Tomorrow, Thursday the 6th of August, the Canadian Television Fund will host a virtual Town Hall to release and discuss initial key policy issues concerning the creation of the Canada Media Fund (CMF). This is the launch of the consultation process that will inform the policies and guidelines of the new program.There is scary talk of reducing the restrictions on American writers on Canadian shows. If you think that Canadian culture dollars should go to support Canadian shows, rather than American shows shot on Canadian soil, you might want to participate.
From there, stakeholders – that’s you – are invited to write and share their perspectives on the issues. We encourage you to take this opening and run with it – the more Canadian screenwriters voice their perspectives, the more we ensure Canadian voices are represented on our screens.
We’ll know the parameters of the discussion after the 6th, and we’ll tell you more then. We encourage everyone to tune in though and find out first hand. To do so, pre-register at http://www.ctf-fct.ca/ctf_home_en.html. [Important Note: when last we tried, there was some difficulty using Firefox and Safari to register – you may have to be on IE to register and watch the proceedings – so try early to debug and please persevere].
Writing for games, TV and movies (with forays into life and political theatre)...
Showing posts with label CRTC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CRTC. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 05, 2009
Tune In, Turn On, or be Dropped Out
From the WGC:
Friday, December 19, 2008
Good Times, Bad Times, You're Fired
I got a very thoughtful letter from a friend and colleague:
Hi Alex,Excellent points, thank you!
Interesting points about CTV and arguments to reduce Cancon.
I agree with your analysis. That is, that in poor economic times, broadcasters cut jobs because of the recession, but then again in better economic times, broadcasters still cut jobs because of .... consolidation, streamlining, operating efficiencies, [insert your rationale of choice here]. When you compare private TV broadcasters' profit margin with layoffs in broadcasting, there just isn't much of a link. So, layoffs in good times, layoffs in bad times:
The simple truth is this: having caved to unsupported claims that laissez-faire reliance on the marketplace will achieve all of Parliament's objectives for our broadcasting system, the CRTC is on the tipping point of accepting broadcasters' claims that what we really need is not more Canadian content, or even the same amount of Canadian content but .... wait for it ... high-quality Canadian content.
So please, just let us spend the same amount of money on less Cancon, attract more audiences, make more ad money that way, and we will all be better off. And then we will really really really try very very very hard to put more Cancon on air. Honest, we will.
Naturally this argument entirely ignores the last twenty years of broadcasters pleading to become bigger ... so they are better placed to fund more Cancon with more money .... and face fewer competitors (having bought them out) ... and can make more money .... and history continues to repeat itself. I can accept that few people remember the Aird Commission, or the Massey Commission, or the Fowler reports.
But doesn't anyone remember in 1967 and 1968 when Parliament finally decided that Canadians should run Canadian broadcasting, and give Canadians Canadian programs about themselves? Doesn't anyone remember that in 1967 Quebec's only private TV stations (CFCM-TV and CKMI-TV) were both controlled by non-Canadians (Famous Players, 51.8% owned by Americans), and that some American cable companies were running cables (literally) across the river to serve Canadian subscribers?
Yet here we are: CRTC is going to be renewing OTA TV licences next year (early 2009). Some 70 TV station applications will be heard in April, which means that Canadians will have the chance to comment in either February or March on these applications.
The CRTC has the legal authority to enforce Parliament's objectives, but only conditions of licence and regulations can be enforced. "Commitments", "expectations", "promises" and "undertakings" are simply not enforceable in law or under the Broadcasting Act.
Broadcasters will claim they must cut more Cancon to survive. They will commit to do more, sometime, when things improve to some unknown degree.
Will Canadians comment? Will they ask for more and better Cancon? Will they ask for their local news to be reinstated? Will they ask for more than one (one!!!) hour of Canadian drama a week at night? Will they even be aware of this issue? Who knows. But it's good to see people such as yourself writing about this.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Knife in the Heart of Canadian Film and Television
From the Globe and Mail today:
The bill would allow the Government to pull financing after the money has been spent. You go and make your TV show, and then if a politician thinks he can make a name for himself by calling your show "degenerate," for example, you now owe the Government all the money they gave you. What producer is going to take a chance on bankruptcy by producing anything that might be the slightest bit offensive?
What shows could be considered "offensive" by a Conservative Heritage minister? Oh, JUNO, I imagine (teen sexuality and pregnancy). NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN (violence). THERE WILL BE BLOOD (violence, inappropriate parenting). Um, what were the other Oscar nominated pictures again?
Could you guarantee to a bank that BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN wouldn't get its financing pulled, what with the onscreen gaysex?
Realistically, the bill would mean almost no Canadian content will get made at all. No bank will cash flow a film or TV show if up to 25% of its financing can be yanked back. No bank is going to want to take a bet whether a given show will be made an example of by politicians.
The American stereotype of Canadians is "boring but nice." If any TV shows or movies get made under a Bill C-10 post-hoc censorship regime, they are guaranteed to be nice and boring.
Is that the kind of culture the Tories want? Not really. They watch violent and sexy movies too. They just don't want to pay for Canadian ones. They're happy to watch Bond movies from the US. And if Canada becomes a cultural backwater of the US, they're cool with that.
If you don't think that's a good idea, then write the Prime Minister. And the Minister of Heritage.
And the Leader of the Opposition.
And write your local Member of Parliament too; you can find him or her at http://canada.gc.ca/directories-repertoires/direct-eng.html.
More at Dead Things on Sticks here and here.
Oh, and here's a Facebook Group that Karen Walton started.
The Conservative government has drafted guidelines that would allow it to pull financial aid for any film or television show that it deems offensive or not in the public's best interest – even if government agencies have invested in them.The proposed Bill C-10 would be a devastating blow to Canadian culture.
The proposed changes to the Income Tax Act would allow the Heritage Minister to deny tax credits to projects deemed offensive, effectively killing the productions. Representatives from Heritage and the Department of Justice will determine which shows or films pass the test.
The bill would allow the Government to pull financing after the money has been spent. You go and make your TV show, and then if a politician thinks he can make a name for himself by calling your show "degenerate," for example, you now owe the Government all the money they gave you. What producer is going to take a chance on bankruptcy by producing anything that might be the slightest bit offensive?
What shows could be considered "offensive" by a Conservative Heritage minister? Oh, JUNO, I imagine (teen sexuality and pregnancy). NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN (violence). THERE WILL BE BLOOD (violence, inappropriate parenting). Um, what were the other Oscar nominated pictures again?
Could you guarantee to a bank that BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN wouldn't get its financing pulled, what with the onscreen gaysex?
Realistically, the bill would mean almost no Canadian content will get made at all. No bank will cash flow a film or TV show if up to 25% of its financing can be yanked back. No bank is going to want to take a bet whether a given show will be made an example of by politicians.
The American stereotype of Canadians is "boring but nice." If any TV shows or movies get made under a Bill C-10 post-hoc censorship regime, they are guaranteed to be nice and boring.
Is that the kind of culture the Tories want? Not really. They watch violent and sexy movies too. They just don't want to pay for Canadian ones. They're happy to watch Bond movies from the US. And if Canada becomes a cultural backwater of the US, they're cool with that.
If you don't think that's a good idea, then write the Prime Minister. And the Minister of Heritage.
And the Leader of the Opposition.
And write your local Member of Parliament too; you can find him or her at http://canada.gc.ca/directories-repertoires/direct-eng.html.
He hinted then that the government was considering a “public policy” criterion for tax credit certification and a definition of what would be “contrary to public policy” that would make a production ineligible for film and TV tax incentives, as well as funds directed to sound recording and book publishing.Awesome. So expect a lot more Céline Dion in your future, and a lot less Alanis Morissette.
More at Dead Things on Sticks here and here.
Oh, and here's a Facebook Group that Karen Walton started.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
