Harper's next victim...CRTC

[ToadBrother]

I never said that. I havent advocated any specific course of action at all.

Maybe the answer would be to give journalists special legal protection for ALL external pressures, including executives at his own company, AND the government.

So a newspaper won't be able to fire a reporter any more? You're explanations keep opening up more problems. Why don't you just come out and say you don't think private interests should be allowed to disseminate news, because the rules your advocating would, well, make the news so unattractive to private interests you would only be left from the government, and what privileges the government gives it can take away. That's pretty much where legal protections stand.

How do you propose to enact these protections. Will we have some nice little regulatory committee demanding "Were you coerced to say nasty things about the Minister? Did your boss lean on you to make these statements? Huh huh huh?"

Edited August 20, 2010 by ToadBrother

[dre]

So a newspaper won't be able to fire a reporter any more? You're explanations keep opening up more problems. Why don't you just come out and say you don't think private interests should be allowed to disseminate news, because the rules your advocating would, well, make the news so unattractive to private interests you would only be left from the government, and what privileges the government gives it can take away. That's pretty much where legal protections stand.

How do you propose to enact these protections. Will we have some nice little regulatory committee demanding "Were you coerced to say nasty things about the Minister? Did your boss lean on you to make these statements? Huh huh huh?"

So a newspaper won't be able to fire a reporter any more? You're explanations keep opening up more problems. Why don't you just come out and say you don't think private interests should be allowed to disseminate news

Its not that. Im just not comfortable with private interests arbirtrarily deciding what the public believes based on their own adgenda. I feel the exact same way about that, as you do about the government controlling media based on their adgenda.

In any case theres nothing is going to get done about it. News will continue to be corporatized and commodotized. I think eventually news corporations will expand their business models to become sort of public opinion management firms. In the very near future other large corporations will be able to contract with media networks to directly create news reports favorable to their position and bottom line. A defense contractor will be able to hire CNN to sway public opinion in favor of a war, or a pharmaceutical company will be able to hire FOX to create fear in the public of a certain disease, etc. Thats the direction things are moving in.

Theres no question youre going to get exactly what you want, I guess well just have to see how much you like it once you get it.

[dre]

So a newspaper won't be able to fire a reporter any more? You're explanations keep opening up more problems. Why don't you just come out and say you don't think private interests should be allowed to disseminate news, because the rules your advocating would, well, make the news so unattractive to private interests you would only be left from the government, and what privileges the government gives it can take away. That's pretty much where legal protections stand.

How do you propose to enact these protections. Will we have some nice little regulatory committee demanding "Were you coerced to say nasty things about the Minister? Did your boss lean on you to make these statements? Huh huh huh?"

How do you propose to enact these protections. Will we have some nice little regulatory committee demanding "Were you coerced to say nasty things about the Minister? Did your boss lean on you to make these statements? Huh huh huh?"

I dont know. Its a hard thing to do and theres no easy answer... thats why were discussing it. As I said my feeling is that nothing will get done at all, and news will become nothing more than a commodity that you can purchase to manage the publics opinion of something. Youll be able to purchase things like "editorial bias" and "expert analysis".

[ToadBrother]

I dont know. Its a hard thing to do and theres no easy answer... thats why were discussing it. As I said my feeling is that nothing will get done at all, and news will become nothing more than a commodity that you can purchase to manage the publics opinion of something. Youll be able to purchase things like "editorial bias" and "expert analysis".

I'm still confused about this editorial thing. Editorials are, by their very nature, biased. That's the point of the editorial section of a newspaper.

[ToadBrother]

Its not that. Im just not comfortable with private interests arbirtrarily deciding what the public believes based on their own adgenda. I feel the exact same way about that, as you do about the government controlling media based on their adgenda.

In any case theres nothing is going to get done about it. News will continue to be corporatized and commodotized. I think eventually news corporations will expand their business models to become sort of public opinion management firms. In the very near future other large corporations will be able to contract with media networks to directly create news reports favorable to their position and bottom line. A defense contractor will be able to hire CNN to sway public opinion in favor of a war, or a pharmaceutical company will be able to hire FOX to create fear in the public of a certain disease, etc. Thats the direction things are moving in.

Theres no question youre going to get exactly what you want, I guess well just have to see how much you like it once you get it.

I think this is fear mongering in the extreme. In fact, the big problem right now is fragmentation of markets. You're talking about a 1990s problem. The Internet solved it, though it has created all sorts of new problems.

Edited August 20, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Evening Star]

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.

[Alta4ever]

I think I basically broadly agree with the NDP

Big bloody surprise. What would you do with government regulation telling you what is "Canadian" what is proper to watch, and which news cast is the best to get your propaganda from. What a scary world it would be for you if you had to make those choices for yourself.

[ToadBrother]

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.

In other words, the CRTC will continue on the road to irrelevancy, and the artificial cultural protections will erode even as they are supposedly strengthened. The Internet is a game changer, or in this case, a game killer. Within a few years bandwidth will be such that everything you've written will be pointless, and even laughable. Technology crushes cultural protectionism.

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.

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. 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.

[dre]

I think this is fear mongering in the extreme. In fact, the big problem right now is fragmentation of markets. You're talking about a 1990s problem. The Internet solved it, though it has created all sorts of new problems.

I dont think its fearmongering at all. Corporations are increasing their ability to influence what the public believes. You really think they wont package that up and sell it? Why wouldnt they? People would definately be willing to pay.

[fellowtraveller]

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.)

You are not digressing, you are fantasizing.

The CRTC is not and has never been anythiong remotely like 'independent'. Where would you get such a curious idea? As with any regulatory agency, its actions are defined by the policy of government. Always has been that way for the CRTC. Govt established legislation and regulatory framework, agency acts within that framework.

What acts best for the consumer is the ability to nake reasonable choices for themselves, and the CRTC is a genrally a hindrance to that objective.

I am an adult, there is no reason whatsoever for the CRTC to tell every radio staion what they can and cannot play on my behalf. There is no reason to restrict braodcast license beyond broad adherence to law and technical equirements.

What the CRTC needs to be doing is controlling bandwidths and suignal strengths of whomever chooses to braodcast, not much more than that.

Your comment on Faux News is astonishing in its naivete and inherent contradiction. Why should Fox News or any news outlet be regulated at all beyond legal and echnical requirements? What do you fear?

[fellowtraveller]

6. Strengthening the rights of media and telecom consumers; and

Easily accomplished by simply opeming the telecom industry to actual competition, which would lead to lower prices for Canadians, who pay far too much now and far more than other developed nations.

I don't think the NDP has that in mind though, they want control and plenty of it.

[Argus]

Keep the regulatory functions, get rid of the ideological functions. Long and short, when I watch American TV off my satellite, I don't want to see Canadian shows. I also want to be able to select the TV channels I want and if none of them are Canadian, that's my business.

Go to one of the American cable or satellite companies and price out what you can get for what cost. You'll find that, with no execptions I've found, you can get far better packages of channels from any US cable or satellite operator than you can in Canada and for a far better price. Likewise, you get better cell phone packages in the US, though not as well as those in Europe. All the CRTC has done is to limit our choices and options and protect large Canadian corporations which have basically become oligopolies who have no care or concern for customers.

[Smallc]

So Argus, who do you think has an easier time recouping the cost of a $100M satellite? Bell Canada or DirecTV? I'll give you a hint - it isn't Bell, because the potential customer base is much smaller. The same goes for cable and cell phone. Covering 95% of the Canadian population will cell service is no easy task, given the geography and population distribution/concentration of this country. Covering Germany or even most of the US is far easier and far more profitable. What the CRTC has done in these cases has little to do with price.

[Evening Star]

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.

[Evening Star]

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.

[Jack Weber]

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 have to understand that that guy is an Albertan seperatist wannabe,and therefore,thinks ALL things Ottawa are bad and an afront to his Albertan "sanity"...

[ToadBrother]

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.

And the CRTC are not made up of a privileged class? Come on, you're wearing ideology proudly on your breast, and then pretending that it isn't as corruptible and short sighted as any other ideology.

At the end of the day, what I want is freedom. If I don't want to watch Canadian TV or listen to Canadian music, then I should have that right. Social engineering on both the left and right is to my mind vile and repugnant, and a sign of cowardice. Canadians cannot be trusted, the ideologue fundamentally beleives.

But don't worry, the Internet will wipe out any power the CRTC has in this area, unless the Feds become as vile and freedom-hating as Iran and China and start censoring the Internet. Are you going to be advocating that when the time comes? If not, then how at all do you think anything you've defended will have any meaning at all in 10-15 years?

[ironstone]

Well, if Harper's treating of veteran's is any indication, the military might be on our side as well.

You're right nicky,the Liberals treated the military much better during their reign didn't they?

[P. McGee]

But don't worry, the Internet will wipe out any power the CRTC has in this area, unless the Feds become as vile and freedom-hating as Iran and China and start censoring the Internet. Are you going to be advocating that when the time comes? If not, then how at all do you think anything you've defended will have any meaning at all in 10-15 years?

Are we better off with Rogers and Bell controlling the Internet? Arguably they already abuse the power they have.

[ToadBrother]

Are we better off with Rogers and Bell controlling the Internet? Arguably they already abuse the power they have.

Thus far the chief risk of Internet censorship has been from... you've got it... governments. The Australian web filter, the UK filter plans, and even talk in Canada.

Don't you people get it? Governments are the greatest threat to liberties, and always have been. And the solution around here is to give governments even more power. I trust governments the least. Their record through the centuries is abominable.

[Argus]

So Argus, who do you think has an easier time recouping the cost of a $100M satellite? Bell Canada or DirecTV? I'll give you a hint - it isn't Bell, because the potential customer base is much smaller.

The customer base is only smaller because we pulled "culture" off of the free trade deal. Otherwise both Bell and Directtv could compete for whatever customers they wanted in each other's countries. The same goes for everything else. We restrict entry to the Canadian market and that means that Canadian corporations can't go south either. If there were a level playing field anyone could compete anywhere. We restrict it to protect grossly ineffecient, ineffective, just plain lousy Canadian companies like Bell, Shaw, Rogers and Telus. This makes them wealthy and gives us all overpriced communications services which are of a considerably lowerer quality than the US gets. And your complaint about size is silly. Other nations which are large like Australia pay a fraction of what we do for cell services. Third world countries pay less than we do for cell services. As for Satellite TV - it's cheaper in subsaharan africa than here. And it isn't just the costs, they have far more choices in what they get in the US, with more channels, more varied channels, for less money.

International phone costs

Edited August 22, 2010 by Argus

[P. McGee]

Thus far the chief risk of Internet censorship has been from... you've got it... governments. The Australian web filter, the UK filter plans, and even talk in Canada.

Don't you people get it? Governments are the greatest threat to liberties, and always have been. And the solution around here is to give governments even more power. I trust governments the least. Their record through the centuries is abominable.

A few posts ago I believe you were saying something about "wearing ideology proudly on your breast, and then pretending that it isn't as corruptible and short sighted as any other ideology". Good line by the way. Doesn't that also apply to your own comments here? Surely blanket distrust of government is no less silly than applying the same attitude to "the corporations".

[ToadBrother]

A few posts ago I believe you were saying something about "wearing ideology proudly on your breast, and then pretending that it isn't as corruptible and short sighted as any other ideology". Good line by the way. Doesn't that also apply to your own comments here? Surely blanket distrust of government is no less silly than applying the same attitude to "the corporations".

You won't find a raging anti-regulatiarian here, I'm afraid. Where regulation is necessary, I see it as a beneficial. But culture... media... entertainment? No, there's no justification for that.

As I said, all the "big evil media" types can point to are nebulous threats, I can give you three or four concrete examples of government interference right off the top of my head. Historically, governments have always been the biggest threat to the free exchange of information. Do you deny it?

[ToadBrother]

The customer base is only smaller because we pulled "culture" off of the free trade deal. Otherwise both Bell and Directtv could compete for whatever customers they wanted in each other's countries. The same goes for everything else. We restrict entry to the Canadian market and that means that Canadian corporations can't go south either. If there were a level playing field anyone could compete anywhere. We restrict it to protect grossly ineffecient, ineffective, just plain lousy Canadian companies like Bell, Shaw, Rogers and Telus. This makes them wealthy and gives us all overpriced communications services which are of a considerably lowerer quality than the US gets. And your complaint about size is silly. Other nations which are large like Australia pay a fraction of what we do for cell services. Third world countries pay less than we do for cell services. As for Satellite TV - it's cheaper in subsaharan africa than here. And it isn't just the costs, they have far more choices in what they get in the US, with more channels, more varied channels, for less money.

International phone costs

Indeed, our protectionist system has only maintained a hegemony of communications companies creating mediocre products that the consumer ends up paying considerably more for. Whether it's cell phones or the crap TV that CTV and CBC produce, it all amounts to the same thing. Protectionism hasn't created a stronger Canadian media and artistic market place, it's created a weaker and less appealing one.

And as to music, well, guess what, the United States has a vibrant Indy music scene, with far less of the kind of subsidies, direct or indirect that we have, and despite the best attempts of the Big Media companies to quash them in favor their own distribution model.

My beef... I just want to get any damned channel I want, without having to buy a bunch of mediocre crap foisted on me by some regulatory regime which I have no input into, and which is utterly unresponsive to the real marketplace. Fire the guys, disband all but the necessary spectrum functions, and let the industry do as it will. Maybe we might produce more than the handful of watchable TV shows that Canadian production companies have ever been able to produce.

[Evening Star]

And as to music, well, guess what, the United States has a vibrant Indy music scene, with far less of the kind of subsidies, direct or indirect that we have, and despite the best attempts of the Big Media companies to quash them in favor their own distribution model.

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.)