chrisr@hcrvx1.UUCP (Chris Retterath) (02/13/87)
!ubc-vision!ubc-cs!andrews writes: >Americans think of Canada as "that place where our winter storms >come from". Opening up Canada to the American media would mean >opening up Canada to a view of the world in which America is >disproportionately more important than Canada. Face it, folks, we Anglos in Canada are a part of a North American popular culture. As the market is so big, we have to be louder to be heard; unlike, say, the Aussies on the other side of the globe. Eighty years ago there were Canadians griping about their puny voice in an Imperial Britain that encompassed the world. The same kind of people today worry about the small mention of Canada in American news. It's like some insecure hick wanting everyone to know about the little burgh he grew up in. Or some snob in hogtown assuring you that Toronto is the cultural equivalent of New York City. Well, Canada may be a great place to live, but Americans don't have to be interested in it. By the same token, we are usually not interested in American politics at the state level. It just doesn't concern us most of the time, and, like Americans, we don't watch things we don't care about. The media merely reflects these preferences. None of this, of course, has anything to do with free trade. Chris Retterath.
andrews@ubc-cs.UUCP (02/13/87)
Let me give you an analogy. (oh nooo)
If the cereal companies didn't put thiamine, niacinimide, etc.
in their breakfast cereals, parents would go ahead blithely buying
their kids Alpha-Bits (tm), Froot Loops (sic, tm), Wayne Gretzky's
Sugar-Coated Chocolate Hockey Pucks Cereal (tm, possibly) and other
crap, because a lot of them -- not all of them, but a lot of them --
don't know the difference and couldn't be bothered to find out.
This would be bad for the kids. Now I'm not sure what it is
that makes them put that thiamine etc. in the cereals. If it's the
government or the cereal industry itself, we have a perfect analogy.
Exclusively American TV would be bad for Canadians' self-image and
identity as a separate nation, because it wouldn't have enough stuff
about Canada in it; and this should be regulated by the government
or, at least, the (entire) North American TV industry.
If we had unlimited American TV, a lot of people -- not all of
them, but a lot of them -- couldn't be bothered to watch anything
except the glittery, high-powered-production shows that come out of
the American TV industry. They would lose a sense of Canada's
nationhood, and think of themselves as poor cousins to the Americans
for not being right in the thick of American culture. This happens
to a certain extent already.
Now if the individual cereal manufacturers individually started
to put thiamine etc. in their cereals, because the competition in
the marketplace demanded it, well then my analogy breaks down.
Because there's no WAY that ANY American TV network would voluntarily
put stuff about Canada in its programming and risk losing a large
number of American viewers ("Canada? CANADA? Who the hell wants
to hear about Canada? We might as well hear about Belgium or Uruguay
or Sierra Leone. Let's switch back to Wheel of Fortune").
--
In article <1471@hcrvx1.UUCP> chrisr@hcrvx1.UUCP (Chris Retterath) writes:
>Well, Canada may be a great place to live, but Americans don't have
>to be interested in it. By the same token, we are usually not interested
>in American politics at the state level....
Do you really believe that Canada is no more important than an
American state? I pity you.
> ... It just doesn't concern us most
>of the time, and, like Americans, we don't watch things we don't care
>about. The media merely reflects these preferences.
No, the North American media reflect the Americans'
DISPROPORTIONATE sense of their own importance in the world. As
I say, if 10% of the shows in North American TV were about Canada,
to reflect the 10% of the Anglophone population of the continent
which is Canadian, I would be happy, however that came about.
>None of this, of course, has anything to do with free trade.
Wrong. This discussion started because of the Americans'
view that culture should be "on the table" in free trade talks.
--Jamie.
...!ubc-vision!Ubc-cs!andrews
"He shouts across the ocean to the shore"sl@van-bc.UUCP (02/14/87)
This message is empty.
bcpalmer@watrose.UUCP (02/17/87)
In article <353@van-bc.UUCP> sl@van-bc.UUCP (Stuart Lynne) writes: > >To the extent of having some shows about Canada, showing many Canadian >produced shows (the recent Ann of Green Gables being and excellent example). If you really knew Canadian culture, you would know it's "Anne-with-an-e" :-) We are already invaded with American culture - how many people watched/are watching "Amerika"? Who let them film part of this boring piece of propaganda in Toronto? I agree with Jerome's posting - if that's what the States have to offer us for "culture", who wants more of it? - BP
chrisr@hcrvx1.UUCP (Chris Retterath) (02/17/87)
Please read what I write before posting responses. For example, Jamie Andrews @ UBC has managed to confuse a description of reality with an assertion of what reality should be. When I say that we are not usually interested in American politics at the state level, he seems to think I believe Canada is no more important than an American state. (Pity him :-)) I do not understand the anti-American sentiment of several people who have recently posted in this newsgroup. These people would have us believe that there is some sort of conspiracy to take over Canada. There appears to be much emotion, and little reason, in the arguments. Interestingly enough, the most emotional and less reasoned responses seem to have come from academic institutions. Makes one wonder. Chris Retterath.
david@geac.UUCP (David Haynes) (02/18/87)
In article <8477@watrose.UUCP> bcpalmer@watrose.UUCP (Barbara Palmer) writes: >In article <353@van-bc.UUCP> sl@van-bc.UUCP (Stuart Lynne) writes: >> >>To the extent of having some shows about Canada, showing many Canadian >>produced shows (the recent Ann of Green Gables being and excellent example). > >If you really knew Canadian culture, you would know it's "Anne-with-an-e" :-) > >We are already invaded with American culture - how many people watched/are >watching "Amerika"? Who let them film part of this boring piece of propaganda >in Toronto? I agree with Jerome's posting - if that's what the States have >to offer us for "culture", who wants more of it? > >- BP OK, but in reading all these entries, the thought occurs to me that no one here has come close to defining ``Canadian Culture''. What is it? What isn't it? It seems to me that the comments recently made by Clayton Yiger (sp) were designed to get us to come up with a working definition of Canadian Culture. Think about it from their point of view --- we are sitting here saying ``you can't touch Canadian Culture or affect the Canadian Cultural Identity'' but we don't seem to be willing to supply a definition of what we mean by that. If I were the U.S. negotiator, I would be very lothe to enter into bargaining with Canada with that sort of black hole in my bargaining strategy. Anyone want to come up with a working definition of ``Canadian Cultural Identity''? -david- -- ========================================================================== David Haynes (utzoo!yetti!geac!david) Geac Computers International Inc. +1 416 475 0525 x 3420 350 Steelcase Road,Markham, Ontario, CANADA, L3R 1B3
jimr@hcrvx2.UUCP (Jim Robinson) (02/18/87)
In article <8477@watrose.UUCP> bcpalmer@watrose.UUCP (Barbara Palmer) writes: >In article <353@van-bc.UUCP> sl@van-bc.UUCP (Stuart Lynne) writes: >> >>To the extent of having some shows about Canada, showing many Canadian >>produced shows (the recent Ann of Green Gables being and excellent example). > >If you really knew Canadian culture, you would know it's "Anne-with-an-e" :-) > >We are already invaded with American culture - how many people watched/are >watching "Amerika"? Who let them film part of this boring piece of propaganda >in Toronto? I agree with Jerome's posting - if that's what the States have >to offer us for "culture", who wants more of it? If it's as bad as you say, who cares? Nobody will watch it. (Instead they'll all be tuned into the CBC eagerly awaiting Barbara's next word. :-) Or are you afraid that the average American or Canadian is really so dense that he cannot distinguish speculative *fiction* from reality. I'm curious as to whether those that object to "Amerika" also objected to "The Day After". Both these films fall into the exact same classification except that one is "politically correct" and one isn't (it is left as an execrise for the reader to determine which is which :-) At any rate, nobody is *forcing* *you* to watch Amerika, so why should you care what others do. [flame on] You nationalists sure sit on one high horse. Do you people really think you've got the right to tell people what they *should* be watching and/or listening to????? Let's face facts: your average Canadian really does not give a flying fig about culture (at least as defined by the nationalists). They really don't care if the rock band they're listening to is from Toledo and not Toronto. They don't care if the sitcom they're watching takes place in Vancouver Washington and not Vancouver BC. The only ones that do care are small bunch of people who happen to have a very large voice and have learned how to wrap a Canadian flag around their knee-jerk American xenophobia. One joker said that he was worried that his kids would grow up thinking that George Washington was the first Prime Minister of Canada. Well, I really hate to break this to ya, but that's a non-issue. Historical truths are a totally different matter altogether. If your kid grows up with such a bizarre notion it would be because *you* and the *school* your kid attended did one heck of a poor job educating him/her. Jamie is worried that Canadians will start thinking of themselves as poor cousins, wrt culture, of the Americans. Why? Because the sitcoms Canadians watch take place in the States? Because the US produces such losers as "Amerika" and "The Day After"? Give me a break. This country is very similar and yet very different to the US. And I, for one, do not need someone banging me over the head in order to realize the differences. What worries me is that Canadians will become the Americans' poor cousins wrt the economy. Why? Because Canadians are stupid enough to expend vast quantities of time and effort squabbling over in which country a damn TV show should be made instead of worrying about the *real* problems facing this country. Such as how a resource based nation that spends next to nothing on R&D is going to make it into the next century without a monumental drop in the standard of living its people enjoy. Or how an export oriented nation is going to obtain guaranteed access to a market of over 100 million people; something that every other industrialized country already has. So why don't you nationalists lighten up. If Canadians would rather partake in American "culture", what's the big deal as long as it's a choice that they freely made. Or does the phrase "democracy in action" send shivers up your spine? [flame off] I think that a precise definition of the word culture would useful for this debate. Normally I think of culture as being concerned with art, poetry, ballet, etc. The nationalists, however, tend to include many other things in their definition. So how about? Any of you nationalists want to give it a whirl? Or are you worried about giving the rest of us a *real* target to shoot at, as opposed to this nebulous concept that defies description. J.B. Robinson
pptanner@watcgl.UUCP (02/19/87)
The discussion on this newsgroup has covered only one side of the free trade in culture issue - that of Canada's attitude towards American produced media being consumed here. There is a counter issue that Canadians typically ignore, and that is the American attitude to foreign produced media in their country. The "right wing" contributers to this news group who rant and rave that we should not restrict or otherwise control American productions coming into this country ignore the fact that the States permit very little foreign material on their air-waves. Only 2% of US network television (unfortunately the most important cultural medium) is foreign produced. There are very few countries, with the possible exception of Albania that have so little foreign content. One of the advantages of seeing foreign programming (and reading foreign books etc) is the resulting improvement in understanding of different viewpoints, how life is lived in other places, and what their cultural influences are. Most of the foreign programs that are shown in the USA are BBC historical dramas shown on PBS. These do little to contribute to a knowledge of what contemporary life is like in Britain, but reflect a heritage that America (and Canada) share. While most of the world are quite aware of how middle-class America operates, (or at least aware of television's portrayal of middle-class America), American's have no access to portrayals of how others live. One can comment on how this leads to a distrust of "aliens", but that is not the point of this article. It is probably true that this censorship of nearly all foreign programming in the USA is not initiated by the government, but by the private television networks. There are those who argue that it is a mindset on the part of those who choose the programs for the networks. It would be very difficult to argue that there are so few programs produced by the BBC, CBC and private television producers in Britain or Canada that are not appropriate for American audiences. If we were to have free trade in media, we would have to be guaranteed that non-duty trade barriers such as this not-produced-here prejudice of American television executives would not be allowed to prevent Canadian programs from equal access to US networks. Programs with good ratings in Canada should be given the same access to the US market as US programs are given to our market. The CBC has requested money from the government to set up a satellite television station to cover the US. (France already has such a station for North America, the BBC has applied for funding for one, and the US has one in Europe.) This will allow us some access to their market, but as it is the large networks that control most of what is consumed in the States, it is access to their schedule that is necessary if a fair-trade situation is to be set up.
chapman@fornax.UUCP (02/19/87)
. . . > If it's as bad as you say, who cares? Nobody will watch it. (Instead > they'll all be tuned into the CBC eagerly awaiting Barbara's > next word. :-) Or are you afraid that the average American or Canadian > is really so dense that he cannot distinguish speculative *fiction* > from reality. I'm curious as to whether those that object to "Amerika" ^^^^^^^^^^^^ I'm not sure if I believe that yet or not; however over $30Billion a year is spent on advertising in Canada. If you watch a lot of it you will see that someone certainly believes we can't tell fiction from reality. . . > J.B. Robinson john chapman
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (02/20/87)
If we are defining Canadian culture in terms of television, then may the
Lord have pity on our poor little country which has let its standards fall
so far. I'm a bit more sympathetic when the argument is extended to movies,
but not a lot.
Once you dispense with the waste of time and rot of neurons involved in
routine TV-watching, it's amazing how little you care about the plight of
Canadian television.
--
Legalize Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
freedom! {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry