Bill’s C-10 & C-11. If we aren’t talking about it already, shouldn’t we be?

The_Foxer

Council Member
Aug 9, 2022
1,298
790
113
I watched that “David Atkin” or whatever his name was continuously interrupt Pierre Poilievre in the middle of each sentence as he was at the podium, with that reporter shouting over top of the PA system.

Here I thought that a reporter was supposed to report the news and not become the news in a situation like that?? He is no better than that other clown with Rebel News (I can’t remember his name offhand).
In fairness he did later appologize and specificaly stated his behavior was wrong. But still,
 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
18,023
3,778
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
In fairness he did later appologize and specificaly stated his behavior was wrong. But still,
But still….damn. That was hugely unprofessional and the rest of the entire room of reporters wasn’t doing that. David Atkin isn’t Justin Trudeau giving us “a lesson we can all learn from” but was just being a Dick!

That was a disruptive Shill KNOWING he was going to make the news being at the centre of a story instead of reporting on it.

In fairness, after watching that behaviour from a grown ass man in a professional capacity, hearing that he’s apologized, rings hollow at best. Disingenuous is the term that comes to mind.
 

The_Foxer

Council Member
Aug 9, 2022
1,298
790
113
But still….damn. That was hugely unprofessional and the rest of the entire room of reporters wasn’t doing that. David Atkin isn’t Justin Trudeau giving us “a lesson we can all learn from” but was just being a Dick!

That was a disruptive Shill KNOWING he was going to make the news being at the centre of a story instead of reporting on it.

In fairness, after watching that behaviour from a grown ass man in a professional capacity, hearing that he’s apologized, rings hollow at best. Disingenuous is the term that comes to mind.
Yeah - i suspect there was probably talk that if he was going to do that maybe he wouldn't be allowed into future press briefings so he apologized :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ron in Regina

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
18,023
3,778
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
Yeah - i suspect there was probably talk that if he was going to do that maybe he wouldn't be allowed into future press briefings so he apologized :)
There was probably a consensus after seeing how other reporters recorded HIS story that he wasn’t the hero he thought he was going to be….so maybe a little from column A & a little from column B?

With his outburst on Tuesday though, Akin was over the top. He wouldn’t even let Poilievre deliver his statement before he started yelling at him. Outside of partisans, who already don’t like Poilievre, most people watching the exchange would think Akin didn’t look good.

And that includes Akin himself, who apologized later that day saying many viewers and readers said he was rude.

“I agree. I’m sorry for that. We all want politicians to answer questions — but there are better ways of making that point,” Akin posted to Twitter.

Battles between the Parliamentary Press Gallery over access to politicians and the ability to ask questions have been going on for years. I was there for the boycott and walkout on one of Stephen Harper’s news conference way back in 2006 or so.

The problem is that as a group, the issue of access really only becomes an issue when it is Conservatives in power. I can’t tell you how many useless process stories I’ve seen about how Harper would only take five questions or would limit the amount of time he would spend.

You know who else does that without all the stories painting him out to be a bad man afraid of the media and democracy?

Justin Trudeau.

Yet it is only an issue, only becomes a major story, if the Conservatives have limits.
That’s one of the many ways the gallery shows their bias, that and believing their job is to hold the opposition rather than the government to account (?).

There are many good reporters in every newsroom in Ottawa, yes, even CBC. People also need to know that any bias, real or perceived, isn’t due to the media bailout fund (?), which newspapers get but TV networks don’t, it’s simply because most journalists – consciously or unconsciously – agree with Liberal policies and are skeptical of Conservatives.

Really? Seriously? So the CBC print gets a bailout & that doesn’t affect the CBC Television Network? Same with Global News (Print & TV) or Sun (Print & TV)? Glad that’s cleared up.
 

spaminator

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 26, 2009
31,936
2,258
113
Canada's TV networks look to Bill C-11 as a lifeline, it's the wrong solution
Author of the article:Brian Lilley
Publishing date:Sep 16, 2022 • 1 day ago • 3 minute read • 20 Comments
Netflix and Amazon Prime are drowning out Canadian broadcasters, without paying their fair share for the development of Canadian stories.
Netflix and Amazon Prime are drowning out Canadian broadcasters, without paying their fair share for the development of Canadian stories. PHOTO BY ISTOCK /GETTY IMAGES
Bill C-11, that monstrosity of an attempt by the Trudeau Liberals to regulate the online world, got support from some of Canada’s biggest broadcasters this week.


I have no time for this bill, which could completely alter the way we create and consume content online in this country in ways that are only for the worst. But I understand where the broadcasters are coming from.


Troy Reeb, of Corus Entertainment, and Pierre Karl Peladeau, of Quebecor, both appeared before the Senate Transportation and Communications committee. Their message was simple, if we have to be regulated then foreign-based competition should face the same regulations.

“The biggest TV networks in Canada day after day are no longer Canadian. At all. They are unregulated foreign streamers,” Reeb told the committee.

It’s a compelling argument from the broadcasters, they simply want a level playing field.


Traditional broadcasters in this country are subject to the regulations of the CRTC and have no end of compliance terms in order to keep their licenses. They operate in a system that was designed when TV was king, when revenues flooded the system, which they no longer do.

Yet traditional broadcasters are still told how much original Canadian content they must produce and broadcast each week. They are mandated to support independent production companies in the creation of Canadian content. They are often told what kind of Canadian content must be produced, when it should air and even how much of their revenues need to go towards these projects.

None of these terms apply to Netflix, Prime or Disney+ or the other foreign streaming services. Yet these companies are able to do an incredible amount of business in this country.


“The same U.S. studios who used to license as content for Canadian television are now going around Canadian broadcasters to take it directly to Canadians themselves,” Reeb said.

Understandable but wrong
Given this scenario, it’s understandable why Reeb and Peladeau, along with other broadcast executives, would show support for Bill C-11. Whatever other flaws the bill may have, and there are many, they see it as a way to have their competition follow the same rules they are required to follow.

My preferred solution, and likely the preferred solution of Reeb and Peladeau if you caught them in a quiet moment, would be for the CRTC to impose fewer restrictions on traditional broadcasters. That’s not to say no restrictions at all but it would mean fewer hoops to jump through in order to deliver content Canadians want to watch.


Yet no government, Liberal or Conservative, has been willing to do this over the last several decades. In fact, the Trudeau government has continued to impose more licence requirements on traditional broadcasting.

I see where the traditional broadcasters are coming from, I understand that they want a level playing field. But C-11 will do much more than that. It will give the already incredibly powerful CRTC the ability to regulate the music you hear on streaming services, the podcasts you listen to on Spotify, the audio books you listen to on Audible or the videos you see on YouTube.

It has the ability, as it now stands, to impose requirements designed for large broadcasters on small creators who have carved out a niche that allows them to earn a living or some extra income.

Corus, which owns Global, and Quebecor, which owns TVA, want the bill passed and they want it passed quickly. Each day they are losing viewers and revenue as they sit under these regulations that don’t apply to the foreign streamers.

Bill C-11 isn’t the answer, it shouldn’t be passed, but when the chance of the Trudeau Liberals lowering regulations for all is slim to none, I can see why broadcast executives will take what they can get.

blilley@postmedia.com
 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
18,023
3,778
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
Canada's TV networks look to Bill C-11 as a lifeline, it's the wrong solution
Author of the article:Brian Lilley
Publishing date:Sep 16, 2022 • 1 day Troy Reeb, of Corus Entertainment, and Pierre Karl Peladeau, of Quebecor, both appeared before the Senate Transportation and Communications committee. Their message was simple, if we have to be regulated then foreign-based competition should face the same regulations.
Hmmm…ok. What if C-11 & most of the CRTC Reg’s where thrown in the bin?
Traditional broadcasters in this country are subject to the regulations of the CRTC and have no end of compliance terms in order to keep their licenses. They operate in a system that was designed when TV was king, when revenues flooded the system, which they no longer do.
So, the CRTC Regs are outdated anyway, like vintage milk?
Yet traditional broadcasters are still told how much original Canadian content they must produce and broadcast each week. They are mandated to support independent production companies in the creation of Canadian content. They are often told what kind of Canadian content must be produced, when it should air and even how much of their revenues need to go towards these projects.
So….it already way too overreacting and overwhelming and overregulated?
My preferred solution, and likely the preferred solution of Reeb and Peladeau if you caught them in a quiet moment, would be for the CRTC to impose fewer restrictions on traditional broadcasters. That’s not to say no restrictions at all but it would mean fewer hoops to jump through in order to deliver content Canadians want to watch.
Hmmm…ok. So again, what if C-11 & many of the CRTC’s outdated Regulations where just tossed out to create a level playing field instead of massive Gov’t overreach?
I see where the traditional broadcasters are coming from, I understand that they want a level playing field. But C-11 will do much more than that. It will give the already incredibly powerful CRTC the ability to regulate the music you hear on streaming services, the podcasts you listen to on Spotify, the audio books you listen to on Audible or the videos you see on YouTube.
So, the CRTC along with C-11 need to be reeled in then?
It has the ability, as it now stands, to impose requirements designed for large broadcasters on small creators who have carved out a niche that allows them to earn a living or some extra income.

Bill C-11 isn’t the answer, it shouldn’t be passed, but when the chance of the Trudeau Liberals lowering regulations for all is slim to none, I can see why broadcast executives will take what they can get.
So, C-11 in the most palatable of the worst options given so far, and it’s a pretty bad option all on its on?
 
  • Like
Reactions: The_Foxer