APTN v. Stephen Harper

[August1991]

APTN is the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network. APTN is a first tier channel. This means that the CRTC requires APTN be included in all basic cable packages, and so APTN receives a portion of all basic cable subscriptions in Canada.

APTN has a budget of about $40 million and about $37 million of this comes from obligatory cable subscriptions. IOW, APTN has a guaranteed cash flow as long as the CRTC forces cable distributors to carry its signal, and force cable subscribers to give it revenues.

[iMV, cable/hydro/pension/monthly deductions are a "tax" by another name.]

-----

Among the numerous "personal friends" of Canada's PM (and make no mistake, any PM of Canada will have several thousand "personal friends"), the APTN managed to find Bruce Carson. They presented him as a sleazy, escort/lap dance client and made him into a big-time player in Harper's office.

Why? And why is this suddenly in the MSM news?

Maybe they want to discover the truth.

Or maybe, the people who own or work for APTN want Stephen Harper out of office. They fear that if Harper stays in office, the APTN will lose its privileges.

----

In all honesty, I have no problem with advocacy journalism. Long ago, I pondered the question: when trying to understand a debate after the fact, is it better to ask a debate participant or to ask an observor of the debate? I still don't know the answer to the question.

But I object to State-financed advocacy. It is hard not to conclude that the APTN is protecting its access to cable fees, just as many other groups defend their State subsidies. Conservatives want to cut government spending and many people will lose their "gravy train". Understandably, they object.

And this explains my objection to State-financed advocacy.

We are all forced to pay for it, and recipients know this.

Edited April 10, 2011 by August1991

[William Ashley]

So don't buy cable.. living sandwiched between two native reserves (and according to google on reserve, or it was, now they have a road going through my house with the updated one..) I'm actually quite interested in what they are broadcasting and on about.

I find your "vieled attack" on APTN as somehow not worth the 1$ per Canadian or 2$ per cable subscriber if this is the case - is easily resolved by not buying cable.

While ultimately I do support cable companies picking their own programming - I think really it is the government that needs to insure broadcast mediums for itself - and the public - I don't think this should be pursued via a private company or a variety of private companies though.

1. the internet is not secure

2. It is far more difficult to jam or alter radiowaves for most. -- really it is both the government needs to pursue in creating an emergency broadcast channel via radiowaves - perhaps with a repeated microwave system.. and the microwave system could also be used for public wifi.

The cost of course is issued but the government needs its own communication lines anyway in non peak periods this should make available transmission via wifi - even if reception is secondary for the communication lines.

Under the current structure though APTN is just as deserving as any other tier I channel.

The courts if they were fair and reasonable really should replace the CRTC, courts that are inquistional and open to public input and dialog from all stakeholders and citizens.

I don't have cable and either as far as I'm aware do the reserves around me... satalite perhaps but not cable to my knowledge.

Edited April 10, 2011 by William Ashley

[Harry]

How this guy Carson got his job is now really starting to smell.

Comment Bruce Carson est passé entre les mailles du filet?

http://www.cyberpresse.ca/actualites/quebec-canada/politique-canadienne/201104/07/01-4387679-comment-bruce-carson-est-passe-entre-les-mailles-du-filet.php?utm_categorieinterne=trafficdrivers&utm_contenuinterne=cyberpresse_B13b_politique-canadienne_560_section_POS4

[Harry]

I suppose Harper had no hand in this.

Former PMO staffers past should have raised red flags, officials say

Convicted fraudster Bruce Carsons past should have raised red flags that he was a security risk to government, even if he may not have been a likely target for blackmail, some former CSIS experts suggest.

Any investigator in my 33-years experience, nobody would have recommended to keep that guy. Nobody, former CSIS intelligence officer Michael Juneau-Katsuya said about Carson being green-lighted for a secret-level security clearance.A secret clearance is given to many federal employees and is the second-lowest security clearance level.

Carson, a former senior aide to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, obtained a secret clearance despite having been convicted of five fraud charges in the early 1980s and 1990s.

Read more: http://www.canada.com/Former+staffer+past+should+have+raised+flags+officials/4589629/story.html#ixzz1J68aWM73

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/canada/Former+staffer+past+should+have+raised+flags+officials/4589629/story.html

Edited April 10, 2011 by Harry

[August1991]

How this guy Carson got his job is now really starting to smell.

Who is this guy Carson? And why is the Anglo MSM suddenly talking about him - in the middle of an election?

Good questions. Before this election started, no one knew the name. And then APTN, a company critically dependant on federal government funding, opposed to Harper, raised the name.

Talk about an extortion racket.

Edited April 10, 2011 by August1991

[Harry]

We shouldn't be shooting the messenger here. Sounds like Harper has some splaining to do.

Harper hasn't explained away the Carson story

But this swift reaction does not absolve Harper. He must explain fully to voters before election day what his relationship with Carson was and how the man got hired. Harper is a notorious control freak, yet he's trying to pass the buck. He's trying to blame everyone else. He said Tuesday and Wednesday the security clearance "system" had failed.

Nonsense. Harper has known Carson well for many years, employing him both in government and in opposition. Carson wasn't some stranger answering a want ad for a job watering the plants.

Harper is trying to confuse the issue and no doubt hopes ADD soon afflicts the press corps.

Voters need reporters to keep working this story.

Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Harper+hasn+explained+away+Carson+story/4587241/story.html#ixzz1J6LrP01d'>http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Harper+hasn+explained+away+Carson+story/4587241/story.html#ixzz1J6LrP01d

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Harper+hasn+explained+away+Carson+story/4587241/story.html

[Shady]

So don't buy cable

No, the answer is that APTN should survive on it's own. Just like Sun TV News will be forced to do. If people don't watch it, then it shouldn't exist. This is a complete waste of tax money. This is just another example of a public financing racket. Here you have a television channel using tax dollars advocating for the the removal of a PM and the electing of a new one. All so that it can continue to have its hand in the cookie jar of public money. This shit is getting ridiculous.

[Shakeyhands]

No, the answer is that APTN should survive on it's own. Just like Sun TV News will be forced to do. If people don't watch it, then it shouldn't exist. This is a complete waste of tax money. This is just another example of a public financing racket. Here you have a television channel using tax dollars advocating for the the removal of a PM and the electing of a new one. All so that it can continue to have its hand in the cookie jar of public money. This shit is getting ridiculous.

When did APTN advocate the removal of Harper? I imagine that you have a cite?

[Molly]

The premise is false.

FIRST APTN broke the story;

THEN the government was defeated and we entered an election period.

The Carson story was pretty much buried under election horse-race coverage, and is only now re-emerging. The story about Peter MacKay's friends getting such great government jobs disappeared under that same avalanche but has yet to come back to light. Pity. I'd like to know a great deal more about that one.

Edited April 10, 2011 by Molly

[Michael Hardner]

The premise is false.

FIRST APTN broke the story;

THEN the government was defeated and we entered an election period.

The Carson story was pretty much buried under election horse-race coverage, and is only now re-emerging. The story about Peter MacKay's friends getting such great government jobs disappeared under that same avalanche but has yet to come back to light. Pity. I'd like to know a great deal more about that one.

Exactly. And now we're talking about APTN funding. Sounds like their strategy (as implied by Auguste) wasn't that great.

This is nothing new - we've seen the CBC accused of politically motivated behavior too.

[William Ashley]

No, the answer is that APTN should survive on it's own. Just like Sun TV News will be forced to do. If people don't watch it, then it shouldn't exist. This is a complete waste of tax money. This is just another example of a public financing racket. Here you have a television channel using tax dollars advocating for the the removal of a PM and the electing of a new one. All so that it can continue to have its hand in the cookie jar of public money. This shit is getting ridiculous.

If people don't watch it, then it shouldn't exist.

I disagere 100% with this statement, there are some forms of media that should be available even if not on demand, such as providing PSA's (even if viewership is low) or providing educational content, emergency broadcasting, release of government reports in multiple mediums for an informed public, and public alerts much the same as broadcasting but more community television such as town council and otherwise. This is more or less the type of content the CRTC forces on people. I do agree however these types of programs should be paid for by the public, not the CRTC, and they should not be dependent on private companies to transmit. I do 100% disagree however that just because interest is low content shouldn't exist. Viewership changes hands some go up some go down, just because today there is little interst doesn't mean there is no interest today and much interest tomorrow.

Here you have a television channel using tax dollars advocating for the the removal of a PM and the electing of a new one.

Subscribership funds arn't tax dollars, they are only from people who subscribe to a private cable company. Subscriber fees are passed on to the consumer by the company - the company doesn't need to, it is making lots and lots of money - it chooses to pay for those fees, that are tax deductable, by passing them on to the subscriber to make even more money. They get them first by deducting them as an operating expense, and second by getting you to pay for them because they "had to pay for them". It is double dip and you are a dupe, trying to attack a company because it doesn't share you political views this is the Harpnot of politics, it creates its own case because corrupt people like you attack free speech and the medium which is disgusting. That's part of the reason why Harper needs to leave because he creates and unCandaian police state mentality that attacks the charter in Harpers very unconstitutional operations and intents.

Well it is not as if CTV and other companies don't slant their media to one party or another, news stations are biased. I can't vouch for APTN because I don't watch TV often if ever but I can say it would not be an exception for them

You clearly don't understand how broadcasting in Canada works.

Edited April 10, 2011 by William Ashley

[BubberMiley]

So if APTN did something the government liked, it would be motivated by funding from the government.

If they do something the government doesn't like, it's motivated by funding from the government they want to get rid of.

Got it.

[Scotty]

Exactly. And now we're talking about APTN funding. Sounds like their strategy (as implied by Auguste) wasn't that great.

This is nothing new - we've seen the CBC accused of politically motivated behavior too.

You're inferring there isn't politically motivated behaviour by the CBC or other media entities?

What about politically motivated behaviour on the part of individual editors and journalists?

[Scotty]

We shouldn't be shooting the messenger here. Sounds like Harper has some splaining to do.

You’re never happy about somebody’s criminal convictions, but he had spent 20 or 25 years since then in the public service, including working for Joe Clark, Jean Charest, Peter MacKay, and the Library of Parliament. You balance [his criminal record] against a 20-or-so-year public service career after that, and you think, ‘Okay, well we’ll see what the [Privy Council Office] professionals say about his secret clearance.’ And all I got back was a note that he had cleared. I don’t know what considerations [the Privy Council Office] put into that because, to tell you the truth, once people were cleared, I didn’t ask any other questions. In fact, on the odd occasion that people had problems with the security clearance process, I never asked for the details then either.

How Carson Was Hired

[BubberMiley]

You're inferring there isn't politically motivated behaviour by the CBC or other media entities?

What about politically motivated behaviour on the part of individual editors and journalists?

Hmm. what about politically motivated behaviour on the part of CEOs?

Or teachers.

Or individual citizens?

My god, soon everyone will have their own opinion!

[Scotty]

Hmm. what about politically motivated behaviour on the part of CEOs?

Or teachers.

Or individual citizens?

My god, soon everyone will have their own opinion!

Politically motivated behaviour on the part of public entities is a different order of magnitude. The APTN is a public entity in my opinion in that its existence is decreed by the government which ensures its funding. If the government didn't insist on the APTN being funded by people like myself who never watch it, the network would not exist. It might as well be funded through taxes. No real difference.

[Michael Hardner]

You're inferring there isn't politically motivated behaviour by the CBC or other media entities?

What about politically motivated behaviour on the part of individual editors and journalists?

Maybe there is, but as BubberMiley pointed out it's damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[Shady]

Maybe there is, but as BubberMiley pointed out it's damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Exactly. Which is the inherent flaw of public financing.

[Michael Hardner]

Exactly. Which is the inherent flaw of public financing.

Arm's length funding is as good as that gets, I suppose.

[Leader Circle]

So if APTN did something the government liked, it would be motivated by funding from the government.

If they do something the government doesn't like, it's motivated by funding from the government they want to get rid of.

Got it.

You're missing August's point. APTN has become(if not always) irrelevant to Canadian TV. Forcing cable/satellite subscribers to have a channel they'll never watch is ridiculous. They know their funding may be in jeopardy so the best way to take focus off yourself and build ratings is to find(or engineer) a PMO scandal!

[Shady]

Forcing cable/satellite subscribers to have a channel they'll never watch is ridiculous.

Exactly. You may as well force the paint drying channel on subscribers. It's a big waste of tax money. The federal government shouldn't be in the business of picking winners and losers in the television/entertainment industry. Otherwise you get what we have here. Crony capitalism.

[Shwa]

In all honesty, I have no problem with advocacy journalism. Long ago, I pondered the question: when trying to understand a debate after the fact, is it better to ask a debate participant or to ask an observor of the debate? I still don't know the answer to the question.

But I object to State-financed advocacy. It is hard not to conclude that the APTN is protecting its access to cable fees, just as many other groups defend their State subsidies. Conservatives want to cut government spending and many people will lose their "gravy train". Understandably, they object.

And this explains my objection to State-financed advocacy.

We are all forced to pay for it, and recipients know this.

So let me get this straight:

APTN breaks a story about water contracting to First Nations with poor water quality that reveals some iffy dealings by a former PMO aide with a shady past and they do this - their purpose for the investigative story about First Nations issues - is to... protect their "gravy train?"

BWAAAA - HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!

If you object to "State-financed advocacy" then I presume you have a beef with Health Canada's 'Food Guide,' Labour Canada or practically everything Service Canada does?

Seriously August, you never cease to amaze me with your ability to narrow the focus.

Edited April 11, 2011 by Shwa