Apollyon
Mar 27th, 2007, 02:58 PM
TV channel aims to mirror society
But bid for licence may be stymied by cable firms which would have to carry the multicultural network, Prithi Yelaja writes
Mar 27, 2007 04:30 AM
Walk the streets of Toronto or any other city and Canada's multicultural reality stares you in the face.
But turn on your TV and its "whitewashed" programming tells a different story, say Toronto broadcasters Amos Adetuyi and Paul de Silva, who want to launch a cable channel featuring not just a few diverse faces, but original Canadian-produced drama and comedy that truly reflects the national reality.
Today, they appear before the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission to request a licence for Canada One TV, and – just as vitally – "must-carry" status, meaning cable firms would have to carry it on basic digital service, at a cost of 50 cents per customer.
De Silva argues there's "a social need" for such a channel. "Why? Because storytelling is important. It defines who we are. Our children need to see themselves reflected on television. It builds national identity," he says.
"Even though every second or third person you see on the street, especially in Toronto, is a visible minority, (they) don't exist in this country when you flick on your television," adds Adetuyi, sitting in the operation's King St. W. headquarters.
They argue that existing "multicultural" services such as OMNI carry mainly imported syndicated shows and little original drama and comedy.
Between them, the duo have decades of broadcasting experience – de Silva with CBC and Adetuyi with Inner City Films – and several Gemini awards. They've also assembled an advisory board of heavy hitters, including Oscar-nominated filmmaker Deepa Mehta.
Without must-carry status, Canada One wouldn't be financially viable, says Adetuyi. Even with it, it will be more or less non-profit, turning revenues back into programming.
Only four channels have what's known as 9-1(h) status – C-Pac, which airs Parliament; APTN, the Aboriginal Peoples' Television Network; TVA in Quebec; and an audio channel for the visually impaired. Four others are applying.
But it's likely to be an uphill battle, especially with foes like cable provider Rogers. Last week, the company released results of a survey of 1,000 Canadians it commissioned, in which eight out of 10 respondents opposed mandatory channels.
The CRTC won't comment on pending applications, but spokesperson Denis Carmel said, "We have to balance the public interest versus subscribers' freedom of choice."
Evidence of public support is important, though, because it "demonstrates to the commission that there is a good reception to that idea."
Canada One has garnered about 150 letters of support.
On the other hand, Canada's big cable providers, including Cogeco, Shaw and Rogers, have filed letters strongly opposed.
"In our view, digital is all about customer choice," said Rogers spokesperson Pam Dinsmore. "None of these services should have status that requires them to be paid for on digital basic."
Under the Broadcast Act, the designation is awarded only in rare cases where a channel can prove there's an "exceptional and essential" need for its programming and that it can't be delivered without 9-1(h) status.
"It's another burden on the consumer, and in the (Canada One) application that was filed, we didn't find those exceptional circumstances," says Marie Carrier of Cogeco.
Canada One's backers argue that it qualifies on the basis that half of its content would be Canadian-made drama and comedy with an "inside looking out" perspective. (Two of the program's four key players – producer, director, writer or actor – would have to be part of an ethnic or visible minority.)
Such a show can build an audience "if it's promoted properly and it strikes a chord with people," says de Silva, pointing to the successful CBC sitcom Little Mosque on the Prairie.
The other half of the content would be imported – immigrant favourites from India, Africa or Asia, or shows from Britain and Australia's richer stores of diverse programming.
Though there's a wealth of diverse talent in Canada, there's still a "brick wall" when it comes to showcasing it, say de Silva and Adetuyi. Though they stop short of calling it racism, they suggest the problem is with who controls programming.
In Canada, that is almost exclusively people who "are living in a different reality that is all white," Adetuyi contends.
Apart from ethno-specific channels such as Asian Television Network, no mainstream channel has visible-minority ownership. And according to Adetuyi, across Canada there's only one senior executive of colour who has decision-making power in broadcasting. "It is a fact that their friends and associates and the people they hire are like themselves. They reflect themselves and their interests in their programming."
That approach breeds disassociation, as seen among disaffected minority youth in France and Britain, cautions de Silva.
"Canada One can be part of that link to say, `You are part of this country.'"
http://www.thestar.com/News/article/196272
But bid for licence may be stymied by cable firms which would have to carry the multicultural network, Prithi Yelaja writes
Mar 27, 2007 04:30 AM
Walk the streets of Toronto or any other city and Canada's multicultural reality stares you in the face.
But turn on your TV and its "whitewashed" programming tells a different story, say Toronto broadcasters Amos Adetuyi and Paul de Silva, who want to launch a cable channel featuring not just a few diverse faces, but original Canadian-produced drama and comedy that truly reflects the national reality.
Today, they appear before the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission to request a licence for Canada One TV, and – just as vitally – "must-carry" status, meaning cable firms would have to carry it on basic digital service, at a cost of 50 cents per customer.
De Silva argues there's "a social need" for such a channel. "Why? Because storytelling is important. It defines who we are. Our children need to see themselves reflected on television. It builds national identity," he says.
"Even though every second or third person you see on the street, especially in Toronto, is a visible minority, (they) don't exist in this country when you flick on your television," adds Adetuyi, sitting in the operation's King St. W. headquarters.
They argue that existing "multicultural" services such as OMNI carry mainly imported syndicated shows and little original drama and comedy.
Between them, the duo have decades of broadcasting experience – de Silva with CBC and Adetuyi with Inner City Films – and several Gemini awards. They've also assembled an advisory board of heavy hitters, including Oscar-nominated filmmaker Deepa Mehta.
Without must-carry status, Canada One wouldn't be financially viable, says Adetuyi. Even with it, it will be more or less non-profit, turning revenues back into programming.
Only four channels have what's known as 9-1(h) status – C-Pac, which airs Parliament; APTN, the Aboriginal Peoples' Television Network; TVA in Quebec; and an audio channel for the visually impaired. Four others are applying.
But it's likely to be an uphill battle, especially with foes like cable provider Rogers. Last week, the company released results of a survey of 1,000 Canadians it commissioned, in which eight out of 10 respondents opposed mandatory channels.
The CRTC won't comment on pending applications, but spokesperson Denis Carmel said, "We have to balance the public interest versus subscribers' freedom of choice."
Evidence of public support is important, though, because it "demonstrates to the commission that there is a good reception to that idea."
Canada One has garnered about 150 letters of support.
On the other hand, Canada's big cable providers, including Cogeco, Shaw and Rogers, have filed letters strongly opposed.
"In our view, digital is all about customer choice," said Rogers spokesperson Pam Dinsmore. "None of these services should have status that requires them to be paid for on digital basic."
Under the Broadcast Act, the designation is awarded only in rare cases where a channel can prove there's an "exceptional and essential" need for its programming and that it can't be delivered without 9-1(h) status.
"It's another burden on the consumer, and in the (Canada One) application that was filed, we didn't find those exceptional circumstances," says Marie Carrier of Cogeco.
Canada One's backers argue that it qualifies on the basis that half of its content would be Canadian-made drama and comedy with an "inside looking out" perspective. (Two of the program's four key players – producer, director, writer or actor – would have to be part of an ethnic or visible minority.)
Such a show can build an audience "if it's promoted properly and it strikes a chord with people," says de Silva, pointing to the successful CBC sitcom Little Mosque on the Prairie.
The other half of the content would be imported – immigrant favourites from India, Africa or Asia, or shows from Britain and Australia's richer stores of diverse programming.
Though there's a wealth of diverse talent in Canada, there's still a "brick wall" when it comes to showcasing it, say de Silva and Adetuyi. Though they stop short of calling it racism, they suggest the problem is with who controls programming.
In Canada, that is almost exclusively people who "are living in a different reality that is all white," Adetuyi contends.
Apart from ethno-specific channels such as Asian Television Network, no mainstream channel has visible-minority ownership. And according to Adetuyi, across Canada there's only one senior executive of colour who has decision-making power in broadcasting. "It is a fact that their friends and associates and the people they hire are like themselves. They reflect themselves and their interests in their programming."
That approach breeds disassociation, as seen among disaffected minority youth in France and Britain, cautions de Silva.
"Canada One can be part of that link to say, `You are part of this country.'"
http://www.thestar.com/News/article/196272