Bill C-10 in no way would prevent artists from creating, displaying or performing their works. It was simply telling them that they would have to get support from other sources. That is not censorship. If it was censorship then the government would effectively have a responsibility to fund all artists on demand.
I'm an artist. And I get it.
But where is ACTRA and all these arts community figures now that Sun TV (erroneously called "Fox News North") is under attack by the media on all sides? Where is the arts community when we have so many people calling for this private, non-public funded news outlet to be prevented access to the airwaves?
Censorship is not the denial of funding from one source. It is suppression. No artist was being suppressed from performing or creating under Bill C-10. Sure they would have to find alternate sources to create their artistic works at the level of expense that would be optimum. But that's not suppression.
Suppression is when we have the media demanding a voice to be silenced. Suppression is when we have politicians wanting voices to be silenced.
And what has the arts community said against these expressions of desired censorship? Well, I'm more likely to hear the birds chirping outside ACTRA's downtown headquarters while standing beside one of Emirates A-380's when taking off on a runway at Toronto's Pearson airport than hear one of their representatives on TV defending Sun TV's free expression.
Why? Because they aren't the champions against censorship they claim to be.
Hypocrites.
Posts
13 comments:
I'm not aware of ANYONE calling for SUN TV News to be denied access to the "airwaves" (i.e. cable). The people I've seen write about this issue are objecting to them getting a special licence that would either (a) require cable services to carry SUN TV or (b) require cable services to offer it in at least one of their packages.
I'm sorry... a special license?
What's so special about it? It's a fairly common license that many stations have received. And they have as much right to pursue it.
But people petitioning for them not to get such a license... that's a blatant attempt to suppress access to them or their access to reach the public.
That is suppression of expression. That is censorship.
Definitely censorship!
"I'm sorry... a special license? What's so special about it? It's a fairly common license that many stations have received. And they have as much right to pursue it."
That's not true. After being turned down for a Category 1 licence (which aren't currently being granted by the CRTC), SUN TV is now applying for a Category 2 licence AND asking the CRTC to establish special guidelines that would force cable providers to offer their channel as part of at least one package (not part of the normal cat2 licence).
http://www.marketingmag.ca/english/news/media/article.jsp?content=20100903_151153_6008
"But people petitioning for them not to get such a license... that's a blatant attempt to suppress access to them or their access to reach the public. That is suppression of expression. That is censorship."
Again, there are only two categories of licences for cable TV channels--1 and 2. SUN TV already has a category 2 licence. No one is trying to deny them that, or attempt to block a re-purposing of that existing licence for a news/information channel. There are many people, however, who don't think SUN TV should receive a better licence than any other applicant could get at this time.
I stand corrected on the Cat 1 license frequency. But you're seriously saying that this is about license types alone? Have you even read the Avaaz.org petition titled "Stop Fox News North"?
Practically every media commentary disparaging the creation of SunTV has been about whether or not we need it from an ideological perspective, not a content perspective. Why do you think SunTV's detractors have called it Fox News North except to enflame and twist perspectives?
Those opposing it's creation are fabricating so many outright lies -- i.e. SunTV is trying to get mandatory payment, the government is putting pressure on the CRTC head over this, Harper met with Rupert Murdoch to discuss it's creation, etc. -- that their intent is as clear as day. People who have no desire to stop something don't show such desperation.
Oh, and by the way, the question still stands. Where is the arts community in defending SunTV in the face of such blatant attempts to stop it?
I don't recall this much ink being spilt every time MuchMusic decided it "needed" another channel. This isn't about need at all. And it's not about license types. Anybody who buys that has to be pretty deluded.
"But you're seriously saying that this is about license types alone? ... Practically every media commentary disparaging the creation of SunTV has been about whether or not we need it from an ideological perspective, not a content perspective. Why do you think SunTV's detractors have called it Fox News North except to enflame and twist perspectives?"
Sure, there are lots of people saying that a Fox-style cable channel in Canada would harmful to the country--not just talking about the licence issue--but that's just expressing an opinion. The point is that the only action anyone is calling for is that SUN TV not receive special treatment from the government in the form of a cable licence that will effectively guarantee them a source of income to finance the advancement of their c/Conservative agenda.
The very Avaaz petition you mention repeatedly makes reference to exactly that--"funded with money from our cable TV fees!"--as did Maragret Atwood and the Canadian President of Avaaz who appeared on Power & Politics to debate Kory Teneycke.
To recap, lots of people are speaking out against SUN TV, but no one is suggesting that it be kept off the air. Speaking out against SUN TV--making it clear to Canadians that it is intended to be Fox News North--is not censorship. Ensuring that SUN TV doesn't receive preferential treatment is not censorship. Perhaps a campaign to pressure advertisers not to do business with an enterprise that adovcates actions many people find offensive (e.g. "lock and load") may follow. But none of that is censorship.
As for ACTRA, I can only surmise that they are not involved in this debate because (a) no one is trying to censor SUN TV and (b) their members are mostly actors thus they have much more involvement in things like movie production tax credits than cable news channels.
Just to correct something I wrote earlier, SUN TV currently has an "over the air" broadcast licence, not a cat2 cable licence (though they are carried on cablke in some places).
Regardless, what SUN TV wants to change from a traditional broadcast licence to a cat2 cable licence. Category 2 licences are generally pretty easy to get, but what distinguishes SUN TV's request is that are asking for a special "must offer" clause in their licence (something the CRTC has never done before) that would force cable service providers to offer the channel as part of at least one existing package.
I remember the huge furor when G4 Canada applied for their Cat 1 license like it was yesterday.
The people rose up and within a week there were 50,000 signatures on a digital petition asking Stephen Harper to stop interfering with the CRTC.
"I remember the huge furor when G4 Canada applied for their Cat 1 license like it was yesterday."
The huge furor is absolutely a result of the fact that many people fear a one-sided c/Conservative adovacy channel with no left-wing counterpart will be detrimental to the country.
But there's still no one calling for censorship--or anything resembling censorship.
Thank you for proving that the issue isn't licensing but content.
Post a Comment