Age old questions

Greg O'Brien, editor and publisher of CARTT (sub. req'd.), a Canadian media industry website, recently reflected on whether we, as a nation, can afford to fund our own television.

If you look at the numbers, the answer would be no. That's because, as O'Brien reports, it's impossible for Canada to compete with the big U.S. dollars that go into television. Consider the invetsment announced this past spring by A&E networks alone: $500 million U.S.

That's half a billion American dollars for shows to be carried on A&E, History Channel, Biography and a few other smaller channels.

Half a billion dollars. With the Canadian TV consultants in full swing now preparing for the TV Policy Review this fall, I thought I'd do a little comparison to what we spent here recently on Canadian programming, to what Mr. Raven has approved there.

According to the CRTC's 2006 Broadcast Policy Monitoring report, the eligible expenditures on Canadian programming among all conventional Canadian TV stations, the CBC and specialty and pay, totaled about C$1.54 billion in 2005.

But if you break it down by our TV broadcast regulation categories, it gets a little more interesting, or alarming or depressing, depending on your point of view. I figured the "A&E categories", if you will, sounded like category 2 (analysis and interpretation and long-form documentary), category 7 (drama and comedy) and category 11 (general entertainment and human interest).

In 2005 in those categories, the eligible expenditures for Canadian programming was a little over $680 million. That's for all of our channels across the country. All of our English and French and other local stations, the CBC and the private networks and the 141 pay and specialty services that filed statements with the Commission last year, combined.

This year A&E is spending – with today's exchange rates – a little over C$560 million. On seven.

How does the Canadian system compete with this? Should it?

It can't. But it must. How can we afford to allow Americans to tell our stories? We know they won't anyway.

But do we need Canadian versions of cooking, dating and decorating shows? Should we be putting resources into those? Or should we be focusing on those programs that are uniquely Canadian? Or maybe just pour the money into CBC-TV for high-risk dramas and arts programming?

I really don't know the answers. I don't think anybody does.

There may not be any.

Glorious and Free

Edited to take out some weird verbiage (not mine, okay?)

My friend and colleague, the Star's TV critic Vinay Menon, made the Huffington Post's Eat the Press today for using ''douchebag" in the paper to describe talking bowtie Tucker Carlson's impending appearance on ABC's Dancing with the Stars. Apparently we're the first mainstream paper ever to publish the word as a descriptive! This is what Vinay wrote:

You almost feel sorry for the guy. I mean, scrambling up the fame ladder in the footsteps of a former Playboy Playmate or The Guy Who Played J. Peterman on Seinfeld?

So, so sad.

During those Crossfire years on CNN, Carlson seemed to be on the verge of a powerhouse career. Sure, he often came across as just another smug douchebag in the beltway. But, hell, he was perched beside Robert Novak, and next to that crabby ideologue even Lou Dobbs would seem boyishly charming.

Menon gets props for using the word without quotes. Meanwhile I am credited with using it before him, back in 2004 after Jon Stewart appeared (video) on CNN's now-defunct Crossfire. Notes Huff Post ETP editor and native Canadian, Rachel Sklar:

In this case, however, Zerbisias was quoting directly, noting that Stewart had affectionately nicknamed Robert Novak "Douchebag For Liberty." Which technically qualifies as "news" as opposed to "wanton and gratuitous use of offensive terms in a family newspaper."

Was it Canada? Was my homeland secretly a bastion of lax moral newspaper standards and general newsroom debauchery? I turned to The Globe & Mail, that bastion of Canadian journalism: one match, also coincidentally in reference to Jon Stewart (this time in a review for "America: The Book" and the term is also used to describe Bob Novak). Next came the venerable National Post (or, venerable-ish after that whole Iran-badges-on-clothes thing) — a search in Canada.com yielded no usage of "douchebag" (and presumably, less-than-exacting reporting on Jon Stewart).

I turned to the U.S. papers: The New York Times, no ("Your search for douchebag in all fields returned 0 results"); The Washington Post, no; The Chicago Tribune, no ("No articles found on search for: douchebag"); and, somewhat surprisingly, the Los Angeles Times, no (you'd figure aggrieved Hollywood types would go a little blue now and again).

Well then, I would say that our work is done here, wouldn't you?

But Sklar does not entirely approve.

With his column today, Menon has taken it a step further and has himself employed the term as a slur, becoming the first journalist to do so in a mainstream publication, and his editors the first to let it slide.

<SNIP>

Given the term's typically profane nature and it's not-unmisogynistic connotation, I find it disappointing that Menon chose to use the word, and that the Toronto Star chose to publish it.

True enough. The unisex enema-bag would have been less sexist.

True patriot loathing

A couple of weeks ago, a blogger named Mister Ghost asked me to opine on what Canada stands for. I was not the only pundit and/or blogger approached, as it turns out. Contributions came in from both sides of the Canadian political spectrum, and points between. The results were posted on Canada Day. Here's an edited sample:

National Post columnist Barbara Kay:

Good question, and one we ask ourselves constantly. You happen to have hit upon one of the few neo-cons in Canada, so be advised that I am obviously a bit cynical. I think Canada stands for anti-Americanism first and foremost. That is not what Canadians will say: They will say they stand for Progressivism, Tolerance, Multi-culturalism, Equality, Peacekeeping rather than War-fighting, and (drum roll please) Medicare!!! But what really binds us as a nation is that we are not America. What that means in practice is fighting tooth and nail against any presumption of religious groups having any say at all in a public discussion and a show of open contempt for Christianity in the public square, the sanctification of gays and people of colour and those who wear cover, a pathological distaste for military adventures (even though peacekeeping is a non-starter these days) and an inability to take open pride in our heroes, but tons of compassion goes to victims.

The Winnipeg Sun's Lydia Lovric:

Canada is politically correct, inoffensive and apathetic to the point of offending anyone with half a brain and a healthy dose of conservatism. Canada could be and should be a great nation - tolerant and fair without caving into the ridiculous, proud and dignified without being arrogant, moderate and gentle without being pussies.

Relapsed Catholic Kathy Shaidle:

For all their pretend politeness and tolerance, most Canadians (except me and about 100 others!) hate Americans with a passion you cannot fathom. This predates George Bush — I was born in 1964 and heard it all my life. Americans are patriotic? Then we will look down on patriotism. Americans have a huge army; very well, we will reduce ours to a skeleton force. Americans don’t have “free” “health” “care” and we do, so we are superior (no matter than a Canadian has to wait almost two years for some routine operations that an American would get in a week). Imagine: Americans are proud of their inventions and their triumphs on the battlefield. We Canadians are most proud of a government entitlement that doesn’t even work anymore!

This smug bigotry is the only acceptable one in polite Canadian society. Americans are “fat, stupid, greedy, violent and evil.” My fellow Canadians consider this a sophisticated stance. Alas, they don’t realize how petty and jealous they appear. If America does indeed represent “opportunity” -- and I agree with you that it does — that is exactly what Canadians hate about it. They like their government run lives, no matter that our disposable income is 30% less than an American’s and our taxes are higher. Success is not something most Canadians admire. “Just keep your nose clean and one day you’ll win the lottery — or retire”. Very sad.

I would love to get out of here tomorrow, but alas, Green Cards are impossible to get :-)

It's fascinating that seemingly all the lib/progressives love Canada while the righties hate it, n'est-ce pas? Now why is that?

Carrier pigeons

The nascent Al Jazeera International, the English-language spin-off of the ginormous Arabic-language satellite news channel, is not getting much of an audience with your friendly local cable/satellite distributor, according to today's Globe and Mail.

A Rogers official said the English-language network doesn't fall under the company's strategy to build its roster of multicultural channels, though it has talked to AJI.

"We have been approached," Rogers spokeswoman Tanta Gupta said. "Our multicultural focus is actually on different languages . . . that's what we told them."

Yes but this is a NEWS channel.

The inability to get support in Canada has angered (Richard) Gizbert, a native of Toronto who will produce a half-hour news show for al-Jazeera out of London. He criticizes Canadian carriers for being too timid to pick up AJI because of the past controversies surrounding its parent network. The Arab-language channel is watched in some parts of Canada, mostly on satellite feeds from the United States.

"Frankly, as a Canadian, when the British ask me about this, I'm embarrassed . . . by the small-mindedness and the anti-intellectual thinking behind it," Gizbert said from London.

And so he should be. What are we afraid of in Canada? Seeing the Arabic point of view -- and so seeing how the other side of this so-called ''clash of civilizations'' see us?

If Canada's broadcast regulator does hold a public hearing to allow cable and satellite providers to argue in favour of adding AJI, the channel will probably face many of the same opponents that the Arabic-language version encountered a few years ago. In 2004, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission received more than 1,200 comments supporting the addition of al-Jazeera, but heard more than 500 comments against the idea.

The regulator decided to allow the channel, but made cable and satellite carriers directly responsible for whatever material was broadcast from Qatar. That proved too big a risk for any of the companies, so the network wasn't added.

Among the opponents were the Canadian Jewish Congress, which argued that several broadcasts promoted hatred toward Jews and Israel.

About the new spinoff, "We are at best skeptical," said Bernie Farber, the CJC's chief executive officer. "Unless there is some significant indication that they have every intention of not being the old al-Jazeera, I can't see at this point that we would not take the same action that we did last time."

That despite how Al Jazeera, the original, is available in Israel and the U.S.

Nothing like pre-emptive censorship.

Name Canada

Via Regret the Error, a correction from the Knight Ridder News Service that will make your hair stand on end:

In a story on Tuesday about growing concern that terrorists might infiltrate the United States by entering from Canada, the Knight Ridder News Service wrongly said that several of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorists had entered this country from Canada. While widely reported in the aftermath of Sept. 11, that assertion is incorrect.

Pretty soon there will be calls for a wall along the border.

Maybe they'll get the illegal Mexican immigrants to build it.

Canadian truth to power

The annual top-secret, high-security, no-website, can't-get-access, invitation-only, no-media-allowed, off-the-record, where the elite-meet-to-plot-the-takeover-of-the-world Bilderberg Conference is one of the all time favourite conspiracy theories.

Last weekend, it took place in Ottawa. Hmmm ...

Now I love conspiracy theories as much as the next left-wing whacko with a tin-foil haberdasher. But, after I discussed Bilderberg with somebody who attended a conference and, what's more, saw xxx-rated for-their-eyes only videos of the sessions, my attitude is, "Oh, let the powerful have their fun. They already squish us like bugs anyway."

Note that I wrote about it last year, right on this very blog, mentioning Robert Prichard, CEO of Torstar, which owns the Star, which owns this blog (but not me!), was on the guest list.

Note that I still have a job -- and that I am writing about it again.

Now some people have suggested to me privately that the reason Bilderbergs don't get any media coverage is because, every year, people like Prichard are invited and they get ''co-opted'' into the cult. This year, the Globe and Mail's publisher Philip Crawley underwent indoctrination.

Oh pshaw, say I.

Not only did the Star, Canadian Press, the Ottawa Citizen, the Ottawa Sun and other news organizations run stories, so did the Globe and Mail.

In fact, the Canadian media were all over it, to the extent they could get close to it. They were so on top of Bilderberg that they earned kudos from the conspiracy-minded Prison Planet, whose Alex Jones almost got deported when he landed in our fair capital. Here's what PP's Paul Joseph Watson had to say:

The Canadian media has already blitzed its American counterparts by producing a rash of reports about the secretive Bilderberg Group meeting in Ottawa as the conference enters its second day.

<SNIP>

The Canadian media should be commended for doing their job - putting the lapdog American media to shame - and shining a spotlight on an organization that steers the course of geopolitics yet operates with no democratic oversight whatsoever.

If this sea change continues at next year's meeting, how long before the skulking kingpins of the global criminal elite are forced to cut their shadowy deals on a remote private island?

<SNIP>

Following his arrival in one of the fleet of limousines tagged with a 'B' for identification, The Ottawa Citizen approached arch Neo-Con warmonger Richard Perle and challenged him on the question of whether Bilderberg directs the course of world policy, specifically in relation to oil prices considering the large amount of representatives from the industry who attend.

"If it did, I'd be trading on oil futures," snapped Perle.

Prison Planet maintains close tabs on Bilderbergs past here.

Just for the record, I ran a Google News search with the term "Bilderberg Ottawa" and various U.S. news sources -- CNN, Washington Post, Fox, MSNBC, CBS, etc. -- and came up with nothing.

Which says all you need to know about the U.S. corporate media.

UPPITY DATE: Eugene bilders the bergers bigtime here. (via Grandinite.)

Actually, decapitator of Canada is Ottawa

Some American politicians have said some awfully stupid things about Canada this week, and some Canadian politicians think that Prime Minister Stephen Harper should be setting the record straight before serious harm is done to our relations.

Meanwhile, the rightwingdingosphere blows hot. This from Clifford D. May, president of an ultraconservative Washington-based ''think tank,'' founded two days after 9/11.

Americans generally expect immigrants to adopt not just American citizenship but also American nationality: to embrace American values, to revere the U.S. Constitution and to learn to speak English. Our more multicultural neighbors to the north have demanded less of those who apply for their passports. Canadians have asked immigrants few questions about their religious and political convictions. Recently, the Canadian government has even been considering allowing Muslims to substitute Islamic Sharia law for civil law. It will be instructive to see if this episode prompts any changes in Canadian thinking.

That is not to suggest that every immigrant to Canada must attempt to become a Molson-drinking, hockey-playing, Dudley Do-Right, proudly pronouncing “z” as zed. But would it be too demanding for Canadians to insist that those who want to make their homes in the Great White North not aspire to be suicide bombers and decapitators of infidels?

No Cliffie: Actually we have a giant Welcome Islamofascists! booth at every port of entry.

Hi Mom!

Something I need to get off my chest: Why is is the fact that the U.S. media were all over the terrorism arrests so newsworthy?

It seemed that every Canadian channel had at least one story about the TV crews and satellite trucks. Why can't we just accept that this is a major international story and act like a big, grown-up country?

No Canada

In case you missed it -- and my bet is you did since I never saw this anywhere in the MSM -- Cindy Sheehan recently wrote on Canada's role in Afghanistan. Although her recent visit here got plenty of attention -- negative and positive, north and south of the border -- this got none.

By many accounts, Stephen Harper was put in place as leader of Canada by the collapse of weak coalitions and scandals that led to this man now leading a minority government there. He is wildly unpopular from coast to coast up north, and there is a growing sense of unease about his emulation of a very unpopular person in the USA but even more in Canada: George Bush.

Canadians have to be the healthiest looking and most polite citizenry that I have encountered in my travels. The British people that I have met are very polite but have nowhere near the graciousness of Canadians. Canadians are truly civil, and they mean it. Canadians have been proud of their country's role of world peacekeeper and as the beacon of peace and hope and refuge for us Americans who feel that our country's aggressive militarism endangers us and harms our reputations and souls. Now Canadians need to wake up to the fact that their new minority, disliked government is leading them down this same slippery slope to the fascistic militarism of their immediate neighbors to the south.

The first day that I was in Canada, their defense minister, Gordon O'Connor, signed the extension of the NORAD Treaty with the Bush Regime without any debate or votes in Parliament. The citizenry was outraged in their courteous way. Not so coincidentally, Gordy just so happens to be a former defense industry lobbyist who has been using his position to promote the "Canada First" position which ultimately removes Canada, once and for all, from its world-peacekeeping role. With Canada's support of the Haitian government's overthrow and support of BushCo's travesty in Afghanistan, Canada was already heading down this path of destruction.

Canadians are distressed that defense spending rose by 5.3 billions of dollars (roughly what the US spends for 2 weeks in Iraq) while the preschool budget is being cut and college tuition is rising. This increase in military spending coincidentally correlates with a push to recruit thousands more soldiers who are still being told by the Canadian recruiters that their country only does peacekeeping missions. This manipulation of facts and the exploitation of fear and false patriotism is being fueled by the Canadian media, who seem to be turning, for the most part, into propaganda tools of their government a la our right-wing 4th estate.

Although I agree with Sheehan's sentiments, I question many of her facts. For example, Stephen Harper is not ''wildly unpopular from coast-to-coast.'' Our media have not become ''propaganda tools.'' Perhaps Sheehan has confused the U.S. media with Canadian news organizations.

That said, I think Harper and his crew are trying to convert them into propaganda tools what with that choreographed lightening visit to Kandahar, the effort to limit coverage of returning casualties and other moves.

Mount your mooses and stand on guard!

Looks like the American neocons have finally figured out who has all the oil and water -- and it would be real easy to build a pipeline. This transpired on Sunday's edition of CNN's Reliable Sources, whose transcripts are not, most frustratingly, yet online. (I added the links.)

In attempting to provide trivial business as usual cover, Lucianne's son (Jonah Goldberg), looking more and more like mom, said that the U.S. has developed plans to attack Canada. Amazingly, it was not meant as a joke, as he said he reiterated that he "knew they have plans." That host Howard Kurtz let that one fly by without an intercepting followup deserves a followup itself.

Perhaps it was a White House or Pentagon-inspired leak meant as a first salvo to warn Canada to keep Universal Healthcare north of the border. Maybe Canada has looked into purchasing back-bacon yellowcake or their Zamboni-delivery systems are ready to release "Hockey Night in Canada" onto ESPN.

If you want to see the U.S. reaction to an invasion, check out the comments on AMERICAblog. Blogger John Aravosis was on the Reliable Sources panel with Goldberg.

Here's Goldberg's reaction to all this:

While debating the Sy Hersh story about Pentagon plans to attack Iran, I made the entirely conventional point that it would be a scandal for the Pentagon not to have plans to attack Iran. After all preventing states like Iran -- indeed, specifically Iran -- from getting nukes has been the core of American foreign policy since the end of the Cold War. I should hope, I said, that the Pentagon has plans to attack Iran, North Korea etc. Heck, it's their job. In fact, I added, I know that the Pentagon even has plans to attack Canada. Young thinks this is all hilarious or absurd or perhaps merely an excuse to flap his gums about how wrong it is I have a column in the LA Times (the left coast lefties are still quite vexed about that). He says I've made news here. But the actual news is this guy doesn't know what he's talking about. The US military's plan to attack Canada is called War Plan Red. It's been written up in these things called "newspapers" every so often for years.

So, without further ado, here's the Washington Post on War Plan Red.

First, we send a joint Army-Navy overseas force to capture the port city of Halifax, cutting the Canadians off from their British allies.

Then we seize Canadian power plants near Niagara Falls, so they freeze in the dark.

Then the U.S. Army invades on three fronts -- marching from Vermont to take Montreal and Quebec, charging out of North Dakota to grab the railroad center at Winnipeg, and storming out of the Midwest to capture the strategic nickel mines of Ontario.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Navy seizes the Great Lakes and blockades Canada's Atlantic and Pacific ports.

At that point, it's only a matter of time before we bring these Molson-swigging, maple-mongering Zamboni drivers to their knees! Or, as the official planners wrote, stating their objective in bold capital letters: "ULTIMATELY TO GAIN COMPLETE CONTROL."

Excellllllllllllent. That will make Rummy and company think it's gonna be a cakewalk. Heh-heh. Wait 'til they find out we drive cars here now.