Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Vice President Carly Fiorina | Main | Why not recognize the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia? »

Wednesday, August 27, 2008

Me and the CRTC

I'd like to interrupt all this election chatter to talk about something that really matters to Canadians: porn.

Check out my latest Sun media column.

Posted by Gerry Nicholls on August 27, 2008 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e5548e4d6e8834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Me and the CRTC:

Comments

You column was rich and brought up many complaints about the CRTC that almost all Canadians have.

My favourite quote was "Instead of watching true Canadian programming, such as the Pierre Berton documentary, The Long and Boring History of Railroad Tracks, Canadians were watching non-Canadian shows such as The Beverly Hillbillies"

Posted by: Ike | 2008-08-27 7:21:21 AM


Being a big fan of "The road to Avonlea" and Rita Macneil", [I have her box set], the CRTC is a good thing.

Posted by: glen | 2008-08-27 9:30:27 AM


Let's talk about the importance of protecting Canadian culture.
Posted by Gerry Nicholls on August 27, 2008

The CTRC setup relating to terrestrial TV and cable was never about protecting Canadian culture, rather about protecting Canadian broadcasters. Prior to 1968 most people were watching TV off air which limited US channels because of spectrum and distance, after that people watched cable. The CRTC belief was that cable could simply keep adding US channels and the advertising money would flow south. The CRTC wanted to keep eyeballs and advertising on Canadian broadcasters.

The interesting thing that happened was that Canadian commercial TV broadcasters actually reduced the amount of Canadian content after the CRTC was formed because they were now protected from US competition.

Posted by: The Stig | 2008-08-27 9:33:30 AM


It's not really a concern for me as a consumer, what the C.R.T.C does. I have cable with about 200 channels and I hardly ever watch it. I actually spend more time on this website. It's a lot more entertaining, even if I do get "told off" from time to time.

Posted by: glen | 2008-08-27 9:51:43 AM


Since the internet, television has become utterly irrelevant along with the CRTC. Who cares what they say. It just doesn't matter. We can access whatever content we want from whereever we want. There is far more porn for teenagers to masterbate to on the internet so why would they ever subscribe to a porn channel?

Epsi

Posted by: epsilon | 2008-08-27 10:26:09 AM


'Problem is, Gerry, they'll find all sorts of reasons to make movies about "naked Cape Breton COAL MINERS' DAUGHTERS."

Posted by: batb | 2008-08-27 11:10:20 AM


We can access whatever content we want from whereever we want.
Posted by: epsilon | 27-Aug-08 10:26:09 AM

No you can't. Content rights usually don't extend outside the country they were sold to. So when you try and access content from outside you get blocked. Anybody in Canada who tried to view Olympic highlights from the BBC, RAI, etc found it was unavailable.

Now if you like watching decimated video filled with macro blocks on youtube you are more than welcome to it.

Posted by: The Stig | 2008-08-27 11:16:12 AM


glen and epsilon: You guys have got to be part of the "whatever" generation:

"It's not really a concern for me as a consumer..." and "Who cares what [the CRTC] say[s]. It just doesn't matter."

'Only problem with your POVs is that WE ALL PAY: We, the Canadian taxpayers, pay the salaries of all of the CRTC apparatchiks, we pay for a lot of the Canadian content that's mandated, and we pay to keep alive the careers of a whole lot of talentless actors and actresses: think Little House on the Prairie as just one example.

WE SUBSIDIZE OR OUTRIGHT PAY FOR THE DUMBING DOWN OF CANADIAN TALENT AND ARTISTIC OUTPUT.

So forgive me for sounding like your mother or one of your old teachers: You should care; the continuation of the CRTC's controlling our airwaves DOES matter, and it IS a concern for you as a consumer.

glen, re Rita MacNeil, the Men of the Deeps (they go hand in hand), and Road to Avonlea: I figure they'd be popular without the CRTC. I suspect they'd pay their own way...

Posted by: batb | 2008-08-27 11:25:36 AM


How about a movie called "Men of the Deepthroat" and a number of sequels: Men of the Deepthroat 2, Men of the Deepthroat 3, etc.?

(Apologies to the Men of the Deeps, who are fantastic...)

Posted by: batb | 2008-08-27 11:33:34 AM


and we pay to keep alive the careers of a whole lot of talentless actors and actresses: think Little House on the Prairie as just one example.
Posted by: batb | 27-Aug-08 11:25:36 AM

Little House on the Prairie was an NBC show. Are you saying Canadian taxpayers subsidized that show?

Posted by: The Stig | 2008-08-27 11:34:29 AM


batb, thanks again for the wake up call, and no you don't sound like my mother, although I do sort of like it when you do my research for me. And yes I highly agree we should not be susdizing this crap, so how do we eliminate the CRTC?, and yes I could try to find the answer myself, but I would like to read your opinion on this particular matter, and I was just kidding about the "Road to Avonlea" thing.

Posted by: glen | 2008-08-27 11:46:13 AM


The Stig:

I meant, OF COURSE, Little MOSQUE on the Prairie.

I actually liked Little House on the Prairie.

The Mosque take on the theme is actually name theft: such a typical warm-fuzzy, lib-left, kick-you-in-the-crotch-as-I-smile tactic (think Jennifer Wright's "the Green Shift"...)

Posted by: batb | 2008-08-27 11:49:57 AM


Culture comes from the people and is built at the family household level.

When the government protects the nuclear family it will truly be protecting Canadian culture.

The government has no more mandate to promote culture than it does religion.

Posted by: Speller | 2008-08-27 11:50:00 AM


So if the CRTC is going to mandate Canadian content on the porn channel will they also mandate that a percentage of the Canadian content be homosexual porn, and a disproportionate amount of porn involving minorities?

Posted by: Ike | 2008-08-27 11:51:22 AM


Let Canadians decide what they consider Canadian culture - Geez Louise. We don't need Stalin telling us what our culture is. Too many Canadian actors and culturalists, who happen to be on the public teat, want their freedom of speech protected, but want to force the rest of us to restrictions on what we can watch? Why stop there? Why not forbid books in our libraries that are not written by Canadians?

Posted by: Faramir | 2008-08-27 12:01:04 PM


Interesting conversation about an important matter.

But I have to admit--I burst out laughing reading your piece today, Gerry.

Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-08-27 12:10:35 PM


"The government has no more mandate to promote culture than it does religion."

I'm sorry but religion is a cult and should never be "protected". It should be repected but not protected.

Culture, however, represents life and it permits exchanges across the land and exchange between countries. I'm not always in favourable of the work done by the institutions in place but I don't really have a problem with the idea of seeing some of my taxe dollars used to promote and reenforcing it.

Posted by: Marc | 2008-08-27 12:42:38 PM


Marc must be a product of the new dispensation of the Canadian educational system, which means you can think, feel, or do anything you like. 'No need to define your terms so they make sense or give supporting arguments for your pet ideas or pet peeves.

"Cutlure's" OK, but religion isn't? No protection for religion (does that mean anyone can attack it and it's up to the church or its parishioners to defend it?) but lots for "culture"?

And "culture...represents life"? What does THAT mean? Dollars for Little Mosque on the Prairie but none for ... well, I can't actually think of an example, because the State never funds Judeo-Christian initiatives...?

Who decides what "culture" is worthy of funding and what "culture" isn't?

I agree with Speller:

[begin quote]

Culture comes from the people and is built at the family household level.

When the government protects the nuclear family it will truly be protecting Canadian culture.

[end quote]

Whenever the State begins to define "culture" we end up with gulags, jails, fines, and HRCs.

Posted by: batb | 2008-08-27 12:56:32 PM


You can't spell "culture" without "cult".

Posted by: Ike | 2008-08-27 1:01:41 PM


I agree with your overall criticisms, batb. It's hard to think of culture without including religion as part and parcel of the very meaning of culture.

But your comment about the state never funding Judeo-Christian initiatives is not true. In Ontario, the government funds the Roman Catholic Separate School Board. So you have a choice between your regular gov-run schools, and Roman Catholic gov-run schools.

Of course I think it's time for Ontario to stop funding Roman Catholic schools, and many of my former teachers (I went to Roman Catholic elementary and secondary schools) share this opinion since getting government money means compromising some of your most deeply-held religious beliefs.

Just to cite one example: Remember the high school student who wanted to bring his boyfriend to the prom? That was at Monsignor John Pereyma Catholic Secondary School, where I went as a student, and where I worked as a substitute teacher when this story made national (and international) news.

Many teachers were devastated when the courts sided with the student. But integrity is one cost you have to shoulder when you get in bed with the government.

Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-08-27 1:06:58 PM


The initiatives I was referring to, P.M. Jaworski, were ones that would be controlled by the CRTC, so I was specifically thinking of the content of television or radio programs.

I agree with your concerns about the Catholic School Boards being government-funded. I've worked in these trenches myself and have seen the devastating effect it has had on so-called "Catholic education."

Posted by: batb | 2008-08-27 1:44:47 PM


I see that now, batb. Thanks for the clarification.

You're right. I also can't think of anything on TV, funded by the government, that has anything at all to do with Judaism or Christianity.

Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-08-27 1:52:36 PM


The commenter above that contrasted the word "cult" with an inflection of itself is not the sharpest tool in the shed. I'm not sure that the school system can take credit for that one.

Posted by: Caley | 2008-08-27 3:46:30 PM


"does that mean anyone can attack it and it's up to the church or its parishioners to defend it?"

Religion is already and forever part of our cultural background. In Québec, you cannot look anywhere without seeing a church. Religion is part of every of our stories previous to the 60s. Attacking the Church, the institution as a whole, would be resulting as disrespecting our whole culture, our people.
But considering the political use of religions and the avening of different kinds of religions and cults, I prefer that we respect it.
Not live by it as it was before.
If one attack physically a church, a temple, a synagogue or any of them followers, they will arrested and put to jail.

If your questioning was around the fact that no one will protect religion from being critisized or even ignored by, lets say, me: I would fight to bleed for to keep it this way. But I would fight with the same energy so that you have the right of critisizing and ignore our Culture.

"Who decides what "culture" is worthy of funding and what "culture" isn't?"

It's exactly that.
I don't really have a problem when Culture is fund with my taxe money because it represents what people live and the way they express it.
I WANT to see bad taste visions and art because it means people express themselves - even those with bad taste.

In that sense, I also love to be shocked by art so that it's a proof that our society is in check and that everybody is expressing itself.

You're the one who wish to regulate and control it; not me. Freedom of speech and religions are much more in trouble in your hands than mine.

Culture, can't never rule the World as long as everything is permited. It's when some people try to control and regulate it that problems starts appearing. That's why I said I don't agree with every moves our present institutions do. That's also why I enjoy reading this blog for some of the interventions.

Religions, howerver, can easely rule the world and they have anything in it to make believe their followers that some atrocities are ok when done in their names. On the local scene when the church was sleeping with the State, the people were not educated properly and many sevices were done in its name. Howerever, spitting on some of the good things religion may have brought us would result in spitting on our own Culture as a whole and this would be a great disrespect an it would be critisized; by Me first.

Posted by: Marc | 2008-08-27 4:33:49 PM


Religions, howerver, can easely rule the world and they have *everything* in it to make believe their followers that some atrocities are ok when done in their names.

Posted by: Marc | 2008-08-27 4:37:10 PM



The comments to this entry are closed.