these stations. Do you think that either of them would broadcast anything that hinted at the possibility of a problem with this consolidation? The ONLY way, that I can think of, that people could protest/create competition is by going to other forms of media such as the internet. How could an alternative TV station come to be? If they report on certain information, such as the negative effects of some pharmaceutical, then they wouldn't be able to get advertising dollars from MANY companies (which are the REAL customers of media... outlets sell viewers... us... to advertisers).

[White Doors]

Thanks Kimmy. you said it so much better than I did.

[blueblood]

Maybe I'm mistaken, but media concentration is even worse in the states! Rupert Murdoch owns a whole LOT of newspapers and television stations. Ted Turner, I believe, owns(ed) a whole lot of them too. Relative to the population size of the U.S., there are very few people that have controlling interest in the majority of media outlets.

Where's the competition? Please explain to me how competition to own media outlets occurs anyway... I just can't see it happening. Let's say two companies own ALL TV stations, and the majority of people get their 'news' from these stations. Do you think that either of them would broadcast anything that hinted at the possibility of a problem with this consolidation? The ONLY way, that I can think of, that people could protest/create competition is by going to other forms of media such as the internet. How could an alternative TV station come to be? If they report on certain information, such as the negative effects of some pharmaceutical, then they wouldn't be able to get advertising dollars from MANY companies (which are the REAL customers of media... outlets sell viewers... us... to advertisers).

There is a lot more competition in the US, in Canada there is only 3 companies of relevance, one of them government owned. Open the door and let more players in.

[Kitch]

There is a lot more competition in the US, in Canada there is only 3 companies of relevance, one of them government owned. Open the door and let more players in.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but does the term "big 5" not refer to the 'relevant' American media companies? Where is this competition? How CAN new players come into the game? They'd undoubtedly have to be the creation of large corporations because of how much money it takes... there will be no Mom and Pop TV channels. And who's to say that the 'relevant' companies won't buy up all the new players anyway? What's to stop them?

And please humour me and tell me how competition would look between media companies if we deregulate further or completely.

Edited October 5, 2008 by Kitch

[blueblood]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but does the term "big 5" not apply to the 'relevant' American media companies? Where is this competition?

And please humour me and tell me how competition would look between media companies if we deregulate further or completely.

5 is more than 3, therefore there is more competition in the states. Let the big 5 come north and we can have 8. And much better TV to go along with it.

The Canadian 3 are abusing the protection the gov't has given to them. Open up the doors.

[Kitch]

5 is more than 3, therefore there is more competition in the states. Let the big 5 come north and we can have 8. And much better TV to go along with it.

The Canadian 3 are abusing the protection the gov't has given to them. Open up the doors.

Population of Canada - ~30 000 000

Population of USA - ~300 000 000

Also, the number of large, populated urban centres in the US is quite a bit bigger than in Canada.

So, 5 media companies for a population of 300 000 000 in many urban centres is not even close to being proportional to 3 media companies in a population of 30 000 000. If you look at those numbers, you would expect the US to have 30 media corporations or even more based on the number of cities... based on the US population being 10x that of Canada's.

There is LESS competition in the US.

[blueblood]

Population of Canada - ~30 000 000

Population of USA - ~300 000 000

Also, the number of large, populated urban centres in the US is quite a bit bigger than in Canada.

So, 5 media companies for a population of 300 000 000 in many urban centres is not even close to being proportional to 3 media companies in a population of 30 000 000. If you look at those numbers, you would expect the US to have 30 media corporations or even more based on the number of cities... based on the US population being 10x that of Canada's.

There is LESS competition in the US.

Population doesn't matter. I personally only have a choice of 3 outlets, one of them being gov't funded. I go to the states, I get more choices. There used to be a lot of choices in Canada, but they merged under the protection of the CRTC, look how big bellglobemedia is.

[Kitch]

Population doesn't matter. I personally only have a choice of 3 outlets, one of them being gov't funded. I go to the states, I get more choices. There used to be a lot of choices in Canada, but they merged under the protection of the CRTC, look how big bellglobemedia is.

Population certainly does matter. But more importantly, mergers happen under government protection??? So what would prevent mergers from happening in a totally free market? The public has no say in the case of mergers.

[blueblood]

Population certainly does matter. But more importantly, mergers happen under government protection??? So what would prevent mergers from happening in a totally free market? The public has no say in the case of mergers.

They have a say when they are shareholders. There is also the competition bureau. There are two instances right there.

[Kitch]

They have a say when they are shareholders. There is also the competition bureau. There are two instances right there.

Regular citizens as shareholders don't typically make decisions for a company... if you mean by buying/selling stocks... no explanation is given as to why stocks are sold, so a company doesn't necessarily have the info needed to realize that people don't like consolidation.

Competition bureau = regulation... not a free market

[Kitch]

Regular citizens as shareholders don't typically make decisions for a company... if you mean by buying/selling stocks... no explanation is given as to why stocks are sold, so a company doesn't necessarily have the info needed to realize that people don't like consolidation.

Competition bureau = regulation... not a free market

Nothing?

I really would like to hear how competition works between media companies.

[M.Dancer]

Nothing?

I really would like to hear how competition works between media companies.

The same way competion works in any other company. Media companies deal in a commodity and that commodity is audience. We offer audiences to marketers, we strive to attract a better audience than the other company and to offer that audience more efficiantly than the other company.