Category Archives: Thoughts

Consider, Federal, Media

Of Hockey, true Canadian local TV and Generosity

Leave a comment

The recent commotion caused by Alex Burrows denunciation of the actions he attributed to referee Stephane Auger caught my attention.

Many Canadians understandably regard hockey as Canada’s game, holding it near and dear to their hearts. Perhaps in hockey’s sportsmanship, teamwork and the generosity of spirit that underlies a team’s success they see a reflection of what it means to be Canadian.

Undoubtedly Canadians found the pettiness of spirit, the ‘it’s all about ME’ attitude and the total lack of consideration for others (in this case the fans) a disturbing reminder of just how americanized ‘Canada’s game’ has become.

Unhappily, I doubt that many recognized in this incident the highlighting of the creeping americanization of Canada  that has been corroding the Canadian Soul since the private broadcasting phase of the television age began.

As more and more private broadcasters entered the broadcasting business Canadians were subjected to more and more American programming. This programming has served to indoctrinate Canadians with the underlying principals of American life – Greed and Self-centredness.

This decades long barrage of Americanism has undermined Canadian values to the point our current Prime Minister is an American wannabe whose demonstrated goal is to replace the Canadians Ethical Rectitude with American narcissistic avarice.

It is to reverse this americanization of Canadian mores and allow Canadian mores to reassert and re-establish themselves as the underlying operating principals of Canadian society that the CRTC must not interfere in the Canadianization process that is currently taking shape in over the air broadcasting industry.

It is imperative that Canada  get actual local Canadian television and programming that reflects Canadian ethics and values to reverse the americanization of the Canadian Soul.

Despite the misrepresentation of their current “save local television” campaign, the private over the air broadcasters are not Canadian much less local.

Rather than Canadian television we have an American television programming rebroadcast system.

News programming, which should be an epicentre of Canadian values and ideas, is driven instead by the need for profit to feed the conglomerates which have come to own Canada’s media. News is not about ideas, discussion and goal setting but is about what sells – if it bleeds it leads.

Without CRTC interference Canadian over the air broadcasters and/or stations will have to reinvent themselves as true Canadian local television since over the air broadcasters will not survive (without CRTC interference) simply rebroadcasting American programming as is the current state of affairs.

The lack of viability of the current conglomerate media structure should, with the conglomerates failure, return control of television stations to local ownership.

The establishment of true local Canadian television and programming will help reclaim the Canadian Soul.

The desperate need for a restoration, a revitalizing, of the Canadian Soul is written in events occurring now in 2010 and throughout 2009.

Throughout 2009 the numbers of Canadians in need of help from their fellow Canadians to have shelter and food simply to survive grew at an accelerating rate.

In the months leading up to the end of 2009 there was story after story, report after report, concerning the increasingly (20% to 60% increases) large numbers of Canadians needing help just to find food to eat and to survive another night

The result of all this coverage? Charities, despite the well publicized large increases in the numbers of Canadians in need of help, did not make their targets and have had to carry their campaigns into the new year.

At the same time so many Canadians were left in need, other Canadians were spending an additional 3% this year over last year’s Christmas season on indulging themselves.

That’s correct, as the numbers of Canadians in need skyrocketed, those Canadians fortunate enough to be able to be generous were being less generous – except to themselves. How very American.

If Canadians do not want to continue to lose what it means to be Canadian, we must not just stop the americanization of the Canadian Soul but must actively seek to reclaim the Canadian Soul, our Canadian ethical rectitude.

We need to reverse the subtle process of indoctrination and americanization that our television broadcasters have enabled as an American programming rebroadcast industry, by allowing the market to force local ownership and Canadian programming and content.

We need tell Stephen Harper that if he wants to be an American he can immigrate; that we want to be Canadians, are proud to be Canadians and to not interfere with the Canadianization of the over the air broadcast industry currently underway.

Consider, Federal

Local Television – a Sunset Industry?

Leave a comment

I was watching a favourite show the other evening when it was rudely interrupted by yet another save us from the consequences of our own bad management decision making commercial AKA save local television.

At the time I was watching an American television program via a Canadian television signal that was replacing the signal of the US station I was watching.

Which has me pondering: Are these really local stations? Regardless of whether they are local or not, should we save them?

My television was tuned to an American station but the US signal was replaced by the Canadian stations signal – even though this results in portions of the program having been removed to make room for the extra minutes of commercial time Canadian stations are permitted.

It was necessary to impose Canadian content rules on these stations (with the exception of the CBC and its different mandate as the public broadcaster) to ensure a minimal Canadian content. Still, the majority of the programming is foreign (mainly US). On a content basis not only are these stations not local, they are not even Canadian.

Before making this statement I considered the matter of the daily news broadcasts. Take Global for example, which I believe has the most hours of local news broadcasts; 5:30 – 9:00 in the am; the noon hour news; early news from 5:00 – 5:30 pm; supper hour news; and a final hour of news for an apparent total of seven hours.

But is it seven hours of news? If you watch all the news broadcasts during a day it quickly becomes evident that most of the seven hours is made up of rerun material. Indeed if you watch the first half hour of the news in the early morning, all you really need to watch of the final news cast is the first few minutes to catch any (if any) interesting or important stories that have developed during the day.

Take out the international news and non-local sports and one is left with what? A hour total of different, non-repeated news in a day? Further, if one watches the news programming on the different stations the stories, the news reported is the same (for all practical purposes).

Does an hour of local news a day make a station or stations a ‘local television station’ when weighed against all the hours of foreign and non-local programming?

Keep in mind that a local newspaper such as the Vancouver Sun contains far more news and detail than an audio/video newscast can. Print media is an inherently denser medium for the transfer of data – the news.

Consider also the question: for someone living in Vancouver is a Toronto station a local station? Obviously not, even though the Toronto station occasionally carries stories about Vancouver.

In a similar manner Vancouver is not Abbotsford’s local television simply because the occasional story about Abbotsford is broadcast on a Vancouver station. This is an important point because Vancouver and other metropolitan stations are going to want cable to pay them for their signals delivered to communities in the vicinity of the metropolitan area such as Mission or Abbotsford.

As I stated: on a content basis not only are these stations not local, they are not even Canadian.

Another result of Canadian media, for the main part, being controlled through conglomerates is that content, management and decision making are dictated not by the needs of the local market but by the needs and best interest of the conglomerate.

If content, ownership, management and decision making are all non-local, how can it be ‘local’ television?

Perhaps the more important question we should be asking is whether we should be “saving local television”? Is television a sunset industry and should the market be allowed to determine the future/fate of local, over the air broadcast television.

In the beginning of the television age in Canada private stations were owned by local businessmen. Such locally owned stations were however, few and far between due to the lack of a market that would allow a private television station to earn a profit.

People who love to criticize the CBC forget that at the beginning of the television age population density and geographic distance meant Canada lacked a market place and a demand for private television signals. The CBC was created to sew the country together and to nation build through the dissemination of news and information across Canada.

It took time and the CBC to develop and build a market for television broadcasting that could support private television stations outside of a few well populated Canadian cities such as Toronto or Montreal.

Media conglomerates came into existence only when the market for advertising in television markets made the purchase of stations across Canada possible by providing ‘collateral’ that enabled the conglomerates to borrow funds to purchase television stations across Canada  from the local owners.

At the time this media consolidation was occurring the conglomerates cited market forces, the changing marketplace, for driving media consolidation. They stated that the conglomeration taking place was a result of market forces and that the CRTC had to permit the broadcast industry to change in response to changes in the marketplace.

If the CRTC had to permit change in the form of conglomeration to occur in the broadcast industry in response to marketplace changes does it not follow that the CRTC also has to permit change to occur in the broadcast industry in response to current changes in the marketplace?

Remember that the current over the air local television broadcaster system came into existence when over the air stations were the only way to deliver video into the home. Remember the effect that television had on radio?

Radio had ruled the airwaves before the introduction of television which became the new king of the airwaves. People would gather around the radio in the evening to listen to The Shadow, Amos and Andy, Gunsmoke and numerous other shows.

Once television became wide spread it was the television set people gathered around in the evenings. Dramas, comedies, variety and others shows all died on radio – or in a few cases adapted and moved to television as Gunsmoke did. Although with different, more photogenic actors to play the characters.

Radio was left to adapt, to play music, report the news or broadcast live sports.

In the same way that radio was displaced as king by television, television has/is now being displaced as king by cable which is itself being challenged by new and emerging technologies.

The market that the existing over the air television broadcast system served no longer exists.

In the same way radio had to adapt and redefine itself to find and develop a market they could generate revenue from when television came along, television stations must redefine and reinvent themselves to develop a market they can generate revenue from.

Much of our current television system evolved simply to rebroadcast US (and other nations) television programs over the air because, with the limits on signal strength and thus distance, local over the air broadcasts were the only way to deliver television signals to the home. This is why the end of the broadcast day signoffs included a list of repeater stations and their frequencies that were used to extend the coverage area of individual stations.

For years Hamilton’s CHCH local television station prospered. With only the CBC and CTV in the Toronto market CHCH could choose from among the programming available that was not shown on these networks and thrive. Along came Global and City TV who could pay higher fees for programming and CHCH ceased to be profitable.

This was a scenario played out across Canada as new networks, small or Canada-wide, together with new stations in some of the major markets changed the marketplace and resulted in loss of independent local stations such as CHCH.

Did CTV, Global, City, et al call for the government to impose fees to be used to support these local stations? Of course not, they declared that the casualties were the result of the market and that the market was the best judge of what stations should survive.

During this period the ownership structure changed as well moving from ownership based mainly in the communities to national media conglomerates.

Cable has profoundly changed the marketplace, providing not only access to US over the air broadcasts but to a host of cable channels and programming that have come into existence.

There is no longer a need for the existence of multiple stations to broadcast foreign programming locally because this programming is now directly available to the viewers.

Finally keep in mind that cable is not immune to changes in the market. Satellite, phone companies, the internet and wireless technologies are changing the market place and challenging cables position as king.

Radio – Television – Cable: as the market changes we must allow change to the broadcasters/signal providers to occur in response to these changes. Or we will find ourselves propping up the equivalent of buggy whip manufacturers, with the arrival of the automobile, in the broadcast/signal providing industry.

The local over the air broadcast system as it exists today is a Sunset Industry. The market that over the air broadcasters were created to serve no longer exists; the market having undergone and continuing to undergo profound change driven by rapid technological development.

Up to date technology, especially communications technology is a key component of Canada’s economic future. It is imperative that the government and the CRTC not interfere with the changes necessary for the broadcast/signal providing/communications industry to adapt to the new marketplace and emerging technologies, even though it means some stations will cease to operate.

Over the air broadcasting will not disappear. But it will be composed of fewer stations, with an ownership structure and management more responsive to the local market, providing programming that will need to be innovative and not based on the tradition rebroadcasting of US programming, with more locally and Canadian generated programming (along the current lines of the CBC).

In the same way that the new technology television was allowed to displace the old technology radio because televisions newer technology had changed the marketplace the Government, the CRTC and Canadians must allow the newer technologies of cable, satellite, the internet and wireless to displace the old technology of over the air television. Or risk protecting a sunset industry, denying the development of competitively necessary new technologies and businesses required to support Canada’s future economic prosperity.

Hmmm

Season’s Greetings**

Leave a comment

Season's Greetings

**This statement of good wishes (”Greeting”) from me (”Sender”) is intended to be generic in nature. “Holiday” is intentionally left an undefined term. This holiday may include, but not be limited to, Christmas, Chanukah, Kwanzaa, New Year’s Day, Saturnalia, or even Elvis’ Birthday (”Elvis” is a registered trademark of Elvis Presley Enterprises, Memphis, TN). Further, the recipient of this greeting (”Receiver”), may insert his or her own holiday into this Greeting, either explicitly or implicitly, or no holiday at all, if he or she chooses. If Receiver celebrates no holidays during the intended period of Greeting, assumed to be roughly mid-December, 2007 through the first week in January, 2008 (”Greeting Period”), he or she may consider Greeting to be merely general, and a simple wish of good feelings and joy, suitable for any time of year, or no time at all.

Greeting should in no way be construed to guarantee or warrant happiness or other good feelings during Greeting Period, or warrant or guarantee an acceptable holiday. By accepting Greeting, Receiver expressly agrees that he or she assumes the risk for his or her own holiday. Receiver will hold Sender harmless should Receiver’s expectations for Greeting Period and wishes contained herein not coincide.

Greeting is at all times subject to withdrawal by Sender, and it may be cancelled or modified at any time, without notice to Receiver. In the event of cancellation, Receiver shall receive no credit or proration for any time left in Greeting Period.

Greeting is not intended to be transferable, and has no cash value. Under no circumstances may Receiver in any way alter Greeting, or publish Greeting directly or indirectly without express written permission of Sender. Permission may be withheld for any reason within the sole discretion of Sender, with no rule of reasonableness.

Should Receiver not accept the terms of Greeting listed above, no rights or benefits related to Greeting will accrue.

Should a dispute arise from Greeting, Receiver agrees that jurisdiction and venue will be in the courts of the BRECKENRIDGE ZONE Sender and Receiver agree that personal jurisdiction will lie in those courts, regardless of the location of either party. Greeting will be construed under the laws of the BRECKENRIDGE ZONE without regard to Choice of Law or Renvoy.

Consider, Issues

Abbotsford Police Video

Leave a comment

It was not really surprising to view the video of the Abbotsford Police Department officers using excessive physical force in arresting two suspects.

When you have been homeless and/or advocate for the homeless one becomes familiar with the less that professional behaviour exhibited by some APD officers.

Given the treatment of the homeless and others perceived as powerless, seeing the video of the offices walking on, kicking, standing on the neck of and driving the face into the ground was not surprising at all.

Moreover, it was not the physical assault that was the most disturbing aspect of this incident.

No, what was most disturbing was the APD spokesperson’s repeatedly uttering of the reminder that the suspects were arrested on drug dealing charges – as if this fact made the use of excessive force acceptable.

The spokesperson’s statements suggest that the APD has a cultural attitude that it is acceptable behaviour to abuse people who belong to certain groups.

It is not. The APD needs to be told by city council and citizens that everyone officers deal with must be treated in a professional matter.

Issues, Poverty

Was Mr. Rushton, Was.

Leave a comment

Success was a matter of hard work. Today hard work may well only permit you to keep your head barely above water. Today the difficulties in breaking out of poverty and those who find they cannot break out vastly outnumber the stories of someone who rose from rags to riches.

I speak from experience having had to start my life over due to mental illness.

The first time around hard work did lead to success. Of course salaries then allowed me not only to pay my living expenses but save enough to go to University and graduate without any debt. Articling and becoming a Chartered Accountant, moving into business all were made much easier because I had no debt, was young and there were simply more opportunities then.

Contrast that with today’s graduates who graduate owing tens of thousands of dollars they must repay. I could save money for school working 40 hours a week; throw in 20 hours of overtime and I could save enough in a year to attend University and do the four year course in three years because I had saved that much money in a year.

There are people working close to 60 hours a week in Abbotsford just to earn enough to cover the cost of living, particularly housing. Worse they have to juggle their schedule because they are working 3 jobs since they only get 20 hours per job so that their employer can avoid paying benefits.

Throw in the fact that in BC we have the highest cost of living in Canada and the lowest minimum wage and you begin to get an impenetrable barrier.

Close to 80% of my income this time around goes for housing. The other 20% disappears before my other expenses are covered forcing me to decide which items I can afford and what items I must do about.

I need a car to get to work but insurance and gas take the lions share of that 20%, but without getting to work and getting paid I cannot cover my housing costs which would put me on the street homeless (been there, had that happen) leading to a torturous, years long journey just to get back to my current position.

Currently my car needs work but there is no money (OK I have 9 cents to my name) for parts or repairs. Leaving me hoping, praying the car continues to run long enough for me to scrounge up enough money to keep it running.

Hunting for a better job? I cannot afford ink for my printer to send out resumes and/or cover letters.

I could go on citing the differences in my experience between starting out the first time and starting over/out this time but I will spare the reader so as not to lose them. Suffice it to say that I have found a vast difference between several decades ago and today.

Luck and who you know is today a better predictor of ones getting one’s life in order than hard work. It does not matter who is responsible for this state of affairs; something is wrong when hard work and effort will often do no more than keep your head barely above water.

As to poverty and crime be glad that poverty is not the root of crime since with my background and experience it is integrity and honour that stands between me and wealth. Every time I hear of people losing their savings, several perfectly legal methods of transferring wealth to myself pop into my mind and I have to remind myself that it is not all about “what I have.”

I do not begrudge people their success. I do however object to those who use the power and influence that comes with success to deny others an opportunity for success.

Having the government change the rules to give employers advantages that permit union busting and the lowering of wages; or allowing employers to limit all employees to only 20 hours a week to avoid paying benefits thus complicating peoples lives because they have to work several jobs to get 40 hours (or however many hours are needed) work and reducing their quality of life; having government raise, year after year, tuition fees to pay for tax cuts rather than keep them at an affordable level; ….

One of the few areas of our society and economy that rewards on ability and hard work is the illegal drug business. It is this open opportunity that has created a vast pool of workers to draw upon to replace people lost to the natural attrition inherent in the illegal drug business. One of the reasons that hard work pays off is that the business operates outside government regulation. As a result of this there are no rules or barriers to protect the successful from those looking to advance.

We are forcing our children to assume large debt loads to obtain an education at the same time we are loading our children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, great- great-grandchildren with government debt to finance our “successful” life styles.

Success or continued success that comes at the cost of others wellbeing and quality of life is unacceptable.

During our recent unprecedented worldwide economic boom homelessness, poverty and the numbers of poor rose.

Far too often these days one can make the effort to change who and what you are, work hard and still be unable to achieve much more than survival. A reality attested to by the recent survey conducted by the payroll company which found over 70% of Canadians wage earners are only one paycheque away from financial disaster.

Suggesting that more and more today the fault is not in ourselves but in our stars – or more accurately our society and government.

What do I want? I want to have the same opportunity to get ahead through ability and hard work that I had the first time I set out in search of Success.

********************************

COLUMN: Don’t begrudge success, because it’s in us all

Mark Rushton

My buddy, with a smile on his face, asked “Where’s the fancy truck” when I rolled up beside him in my nine-year old pickup.

“You’re lookin’ at it,” I replied, “and right now I probably couldn’t get enough for it to buy a decent bicycle and replace the eight-foot row boat that somebody swiped.”

In other words, my friend reads the letters to the editor.

And I couldn’t help pointing out to him that if I had said poor people were to blame for all the crime and theft, I’d have been pilloried.

That’s the problem with assumptions … whether it be criminals or my possessions … because to assume is to make an ass(of)U(or)me. And it’s not me, because while I may not be the brightest light on the Christmas tree, I have been polishing the bulb for a lot of years. And I try to choose words carefully so sometimes what’s between the lines is more important than what’s in them.

So I don’t, and will never, believe that poverty is the root of crime.

Yes, poverty can be one of the causes, but so is greed. In fact, the majority of crime is instigated by money, large sums of it, and the people perpetrating it are anything but poor or uneducated.

However, I don’t take issue with poverty, and in fact, think it awful there are people who truly have to scrabble hand to mouth.

But at the same time, don’t preach to me that people’s success is the cause of flaws in our society.

Hard as it may be for some to accept, it is the successful in society who pay for the social safety net that provides for those who need it the most.

Ask anyone who makes a good income to tell you how much tax they pay – tax that provides hospitals, schools, social assistance, etc.

There is no shame in being successful. And there is no restriction in our society to anyone who truly wants to be successful.

Some fritter away their day watching TV, or incessantly beating out inanities on Twitter; others become preoccupied with bemoaning their lot in life and never attempt to rise above it.

For others, I readily admit, there are difficulties in breaking out of poverty. But for every one of them, there is a story of someone who rose from rags to riches.

And each and every one of those who have made life a success will rage at the thought that their efforts, their drive and their success are the cause of the flaws of our society, or that they should feel guilt, because for every dollar they take in, another goes out to benefit those in need.

That’s how society works in a democracy, which flawed though it may be, has fewer people on the poverty line than in those countries which are not.

Am I ashamed of what I have? An unadulterated NO! Should others who through skill, good fortune, education, or yes, even family assistance, be ashamed of what they have accomplished or what they have? Again ‘no’! And to be honest, we’d all like more!

Poverty is both a state of being, and a state of mind – neither of which is good.

But being poor does not make one a criminal, nor does it take away one’s dignity.

What is important is pride of self, and if one applies that pride, one is truly never poor. And if someone is willing to work as hard, or harder, as they think they possibly can, poverty can become a thing of the past.

Will everyone climb out of it? No.

But those who have, those who may never have faced it, and those who are successful are not the cause of the flaws in our society.

The cause is within each and every one of us who doesn’t make the effort to change who and what we are.