UN Flunks Economics Again

[Toby Rowe]

The Film and Television industry impacts on a child aged two and for the rest of his/her life.

It's far more about showing our children our way of life, our cultural values and our individual national identities, whilst the UK is comfortable with about 50%(?) of our viewing output coming from a foreign nation- The USA, many other European nations are not, and this national identity issue has no place in traded goods tarriffs.

I am 100% behind France on this issue.

Put is this way, if I were American and 50% of my film and TV ouput was dubbed/subtitled mainstream German and French programmes, would you like it?

Toby

[VetLegion]

Re: I'll PhD NYE's comments for the Yanks

Wll put Toby and KrazyHorse

[Imran Siddiqui]

Put is this way, if I were American and 50% of my film and TV ouput was dubbed/subtitled mainstream German and French programmes, would you like it?

What the **** would I care? If they were good programs, good deal.

[:) Smiley]

First World economies have moved from the Agricultural Age to the Industrial Age and now to the Information Age.

If national development follows the same pattern as urban development, the next step is the Entertainment Age. It is quite understandable why Europe and other places want some protections on their home industries.

[notyoueither]

There are several reasons why this is an inappropriate analogy.

And there are several reasons why it is very appropriate.

Once a language or an art form is gone, it does not come back. Look back at several areas of the globe that experienced British cultural domination. And then American...

And maybe, as Americans do not feel secure without the ability to roll out 1000 aircraft in short order, others do not feel secure when their children might see and hear nothing but American media.

You can say I am being rediculous, but you would not see the PoV. I am from a place that is very aware of how big the sway of American culture is, and where we have seen other, indiginous cultures wiped out by the hegemony of the English speaking world.

We've both experienced the weight of a cultural behemoth and been part of one. That is why we see distinctions, and value in many cultures. That is why we not only mandate Canadian content, but we subsidise minority cultures within Canada. We spend money on our own minority cultures, and require the market to spend money on our own, united culture. We are fighting on both ends. We resist the Americanisation of our culture, and we help others resist the Angloisation of their own cultures so that they may join the mosaic that we have sought to create and nurture for some years now.

The long and short of it is, once it's gone, you aren't getting it back anytime soon. That is why 170-some-odd countries around the world agree vs the two who dissent. The refusal of intelligent Americans to recognise what others see as being as imperative to their own continued well being as Americans regard national defence is somewhat distressing.

[Spiffor]

NYE

[Kuciwalker]

Wait, who's the other dissenter?

[DinoDoc]

Israel

[KrazyHorse]

i.e. "we're the US' *****"

[Adam Smith]

The refusal of intelligent Americans to recognise what others see as being as imperative to their own continued well being as Americans regard national defence is somewhat distressing.

OK, I don’t have your perspective from north of the border. You got me on that and there is nothing I can do about it. : As far as culture being as imperative as defense, that’s your argument, not mine, and I’ve given you good reasons why I think its inappropriate.

I’ve never argued that people in other countries would not, could not, or should not value their cultural heritage. I value mine, and I would certainly expect that people in other countries would value theirs. In this sense I “...recognize what others see as being ... imperative to their own continued well being.” (If the Australians would please take Rupert Murdoch with them on the way out, I would be grateful. )


But what I still don’t understand is IF people value their cultural heritage as you and others argue, and IF they have the ability to act on those values through the choices they make, (e.g., watching a French movie instead of Hollywood special effects) why do we need to have formally enshrined protection? Note that the more people value their cultural heritage, the more willing they are presumably willing to act on it, and the less the need for any formal protection. For example, if people in Saudi Arabia and Iran are as opposed to decadent western media as their religious leaders would have us believe, then why have any restrictions on what is shown? People simply wouldn’t watch it. And note that these kinds of cultural restrictions seem to run contrary to the trend of increasing international flows of information, as noted in the opening post, and the fact that cultures change over time.

edits: formatting

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Adam Smith

OK, I don’t have your perspective from north of the border. You got me on that and there is nothing I can do about it. : As far as culture being as imperative as defense, that’s your argument, not mine, and I’ve given you good reasons why I think its inappropriate.

I’ve never argued that people in other countries would not, could not, or should not value their cultural heritage. I value mine, and I would certainly expect that people in other countries would value theirs. In this sense I “...recognize what others see as being ... imperative to their own continued well being.” (If the Australians would please take Rupert Murdoch with them on the way out, I would be grateful. )

Good, good. You are not dismissing it. That's a start. And getting a kick in at the Aussies is to be encouraged.

But what I still don’t understand is IF people value their cultural heritage as you and others argue, and IF they have the ability to act on those values through the choices they make, (e.g., watching a French movie instead of Hollywood special effects) why do we need to have formally enshrined protection? Note that the more people value their cultural heritage, the more willing they are presumably willing to act on it, and the less the need for any formal protection.

In the case of CanCon, it is because there are a finite number of broadcasting 'resources'. It takes a significant amount of money to launch a radio station, and even more for a television station. There will only be so many hours a week of broadcast in any given community.

Now, you're the programmer for said station. You can air Madonna Speaks (huge pull, and about a hundred other American productions with similar numbers) or Anne of Green Gables (small pull, and maybe ten other Canadian productions with similarly smaller numbers) or several other Canadian productions with very small pull. What do you air if left with no mandates?

CanCon doesn't keep Madonna Speaks off the air, it only mandates that ~40% or less (has varied over time) of any programming day will be Canadian. Anne will get air time.

Another thing you have to factor in, there are many American productions that are 'dumped' into foreign markets. Once the cost of production is recovered in the US, any revenue from foreign markets is gravey, so a Canadian station could buy an American production for far less than it would cost to fund a Canadian one. That happens in TV, and now increasingly in radio.

In radio, it is far easier to follow the leader. The US record labels would love nothing better than to treat Canada as the 51st state. They get play in New York and Los Angeles, the Great White North follows. It is a recipe for local talent to be ignored.

In short it is scale, and American media could swallow Canada in a heartbeat if we allowed that to happen. Very few of the choices would be based on merit of Canadian talent or productions. It would be based on ease and economy.

CanCon mandates that there will be Canadian productions, so the better Canadian talent gets a chance at exposure, and decisions on broadcast will not come down to what is easiest or cheapest to produce, or simply purchase. In a way, it is a tax on Canadian broadcasters and audience to support Canadian culture.

For example, if people in Saudi Arabia and Iran are as opposed to decadent western media as their religious leaders would have us believe, then why have any restrictions on what is shown? People simply wouldn’t watch it. And note that these kinds of cultural restrictions seem to run contrary to the trend of increasing international flows of information, as noted in the opening post, and the fact that cultures change over time.

edits: formatting

Your example is the opposite extreme from mine. Where mine is two nations with shared languages, religions, and much history, among other things... yours is of two cultures almost alien to each other.

Pull it in. Come closer to your own culture (Western Liberalism). You see France or Norway, and their desires to keep the Anglo-American juggernaut at bay. It isn't just American media that are being hemmed in.

Come closer still, and you find Britain and Austrailia with national broadcasting systems. They do that because they see a value, other than money, in having strong voices for their own points of view in a world full of broadcasters.

Come yet closer, and you will find Canada. We are so close. We are so similar. We have the same language, religions, fashions, ... heritage. Here we will not only have a national broadcaster, but we will require all broadcasters to air Canadians and their views and expressions.

We do so, because we value ourselves more than we value profit when it comes to this subject. It isn't a normal trade issue to us, just as your defence is not the routine trade of bananas for your people.

[DAVOUT]

General education is, in my view, an appropriate comparison with cultural heritage. It is a value universally recognized as deserving protection in the form of a right for all children to benefit of if at no expense. Would you say that since all citizens think that general education is good the market could gurantee to all children a good general education at a price that their family can afford?
Incidentally, culture cannot be reduced to entertainement; instruction, education and many other activities are part of culture and do not attract market interest.

[Toby Rowe]

Hi all,

Very pleased to see that a 2 year old child- Norwegian, Danish or French actually has a representation, err like my 24 year old sisters' daughter, my son is 19, and able to choose.

In the UK, due to the current distribution network I have about 0% af seeing a fellow European film, but a 100% chance of seeing a Hollywood film, for better or worst as they say.

Until the UK distribution network is changed, the only way I'll ever ever see a felow European film is on the BBC, even if it's the best film ever made- In my opinion.

Kiddies programming must be left to the nation, English isn't good enough for the other 24 nations, and quite right too.

Toby

[Drake Tungsten]

We resist the Americanisation of our culture, and we help others resist the Angloisation of their own cultures so that they may join the mosaic that we have sought to create and nurture for some years now.

What bull****. You guys aren't "resisting" the Americanization of your culture in anything but your own inferiority-complex addled minds. You're thoroughly a part of the "mosaic" that is American culture and your refusal to admit this truth, while occasionally humorous, is usually just sad...

[Toby Rowe]

Oi mate,

There is no conflict betwix the US and Europe, but us Eropeans are moving closer despite the attitude of the French Government.

My refusal to kill Germans as an ex-soldier should it arise should tell you the current "state of play". Nobody has an interest in war in Europe. Europe has moved on, you ain't.

Back to others, and Drake springs to mind below, how about a great meet? Failing that, We don't mind your culture, as a Brit, a dubbed cartoon from Hollywood about a girl band, based in Boston might be bad to girls in Finland however when Moose and drink is more important within the programming for Finland.

Toby