said by Mashiki:
Really? Then why is it at my cousins place in the states with their US DSS dish they currently have 400 channels that they are paying for? I've seen bootleg setups with almost 900 channels on it. 200 channels? Perhaps cable, but even in woodstock with digital they are only useing 80 of them. There is a better product and it's not carried by anyone here, hence the reason to block the american satelite providers from selling their service here.
Using a tiny-ass sized dish that most of the modern services use? I doubt it. (I'm no expert on the subject, it may be a sky-side limitation).
said by Mashiki:
Is that because there is no market? Or because people here simply don't like them? Or perhaps the fact that the market isn't large enough? I've said this already, but if a culture is strong it doesn't need to be protected, it can either embrace and coexist with another, or can simply shrug off the outside influences by populace will.
The obvious question, then, is what happens when the culture
isn't strong enough, but also isn't 'stagnating' as you claim the French culture is doing.
Perhaps a better way to say it is that the Canadian Culture
is strong, but it's in a globally unique situation sitting beside and being bombarded by the most invasive culture in the world. The Canadian culture isn't
weak, it's just hopelessly ineffective against the giant next door.
Perhaps, as you say: 'they can shrug off outside influence by populace will', by having a Commission require a certain amount of Canadian-produced content in media streams. In this way you'd be creating a niche market specifically aimed at keeping Canadians and the Canadian culture alive, separate and thriving--while at the same time providing access to popular media providers from around the globe. This would give your viewers the choice to watch the foreign feeds they desire--something chosen by the broadcaster, not the regulations Commission--yet still providing a Canadian perspective.
said by Mashiki:
Goverment intervention guarentees that in general that the country will slowly move further towards a dictatorship where the goverment has absolute control of all forms of communication to "protect the canadian identity", doesn't that sound familiar? I thought so, sounds like the party line that's going on in communist china right now.
First off, that's a huge and unsubstantiated leap of logic, "Goverment intervention guarentees...". Remember, the Government, in Canada's Constitutional Democracy,
is the people, and if the people as a majority decide to change something, by golly, it will! Canada is in absolutely
no danger of becoming a dictatorship (Jean Chretien jokes aside)
The rest of your statement is comparing Canadian regulatory decisions to Communism. While this too is a leap of logic, one must ask oneself the all-important question: "Is Communism bad?" I don't know, but I think it's safe to say that Democracy is demonstratably just as poor at making any sort of clear decision on
anything. Now as you mention, this thread is not the place to discuss that particular issue, but a blanket McCarthyesque statement is no support for a point of view.
Canada, and other "small" countries (Sweden, Denmark, etc) definitely tend towards a more socialist point of view in almost all government-related issues (health care, welfare, labour...), both because it's possible to manage in a smaller society, and because it simply works better for the average person. (of course, that statement, like most of yours, is opinion). That being said, why SHOULDN'T Canada use socialist methods?
From another post:
said by Mashiki:
...we have already seen this in the way that the censor TV, News, magazines, books and what not.
Examples, please. Your word 'censor' can have vastly different connotations than what you're implying. Heck, if I were a die-hard capitalist, I'd call advertisement substitution (ie: Superbowl) 'target marketing' and call it a victory for Canadian Capitalsim!
said by Mashiki:
But regardless, I've lived in the US. Have you? That's probbly one of the reasons that my views of canada and it's control of media makes me angry. I don't like big goverment.
I have. Have you lived outside the US and Canada? Our two countries, the relationship they have, and why the Canadian approach is
way better becomes painfully obvious the further distanced you are from American dogma.
One thing to recall, if you will, that almost all American media is controlled by some organization or another. Why is it that I get one point of view reading USA Today and quite another reading another national newspaper? They all have political points of view, and generally have no problem skewing their coverage towards their agendas. It really was an eye-opener for me to watch CNN International, and the very same day (after an international flight) watch the SAME news coverage on American CNN.
~completely different perspective~ and it ignored some of the more interesting-yet-not-directly-important-to-Americans news.
Don't get me wrong, the United States of America is a fabulous country with many many many good things going for it, and many great, intelligent, understanding, passionate (etc etc) people living there. Not only do I enjoy spending time in the USA, but I regularly make a point of visiting my friends and relatives who live there.
I, however, do
NOT wish for my country to
BECOME part of the United States of America either culturally or politically.
They say the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence, but I like my grass just the way it is!