Tuesday, March 01, 2005
Hooray for Canada, eh?
I can think of a few reasons why Canada rules, but one of them is certain to be that we don't have an FCC. We have analogous organizations, of course, but last time I checked, they don't want to censor everything everywhere.
Seriously, you have to be kidding me. These are opt-in services, meaning you don't get them unless you specifically ask for them and hand over your hard earned dollars. It's not like radio or broadcast TV, folks - you can't just get yourself a coat hanger and a Pringles can and tune in. Unless you are in the company of someone who has performed the above-mentioned monetary transaction with a provider, you will not be able to view anything on cable, or satellite, etc etc. If you don't like they're showing, DON'T BUY IT. Makes me want to go get the Clue stick and start up the beatings. Fortunately, I can't see this guy getting too far; I think the cable and satellite channels (read: the Big Five Media conglomerates) have enough other senators in their pockets to stop themselves from being vulnerable to FCC fine after FCC fine for showing late-nite softcore porn.
Ahem. Back to Canada, yes, we have just as silly broadcasting standards. We even have to force our networks to show a certain percentage of Canadian programming, and that isn't very good stuff to watch! However, I'm a lot more down with that than what the FCC is doing lately. Yes, we do what could be considered censoring of our own, but here the intent is to a) help protect our culture from being drowned in reality TV and bad sitcoms, and b) to promote diversity on the air. Removing one program to put a different one up ranks much lower on my piss-off list than censoring a program because you don't like what's being said. There's no mention of "indecent content" or "moral values", but simply that the peeps making one show are from Moose Jaw, while the other program's being made in Oklahoma City. Yes, we have our share of indecency regulation - we allow Stern in Toronto, so there's got to be a few people with nothing better to do than complain about how they can't change the channel and have to be shocked by his jokes - but here, I believe we have a "self-regulation" policy, which amounts to the networks getting together and agreeing what they will and won't show on TV. Novel concept, huh? ¶ 7:16 p.m.
I can think of a few reasons why Canada rules, but one of them is certain to be that we don't have an FCC. We have analogous organizations, of course, but last time I checked, they don't want to censor everything everywhere.
"Cable is a much greater violator in the indecency area," the Alaska Republican told the National Association of Broadcasters, which represents most local television affiliates. "I think we have the same power to deal with cable as over-the-air" broadcasters. "There has to be some standard of decency," he said. Stevens told reporters afterward that he would push legislation to apply the standards to cable and satellite radio and television.
Seriously, you have to be kidding me. These are opt-in services, meaning you don't get them unless you specifically ask for them and hand over your hard earned dollars. It's not like radio or broadcast TV, folks - you can't just get yourself a coat hanger and a Pringles can and tune in. Unless you are in the company of someone who has performed the above-mentioned monetary transaction with a provider, you will not be able to view anything on cable, or satellite, etc etc. If you don't like they're showing, DON'T BUY IT. Makes me want to go get the Clue stick and start up the beatings. Fortunately, I can't see this guy getting too far; I think the cable and satellite channels (read: the Big Five Media conglomerates) have enough other senators in their pockets to stop themselves from being vulnerable to FCC fine after FCC fine for showing late-nite softcore porn.
Ahem. Back to Canada, yes, we have just as silly broadcasting standards. We even have to force our networks to show a certain percentage of Canadian programming, and that isn't very good stuff to watch! However, I'm a lot more down with that than what the FCC is doing lately. Yes, we do what could be considered censoring of our own, but here the intent is to a) help protect our culture from being drowned in reality TV and bad sitcoms, and b) to promote diversity on the air. Removing one program to put a different one up ranks much lower on my piss-off list than censoring a program because you don't like what's being said. There's no mention of "indecent content" or "moral values", but simply that the peeps making one show are from Moose Jaw, while the other program's being made in Oklahoma City. Yes, we have our share of indecency regulation - we allow Stern in Toronto, so there's got to be a few people with nothing better to do than complain about how they can't change the channel and have to be shocked by his jokes - but here, I believe we have a "self-regulation" policy, which amounts to the networks getting together and agreeing what they will and won't show on TV. Novel concept, huh? ¶ 7:16 p.m.
