So I was working alot on the redesign of the site and once it was up I was playing catchup with everything else. But, I thought it was time to rededicate the site. For some time now the site has been without an 'about' section. This is primarily because the site is still evolving and has undergone shifts about every six months.
So...
Publicbroadcasting.ca was born, as some of you know, out of the CBC Lockout of 2005. While that particular event is long over, the underlying causes are still firmly in place and many in Canadian arts and media remain 'locked out' . They are not locked out by a particular employer, but are still barricaded from their own market and from the funds that would enable them to make a reasonable living in arts and media.
Canadian arts, entertainment and cultural programs frequently talk about American media and feature American guests because, they argue, that's what people are into. It's what people want. In most cases they are right, American films, television, and to a lesser extent books and music tend to dominate the markets in Canada. But why do people want it? Largely it is because they are told that they do. In part they are told this by Canadian arts, entertainment and cultural programs and publications that talk about what 'people are into'. Whether or not that is in the public interest.
If you are creating an entertainment program, or the entertainment section of a magazine or newspaper you want to talk about things people care about and things they've heard of. There are generally three ways that people 'hear of' something. One is advertising/marketing, one is word of mouth and one is the above mentioned programs and publications. Even word of mouth though has, until the acendency of the internet anyway, relied primarily on the other two methods. In order for a friend to tell you about a new film or musical act they like they have to have heard of it somewhere.
So, it all boils down to advertising/marketing. If arts and entertainment programs and publications tend to stick to what people are 'in to' and word of mouth depends on already having heard of something then advertising/marketing is all that's left to spark the other two. Because the U.S. and to a lesser extent U.K. have larger populations/ larger markets they have more money to spend on advertising and marketing than Canada does and so are in a stronger position to generate the word of mouth and 'buzz' that will get their performers and artists onto programs and into publications.
That means that without subsidies, Government protection for artists (can con rules) and a conscious effort on the part of the public foreign content will always dominate what people are into. It's a self perpetuating cycle and a self fulfilling prophecy.
Another point to consider is the effect of advertising dollars and media ownership on what gets covered. In the states CNN is owned by Time Warner and so is more likely to give coverage to other Time or Warner Brothers properties. It would be naive to assume that the same is not true in Canada. If CTV is airing a particular American program and they want that program to do well, they are more likely to give coverage to that program and it's stars. Additionally, if a big American entertainment company is pumping advertising dollars into CTV's coffers to promote a film, for example, CTV is more likely to give coverage to that film and it's stars to appease the advertiser.
Most media people will deny that there is a connection between advertising and content (editorial policy) but look at the CBC as an example. The things that get covered on (commercial) CBC television's arts and entertainment programs tend to be very different from the things that get covered on (commercial free) CBC Radio.
Broadcasters receive their licences from us. We technically own the airwaves and they are licenced, through the Government, to Broadcasters. Any broadcaster is supposed to think first of the public interest. Public broadcasting is, ideally, supposed to act in the public interest and be free of political and commercial influence. Yet all of the above stands. Advertising, directly or indirectly influences content. It influences what gets on the air and ultimately influences what people see and hear and what 'people are into.'
Publicbroadcasting.ca is just a small website but it is free of commercial and political influence. The site recieves no money from advertising and no subsidies from any public or private organization. Everyone who contributes directly to publicbroadcasting.ca (the writers) is free of censorship and editorial control. The only editorial rules are that spam is not allowed and you can't do anything that is actually against the law. Beyond that the writers have free reign and I don't see what they write, or even know what they will write about, until you do.
The site is also deliberately and consciously Canadian. All of the blogs, podcasts, artists, organizations, news sources etc., listed on the site are Canadian and while I have control over who/what is included, I certainly have no control over what they say, write or do and, all put together, there are a few hundred independent sources included.
So is publicbroadcasting.ca unbiased? Hardly, but I'll gladly tell you what the bias' are. The site is pro human rights, generally against poverty, it is in favour of an environment that human beings can survive in, above all it is pro-art, unapologetically pro-Canadian and most likely to promote artists and organizations with little to no marketing budget of their own. These are, of course, my bias' and
tend to be reflected in the site, but again all contributors and inclusions are independent and free to have their own bais'. All put together it is a small step. But it is a step outside the cycle of commercialism and 'what people are into' and hopefully there will be more steps to follow.
