Hell's Bell

THIS POST HAS BEEN UPDATED:

Had a great weekend. Hope you did too. Back at the keyboard now, pounding away, for both the blog and the main event, the Star.

Here's yesterday's pulpware column on the Bell Globemedia takeover of CHUM, a deal that has its good points and bad. But, as you can see, the bad outweighs the good, at least in my books.

Seems that the only people hoping to consummate the $1.4 million billion marriage between CHUM Ltd. and CTV parent Bell Globemedia are those who stand to make a bundle off it.

And, as the controversy over the $5.25 per share premium BGM is paying for the voting shares reveals, some bundles will be bigger than others.

But this column is for us poor shlubs who have no CHUM stock. For us, the sale, announced July 12, is one bad deal.

It will not only create a media behemoth that could include as many as 33 TV stations, 38 specialty channels, 33 radio stations, the Globe and Mail, an interest in Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment, which owns the Toronto Maple Leafs, Toronto Raptors and more, it will dominate the advertising, cultural, music and sports landscapes as well as the news agenda.

Consider advertising. With one fewer competitor, media costs will rise and will undoubtedly be passed on to consumers.

With music, the merger combines CHUM's MuchMusic brands with CTV's MTV licences. And, although the latter are no longer music video channels, they still have awesome clout.

The converged company will have enormous buying power, and it won't hesitate to use it to get access to the hottest Hollywood or HBO hits.

As for journalism, well, CTV is already the top-rated news source in Canada. Add the CHUM operations into the mix, and BGM will have a powerful influence on public discourse.

The combo also means that producers have one fewer customer for their dramas and documentaries, which means lower licence fees and nowhere to go if a deal gets derailed.

That's too much power in too few hands in too small a country.

Etc. Etc. It's here, as I said.

One thing I would like to point out: Note that this column works against the corporate interests of Torstar (which owns the Star which owns this blog but not me, blah blah). Now I am not bragging. I am just saying. The reason is, I'd like to see other so-called ''media critics'' at other papers attempt to do the same.

Snort.

UPDATE: Here's another take on the media merger, this time from the trade paper Playback.

Comments

[Jay Currie]

Well thank God for the CRTC because they will never let this happen....Where's the required public benefit?

Snort right back at you.

[Tony Zaar]

Good for you, Antonia, for stating the obvious: we citizens who rely on a variety of news outlets in order to form our views will be the losers if this monstrous deal is allowed.
It seems that the CRTC and the Competition Bureau only exist to serve the interests of the companies they regulate -- certainly not the interests of the public at large.
Disgusting.

[Jiminy C at the other daughters]

Zerb tries to cheapen this marriage - as in ".....$1.4 million marriage"

Duh!

Where's that copy editor when you need him / her?

[Antonia Z.]

Thanks Jiminy. It's been fixed.

[Greg O'Brien]

Um... What's the solution then? Force the Waters family to keep what they don't want? Not possible. Force a sale to someone else for less so shareholders get less? Anything like that won't stand up in any court. Sell to a company that can't quite afford it and can't run it as well, causing more layoffs?What is the solution beyond simply opposing the deal?

[Big G]

I think we're being a bit too hasty here, I think we've failed to analyse the media concetration from a business or "brand" point of view.

For example, lets say a company manufactures chocolate. More than likely their manufacturing facility has the capacity to produce vairous types of chocolate, dark, milk chocolate, with almonds etc.
I think it would be foolish if the chocolate manufacuturer would only make 1 type of chocolate.

Why wouldn't media be the same?
Other than news, there is a variety of different programming out there, and they are fairly equally distributed throughout the dial. So why wouldn't news be any different?
I think this model would make sense from a business point of view. For example, if CITY TV news went all right wing, it would dilute the demographics of other right wing or percieved right wing news.

Izzy Asper was right, TV just sells soap.
He was to the TV business what McLuhan was to the TV.

[Elvid]

Well, I guess the Waters family could have sold it to Astral Media who offered less money. Mind you, if BMG had not been involved in the bidding process, who knows wha their offer would have been....

[Mark Federman]

Nice try, Big G, but not right by half.

McLuhan saw television as a major disruptor to literate culture and society, contributing reversals in all aspects of our world (not merely television specifically, but what he called electric communication). He observed it changing the face of politics (both domestic and international) and the shape and style of war. In point of fact, McLuhan foresaw television as the beginning of what we now know as the Internet (check out the last couple of chapters of "Understanding Media," as well as "War and Peace in the Global Village; an inventory of some of the current spastic situations that could be eliminated by more feedforward."). In that sense, having multiple outlets with a diversity of influential voices was seen - and still is seen by many - as tremendously important for the public discourse and ultimately, lively democratic participation.

Television news, controlled by editors and producers who are in turn largely controlled by the interests of their owners, is still the vehicle that arguably wields the most influence on so-called average voters. Concentration of ownership means more polarization and therefore, fewer opinions and alternatives to inform the public.

[Marian]

Big G says:

"For example, lets say a company manufactures chocolate. More than likely their manufacturing facility has the capacity to produce various types of chocolate: dark, milk chocolate, with almonds etc. I think it would be foolish if the chocolate manufacturer would only make 1 type of chocolate. Why wouldn't media be the same? Other than news, there is a variety of different programming out there, and they are fairly equally distributed throughout the dial. So why wouldn't news be any different?"

No offense BG, but to me this just sounds communist. How does one big corporation owned by a corporate elite differ from the one big corporation owned by the state as embodied by communism? The answer is that it doesn't differ that much. Both tend to produce sloppy work, a lack of variety in product types and a lack of responsiveness to ordinary clients (tried to reach customer service lately?). Monopoly capitalism is just as heavy, conformist, and bureaucratic as monopoly communism. This is because too much power in too few hands tends to corrupt. There isn't enough incentive in such a system for risk taking. That's just human nature.

In the bad old days of communism, communist oligarchs used to talk the way you are about the infinite variety of Trabants (people's cars) that were available to the average worker. Of course, each Trabant was virtually identical to the next and every year the entirely different (absolutely identical) Trabant would come out and be sold as though it were different (if you don't know what a Trabant is, check out this commercial: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6916484388177706264&q=trabant). Your comment suggests that you think broadcasters produce variety out of the kindness of their hearts, when in reality they often do this because they see the innovations of others and realise that they should probably adapt and compete. The fewer competitors there are, the less innovation there will be.

[Big G]

Mark Federman
Concentration of ownership means more polarization and therefore, fewer opinions and alternatives to inform the public.

I respectfully disagree.
Your model works in in the US, where there isn't a viable or well articulated "left wing" party and or ideology.
But in a politically diverse countries like Canada or other countries in Europe, diversity means more advertising revenue.
No businessperson runs their business for ideological and altruistic reasons, they are all motivated by money (not that there's anything wrong with that)

I think your taking Chomsky too literaly, try reading Parenti.

It's all about the money.

[blueinthetooth]

Just a note on what you said on that there will be fewer places to go for Cdn. producers to pitch, the CRTC will make CHUM (in whatever form it will be) continue what they were doing... which is promoting feature films, tv dramas and documentaries. As to there being less competition, CTV and CHUM have always commissioned different things. So in an ideal world, things will stay the same.

[Tony]

Well said Mark F.

Televised news is one of the major factors that shape public opinion. So, anything that tempers with it must raise eyebrows and be taken seriously.

Look at these quotes from famous and infamous people. There's a striking similarity to the current wave of patriotism, helped by the so-called "unable" media. After all, it's just TV. Come on.

“He who joyfully marches to the music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake,since for him the spinal cord would fully suffice.
This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once.
Heroism at command, senseless brutality, deplorable love of country stance, how violently I hate all this, how despicable an ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be part of so base an action. It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder.” Albert Einstein.

"Naturally, the common people don't want war ... but after all it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country." [Hermann Goering, Brutal Nazi General.]

[Tony]

Big G. if it was just about money, National Post would have been shut down long ago, and we would have a more active media.

It is a shame when the most important news of the day is Brangelina.

I don't know any educated person that claims the media (of any form) to be just a commercial tool. Especially when you have a history that states otherwise, and in recent years we witnessed media's ability to crush dissent and march a nation into a preposterous war.

There's no doubt that one of the reasons for media failures is the concentration of ownership in a few hands. Don't tell me these owners have no opinion, no ideology just money in their minds because that would be far from the truth. One example would be the firings and censorship after Rupert Murdoch's grip on FOX.

Can it happen in Canada Big G.? Yes of course, we're not immune. What can we do? Take steps to prevent it. That's why this deal should fall apart.

The reason I submitted Quotes from Albert Einstein et alt. is that we're making mistakes that were already made in the past and our media seems to be complacent in killing public discourse.