Harper's next victim...CRTC

[M.Dancer]

Consumer driven news is problematic because facts and knowledge wont always get you ratings and sell ad space.

That is nonsense. Fact and knowledge always gets a good audience. Non consumer driven news gets budgies as readers. The media is a product. If the product does not suit the taste of the consumer, the consumer will not buy it. If you want to know how non consumer news is disseminated, ask Bjre.

Edited August 20, 2010 by M.Dancer

[M.Dancer]

IMO the birth of ratings driven news media has pretty much been a disaster.

All media, from the time of Gutenberg has been ratings driven...whether you measure it in paid circulation or GRPs. Publish stuf that no one cares about and your media model will fail. EOS

[M.Dancer]

I should also add that networks other than all news networks do not make very much money from their news departments. They aim to break even but often lose money.

[Evening Star]

I should also add that networks other than all news networks do not make very much money from their news departments. They aim to break even but often lose money.

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.

[Evening Star]

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.)

[ToadBrother]

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.

Doesn't the government constitute a powerful group? Why would I consider the government any more reliable regulator of what I see on TV then, say, Global? Governments throughout history have shown themselves just as able and willing to manipulate the dissemination of information as any corporation.

[Alta4ever]

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.

You completely miss the point in point one, if people don't watch it advertisers stop buying advertising space.

Point two you make is utter garbage and hardly worthy of a response, other then to out the CBC has a political agenda as does the CRTC and the other networks as well. HOw do you combat this many sources. When I read the news I don't just read it from one source, I read it from the TO Red star, the Glob and mail, the National Post and from Sun Media. Each source has its own take on the facts and between them you usually will arrive at the truth. What we have with television media is 3 similar views to a varying degree all operating on the same model its garbage. Once Duffy went off the air I stopped watching any news programs on Canadian stations because they don't really offer anything I like, just garbage.

The CRTC is not about regulation its about protection, picking winners and losers with my tax dollars, the consumer would be a much better judge.

[nicky10013]

That is nonsense. Fact and knowledge always gets a good audience. Non consumer driven news gets budgies as readers. The media is a product. If the product does not suit the taste of the consumer, the consumer will not buy it. If you want to know how non consumer news is disseminated, ask Bjre.

The first two sentences from this are hilarious. Fact and knowledge gets a good audience which is why Fox News is the #1 rated cable news network in the US.

Easily the most respected, knowledgeable, accurate and unbiased news is BBC News. How do they do?

[ToadBrother]

The CRTC is not about regulation its about protection, picking winners and losers with my tax dollars, the consumer would be a much better judge.

Amen! That's exactly what it is. It's a cabal of appointed potentates whose major interest is maintaining their influence. But I'm of the opinion that the CRTC, save for functions like spectrum regulation, will be irrelevant within 10 years. With it becoming clearer that the Internet will become the primary means of entertainment content delivery, they're screwed. Within ten years I'll be able to watch pretty much anything I care to watch, from wherever I want to watch it from.

[Alta4ever]

Amen! That's exactly what it is. It's a cabal of appointed potentates whose major interest is maintaining their influence. But I'm of the opinion that the CRTC, save for functions like spectrum regulation, will be irrelevant within 10 years. With it becoming clearer that the Internet will become the primary means of entertainment content delivery, they're screwed. Within ten years I'll be able to watch pretty much anything I care to watch, from wherever I want to watch it from.

SHHH we don't want them to try to extend their mandate to cover new delivery methods.

[nicky10013]

Amen! That's exactly what it is. It's a cabal of appointed potentates whose major interest is maintaining their influence. But I'm of the opinion that the CRTC, save for functions like spectrum regulation, will be irrelevant within 10 years. With it becoming clearer that the Internet will become the primary means of entertainment content delivery, they're screwed. Within ten years I'll be able to watch pretty much anything I care to watch, from wherever I want to watch it from.

No it isn't. When was the last time the CRTC denied a channel license?

[M.Dancer]

Why is that so if facts and knowledge always get a good audience?

That is like asking why computers that don't work sell porrly compared to computers that do work. People who watch news do so for specific reasons. Being entertained is low on that list.

Some points:

i) When it comes to TV, the consumer is only the viewer in a rather indirect sense.

No they are a viewers in the real direct 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.

First off, I will say this gain, network news is not a profit centre.

Secondly, facts do not bear out Chomsky's opinions. Chomsky btw has no direct media experiance. Despite his negative and often erroneous opinions, he still gets covered. Air Canada for instance continues to advrertise whether there is good or bad news about Air Canada. Toyoto did not pull their advertising despite the braking scandal. Same is true for just about all national marketers.

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).

You are in effect saying that the public are stupid and need an abituer to decide for them what is important.

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.

Media corpations only tool to deterrmine what the options are to the viewers is the CRTC. A better way to ensure that news coverage is balance is competition. If you don't like the CBC, watch CTV, don't like either, watch another. Having the CRTC make that decision is patently wrong.

[M.Dancer]

For example...

here are the top 25 US national TV advertisers in 2009....not news but all programming...

1 Verizon Communications Inc $ 268,670,700

2 AT&T Inc 237,178,400

3 Ford Motor Co Dlr Assn 228,833,200

4 Chrysler Group LLC 223,646,400

5 Honda Motor Co Ltd 209,075,500

6 Toyota Motor Corp Dlr Assn 201,946,800

7 General Mills Inc 199,744,900

8 Comcast Corp 185,534,600

9 McDonalds Corp 141,921,400

10 Yum Brands Inc 132,757,300

11 Time Warner Cable Inc 114,158,300

12 General Motors Corp 108,760,200

13 Toyota Motor Corp 108,286,900

14 Toyota Motor Corp Loc Dlr 103,142,100

15 Wendys Arbys Group Inc 90,504,500

16 Berkshire Hathaway Inc 88,904,900

17 Doctors Assoc Inc 83,744,900

18 Empire Today LLC 79,653,900

19 Nissan Motor Co Ltd 77,451,500

20 Procter & Gamble Co 74,700,200

21 DirecTV Group Inc 74,375,300

22 Volkswagen AG Dlr Assn 71,572,200

23 Hyundai Corp Dlr Assn 69,165,500

24 ITT Educational Services Inc 69,074,500

25 Ford Motor Co 69,023,200

http://www.tvb.org/rcentral/mediatrendstrack/tvbasics/index.asp

If you notice 4 of the top 5 are automakers despite the negative news coverage they were getting.

[M.Dancer]

No it isn't. When was the last time the CRTC denied a channel license?

Often...very often

http://www.digitalhome.ca/2010/07/crtc-denies-sun-tv-news-application/

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/CRTC+ok's+porn+channel,+but+denies+Christian...-a0187426350

http://www.channelcanada.com/Article1137.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Radio-television_and_Telecommunications_Commission#Controversial_decisions

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/world/news/e3i3a5fb1561d2145a32dfbba305e24f48f

http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2004/pb2004-51.htm

I could go on and on and on...

[M.Dancer]

The first two sentences from this are hilarious. Fact and knowledge gets a good audience which is why Fox News is the #1 rated cable news network in the US.

I can tell right off you don't know how ratings work or how the networks paly with numbers. I can also tell you don't like Fox news despite never having watched it.

Both Fox and CNNs big number come from talk shows, Larry King for example. Fox is kicking CNNs behind in this category...probably because as many people hate Glenn Beck as like him.

Those numbers have little to do with news coverage.

[ToadBrother]

No it isn't. When was the last time the CRTC denied a channel license?

Why should, in this modern age, a government agency have the power to approve or deny a license? I can see it if they're broadcasting via UHF or something like that, but that is a spectrum regulation issue.

[M.Dancer]

Easily the most respected, knowledgeable, accurate and unbiased news is BBC News. How do they do?

Are you unware of the scandals that have rocked BBC in the last 10 years?

[ToadBrother]

Both Fox and CNNs big number come from talk shows, Larry King for example. Fox is kicking CNNs behind in this category...probably because as many people hate Glenn Beck as like him.

There is a universal truth about editorial talk shows. It matters not whether the host is widely loved or widely hated, providing he's just widely watched or listened to. Glenn Beck probably attracts as many haters as he does fans.

The problem for CNN is that Larry King, who was pretty much the major cornerstone, just isn't hip, and is probably going senile.

[nicky10013]

I can tell right off you don't know how ratings work or how the networks paly with numbers. I can also tell you don't like Fox news despite never having watched it.

Both Fox and CNNs big number come from talk shows, Larry King for example. Fox is kicking CNNs behind in this category...probably because as many people hate Glenn Beck as like him.

Those numbers have little to do with news coverage.

Oh, I've watched Fox News. It doesn't take a moron to figure out they're at least stretching the truth. Even if ratings do come from the talk shows, they present propaganda as facts. People treat them like real news shows whether you know the difference or not. Furthermore, you probably know that. In my mind, that makes Fox even worse.

[ToadBrother]

Are you unware of the scandals that have rocked BBC in the last 10 years?

I think, for the most part, the News Service has done well. Certainly other departments of the BBC have run into some pretty severe trouble. I go to the BBC news site quite a bit, though they're latest rejigging has made it a lot less usable. But I don't rely on any one source.

[nicky10013]

Often...very often

http://www.digitalhome.ca/2010/07/crtc-denies-sun-tv-news-application/

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/CRTC+ok's+porn+channel,+but+denies+Christian...-a0187426350

http://www.channelcanada.com/Article1137.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Radio-television_and_Telecommunications_Commission#Controversial_decisions

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/world/news/e3i3a5fb1561d2145a32dfbba305e24f48f

http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2004/pb2004-51.htm

I could go on and on and on...

What, did you think I wasn't going to look at the links? The only relevant denial seems to be the Niagara channel. The Sun Channel was very much approved and Al Jazeera Canada was launched earlier this year. Nice try.

[Alta4ever]

Oh, I've watched Fox News. It doesn't take a moron to figure out they're at least stretching the truth. Even if ratings do come from the talk shows, they present propaganda as facts. People treat them like real news shows whether you know the difference or not. Furthermore, you probably know that. In my mind, that makes Fox even worse.

You just described all Network and MSM News, your just too naive to think that it doesn't extend beyond one media outlet that doesn't look at the news from your point of view.

[nicky10013]

You just described all Network and MSM News, your just too naive to think that it doesn't extend beyond one media outlet that doesn't look at the news from your point of view.

Coming from the guy that says he only watched Duffy, who was then appointed a Conservative Senatory, this is hilarious. I'm well aware of certain biases. However, no one can deny that Fox, and to a slightly lesser degree MSNBC, is where this practice is the worst.

[M.Dancer]

I think, for the most part, the News Service has done well. Certainly other departments of the BBC have run into some pretty severe trouble. I go to the BBC news site quite a bit, though they're latest rejigging has made it a lot less usable. But I don't rely on any one source.

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/1/29/114502.shtml

[M.Dancer]

What, did you think I wasn't going to look at the links? The only relevant denial seems to be the Niagara channel. The Sun Channel was very much approved and Al Jazeera Canada was launched earlier this year. Nice try.

Well I did expect a modicum of intellegence...all of the links are CRTC denials...whether they approve a latter submission (which would contain changes based on the CRTC reccomendations) is irrelevant to your question. You asked when was the last time the CRTC denied a request and the answer for those seeking an intellegent response is often.

I will try in future not to over estimate you.