TV stations can be purchased for a dollar each!
The $3 offer, which came late in the day from Shaw, was quickly accepted by CTV after the network told federal regulators this week that it planned to shut the stations in Windsor and Wingham, Ont., and Brandon, Man., because they could not make a profit.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20090501.RCRTC01ART1941...
We segued into this item in the thread about the cost of news, from a Wayne MacPhail column. When I was looking around at various stories, I came across this old one from January 8, 2007.
http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/223230
If I read that correctly, it seems that CTV had to divest itself of the "A Channels" as part of a CRTC rulling, and may in fact have nothing much to do with whether the stations are making money or not.
But why was Shaw Cable, another corporate media conglomerate, the only buyer to be given the opportunity?
Why couldn't these stations be allowed to return to local ownership and control?
"I think it's great," Mr. Fecan said. "We've accepted their offer of $1 per station. Cable is rolling in money and can obviously afford to underwrite the losses."
And, later in the Globe article:
"Good for them," Mr. Fecan said of Shaw. "I'm sure they will live up to the existing conditions of licence placed on these stations, which is wonderful news for the employees and for the people of Windsor, Wingham and Brandon," Mr. Fecan said.
Tee hee. Someone's a little bitter and a tad passive aggressive, and missed their nap time.
I think they sold to Shaw before offering it to anyone else (assuming they didn't offer them to anyone else) on the hopes that Shaw chokes on them, thereby proving the case to the CRTC that broadcasters need cable carrier fees.
I believe there is a move afoot for local ownership of Hamiton's CHCH.
Hmmm didn't know it was our own A channel that had been in the deal. The house(organ) this morning interviewed the CTV guy about it. Ms Petty was her usual delightful slef with the CTV guy then turned into the adoring sycophant once flaherty was on later in the show. But the CTV guy mentioned the offered the staions to CBC first. The Brandon tower is actually the relay for CBC in southern Manitba. He was shocked they wouldn't have at least taken the equipemtn and the tower to relay HNiC if nothing else for 1 dollar.
Yet again proving that the CBC is being destoryed form within. If they are already using the relay tower Why not buy it for a buck. Oh yeah that would be big government again. Thank Lecroix you asshole conservative fundraising lacky/appointee.
Check the podcast for his comments and Petty being petty with her grilling of the ctv guy. I'm not a fan of this guy/ctv but she was all over this guy and I couldn't figure out why? YOu'd have thought he worked for the NDP
But why was Shaw Cable, another corporate media conglomerate, the only buyer to be given the opportunity?
Why couldn't these stations be allowed to return to local ownership and control?
Um, because they really are money pits?
At the moment, it's the specialty channels on cable that tend to be profitable. Smaller local stations with a community focus do not support themselves. They're often run as part of a larger corporation who must maintain them because of CRTC requirements. Nobody local wants a losing concern. Not even with the glamour of television thrown in.
Um, because they really are money pits?
That remains to be seen, I think. If they are money pits, it could be due to the way they are run by corporate. If they are freed from the corporate formula to find the audience on their own, they might in fact prove viable.
The thing local T.V. is not allowed to realize currently is that they are in fact specialty channels that specialize in local coverage. I think the ones that are allowed to act on that will be the ones most likely to make money. While add revenues are historically down due to audience share fragmentation, new technologies have brought production costs down at the same time.
The question is, are there people in the community with deep enough pockets and deep enough patience to back a local T.V. station while it goes through the process of rediscovering it's audience?
And, it strikes me now that while the CRTC is right to block cable carrier fees for these stations while they are owned by conglomerates who are in trouble because of a failed buisness strategy, locally owned stations might have a more convincing argument for them, and one that might find public support.
Check the podcast for his comments and Petty being petty with her grilling of the ctv guy.
I caught that yesterday, too. I don't think Petty's questions were unfair, but yes, she's rather inconsistant about who gets the high and inside pitches and who gets the off speed pitch right over the plate.
I think it is the tone of her voice Tommy, She puts on the talking to todler voice when speaking with a member of the CPC/Fraser/CD Howe but the pissed off teacher of 14 year olds voice when speaking to anyone she doesn't agree with. It might be an over reaction ny me, but she does sound very different from interview to interview with the tone she speaks in. That is to say she rarely gets angry while reporting what the right wingers say, but tries to be a journalist with tough questions with most anyone else. And agina no mention of the NDP.
To be fair Chris Hall is lighter voiced version of Petty. He has some kind of dislike of the left as well. I have always noticed that on politics, but his hosting the house just re affirms what I had already suspected. No surprise he sits next to Don Martin on the panel cuz he agrees with him most of the time. I noticed they got rid of Susan Delacourt for some other liberal hack. Wish A Zerb hadn't ot out of the media reporting scene. I always liked her take on current events around the media, and there is a lot of media to talk about right now.
Don Newman
I've learned not to believe everything I read, but this piece of news, which landed like a rocket here at the Liberal convention last night, appears to be true.
Popular CBC's political correspondent Don Newman has accepted a "voluntary incentive package" from the public broadcaster and will be taking early retirement.
"Don is a tremendous asset and one of Canada's best known political journalists so I think that it's a loss for the CBC and for CBC News in particular," said CBC Spokesman Jeff Keay.
It's not yet clear what will happen to 'Politics'. The show, which airs at 5pm on Newsworld, might be kicked out of its studio because CBC News At Six is now moving to 5 pm and they both use the same space.
[url=http://thestar.blogs.com/politics/2009/05/don-newman.html] Susan Delacourt blogs about Politics [/url]
Again I would like to mention Lacroix is trying to actively destroy the CBC from within. I don't mind Sue Bonner who would be the most likely to replace Don Newman but I really would dislike it if Hall took over. Might as well watch duffy live all over again. The corpse of the CBC, that our hydra like 2 ruling parties have left to rot, is starting to stink. Over and over they have shown they have no vision for the CBC other than to dismantle it. Or let it wither and die, which is how this slow and agonizing process is occurring right now. How is it Being Erica is picked up by the Soap network(in the mighty US) but they will produce less shows? You are actually making money on CBC shows but you want to cut back on said shows?
The only thing wrong with losing Newman at this point is that he's likely to be replaced with an even-younger sycophantic toad who's going to be more difficult to get rid of in the post - Lacroix era.
Um, because they really are money pits?
That remains to be seen, I think. If they are money pits, it could be due to the way they are run by corporate. If they are freed from the corporate formula to find the audience on their own, they might in fact prove viable.
The thing local T.V. is not allowed to realize currently is that they are in fact specialty channels that specialize in local coverage. I think the ones that are allowed to act on that will be the ones most likely to make money. While add revenues are historically down due to audience share fragmentation, new technologies have brought production costs down at the same time.
The question is, are there people in the community with deep enough pockets and deep enough patience to back a local T.V. station while it goes through the process of rediscovering it's audience?
And, it strikes me now that while the CRTC is right to block cable carrier fees for these stations while they are owned by conglomerates who are in trouble because of a failed buisness strategy, locally owned stations might have a more convincing argument for them, and one that might find public support.
Check the podcast for his comments and Petty being petty with her grilling of the ctv guy.
I caught that yesterday, too. I don't think Petty's questions were unfair, but yes, she's rather inconsistant about who gets the high and inside pitches and who gets the off speed pitch right over the plate.
No, it doesn't remain to be seen -- it's already been amply demonstrated. Believe me, if they could find a way to pull a profit from a regional terrestrial station, they'd have done so. As it is, even the national terrestrial stations are making less and less profit, while the specialty channels are showing increasing profit across the board. Small regional stations haven't been moneymakers since the majority of households have gone over to cable or satellite service. At least with cable, people still get regional channels - those with satellite tv usually don't.
The thing about specialty channels is that they have a smaller, more specific mandate for programming, but with national exposure are able to draw enough eyeballs for their (usually lower-budget) programming than a regional channel that specializes in regional programming. First, you have to draw the eyeballs that are going to the bigger-budget, broad appeal programming and you usually have a smaller pool to draw from because, well, you're regional.
About the new technologies... Yeah, the cameras are cheaper. The cameraman isn't. Production is still bleeping expensive, and while the technology has gotten cheaper, it changes more often, requiring more frequent upgrades. Beta SP was around for 20 years. HD changes every 2. And even the regionals want HD.
I have to go now, but this just scratches the surface. What you are proposing is extremely complicated and nobody apparently wants to go there.
No, it doesn't remain to be seen -- it's already been amply demonstrated.
Where?
Make a distinction between providing news and making a profit. News is actually the most cost effective way of creating local programming and abiding by the CRTC rules. News happens. Shows have to be created. But it still costs money to run a newsroom and producing conventional tv is expensive, unless the Rogers model is used.
I believe A Channel in London has to provide 27 hours of local content to maintain the license under the CRTC. That doesn't seem like much. And it was almost all news and a morning show, formerly a noon newscast. The quality of the news is often suspect and now to fill those 27 hours A simply repeats its 11 pm newscast for three hours in the morning instead of a morning news show - which wasn't all that great as an information vehicle and certainly isn't doing much for it's viewers now.
Oh, and I believe the A channels in Wingham (which was really only a repeater with a couple field people), Windsor, and London are unionized journalists. Coincidence that they're the first people to be let go by CTV? This has, unfortunately led to the younger - and in my mind - better journalists being bumped by their senior members some of whom probably couldn't spell internet if you spotted them the "i" and the "net".
The problem for Global and CTV was that they wanted to make a profit while running that local content, which was invariably news. Traditionally news does not make money, but it's provided as a balance to the rights to broadcast, in Canada. Clearly, in the minds of Global and CTV, the logical move was to bring out more soft news and use national reports and crap produced in the States (a lof of the health features are literally promo pieces for US medical practices and wrinkle cream fluff) to fill time.
Until the last eight months there is no way that London's A and Hammy's CHCH lost money. Not a chance. They were likely turning a modest profit. Unfortunately, in the biz world, modest ain't enough. And both CTV and Global see the fat cable profits, and they see Shaw and Rogers running their news for free and they wanted to leverage a quick injection of money, so they killed they chipped away local news in already damaged areas of SWOnt and held out their hands.
Then a cable company buys the stations. London's A will soon be a Shaw property. The competition will then be between Shaw and Rogers. If that competition gets serious enough then there's a chance for a good level of local debate. But that's again trusting two for-profit companies with your news.
"No, it doesn't remain to be seen -- it's already been amply demonstrated. Believe me, if they could find a way to pull a profit from a regional terrestrial station, they'd have done so. As it is, even the national terrestrial stations are making less and less profit, while the specialty channels are showing increasing profit across the board. "
I'm not discounting that, nor ignoring the other realities you write about. But, I don't think either of us has access to the real figures at CTV, and how local T.V. fits into that picture. It strikes me that this didn't come to a head until the credit crunch caught media meglomaniacs in the middle of their aquisition phase. And, it seems to me from the 2007 article that CTV were required to divest itself of some stations. And, like anyone else big and small in today's market trying to sell assets, they got caught in a buyer's market.
So, I will cling to my "remains to be seen" for now.
"Traditionally news does not make money, but it's provided as a balance to the rights to broadcast, in Canada. Clearly, in the minds of Global and CTV, the logical move was to bring out more soft news and use national reports and crap produced in the States (a lof of the health features are literally promo pieces for US medical practices and wrinkle cream fluff) to fill time. "
This essential idea is what is lost on everyone here. These are public airwaves, and the cable companies, broadcasters, etc, do what they do because the general public has surrendered their right to broadcast.
Start up a modest transmitter that blocks the signal of a major broadcaster-- just for a ten block radius-- and see who shows up at your door.
The public has to get wise to this, that they have a right to make demands on what is broadcasted, and who broadcasts it. The CRTC is supposed to be our eyes, ears and mouth in this respect, but for the most part they have forgotten the essential idea that these are public airwaves, and have become a kind of referee between one conglomerate and another-- to the extent that public rights are secondary to the right of business to make big profits.
Yesterday, I was watching the Wolf Blitzer show on CNN (the sitiashun room) and they covered Obama's latest initiative, which is to eliminate the tax loopholes in the U.S. that allows big companies to move profits to other juristictions, thereby escaping U.S. taxation. Give credit to CNN-- they admitted that their parent company uses four such off shore subsidiaries. Although, they pointed out that the Faux network uses almost one hundred and fifty.
What might be the chances for unbiased reporting on this issue? And what are the chances that ordinary voices that see things Obama's way are going to be allowed a podium on the public airwaves? And, what does this really say about the relationship between big media and freedom of speech?
I'm not discounting that, nor ignoring the other realities you write about. But, I don't think either of us has access to the real figures at CTV, and how local T.V. fits into that picture. It strikes me that this didn't come to a head until the credit crunch caught media meglomaniacs in the middle of their aquisition phase. And, it seems to me from the 2007 article that CTV were required to divest itself of some stations. And, like anyone else big and small in today's market trying to sell assets, they got caught in a buyer's market.
So, I will cling to my "remains to be seen" for now.
Even the reasons for keeping the financials secret are, in fact, a secret. From the May 4th CRTC hearings:
7038 THE CHAIRPERSON: Now, as you well know, that information is confidential and stations, for competitive reasons, don't like to exchange that and make it public.
7039 We have had the last week, and even this morning, hearings in camera where we look at the confidential filings on a station by station breakdown to assure ourselves of what they are telling us. These are their audited financial statements.
7040 Unfortunately, it bears out the question that they are not making money, either on local programming. And, you know, I have no interest in lying to you or misrepresenting things. Those are the facts as presented to me. We cannot make it public for confidential reasons.
"And, you know, I have no interest in lying to you or misrepresenting things."
Well, what is the relationship between these media giants and the people who appointed the Chairperson of the CRTC? He's asking us to accept an arguement from authority, here.
Conspiracy theories aside, I'm prepared to suspend my suspicions and take that at face value. It still doesn't address the why of it.
Just on the news end of things, which probably is the most defining aspect of what makes a local station local, Farmpunk pointed out above just how little local content there is in "local news". I've gotten away from watching London's A channel news because after the corporate feeds, the advertorials, and the bumpers, there's usually only ten to fifteen minutes-- sometimes less-- of actual local news in a one hour presentation. I think what really tore it for me was tuning in one day just before the 6:00 pm broadcast, and catching the last few minutes of the hour long "Entertainment Tonight", only to have London's entertainment anchor take over from the news at ten minutes after six.
It could well be that local stations aren't profitable because they have stopped being local.
Things could be as Timebandit says above, that audience fracturing and specialty channels have turned local broadcasting into an artifact of the past.
But, I note that there are still people who make money making horse drawn carriages, chain mail armour, abbacii, (the plural of which is under dispute-- let's not get into it.) and muzzle loading rifles to name but a few anachronisms.
I still think, if local stations are allowed to be local, a recipe for profit can be found. And that what media conglomerates have done to local media, in broadcasting and in print, is an act of egregious vandalism.
Funny you would mention chain maille. My cousin called me from work and asked me about where I got all my chain maille info from. Canadian site called Ring Lord(lol nice pun). He wants to put some armour together. I don't think he understands how much work that requires.
Windsor had a rally for their A channel. We get a few minutes of decent coverage. Much better than when CKCO serviced Windsor. Back then everything but 1 or 2 reporters was in Kitchener. This was suppose to be our news, but was reported from 3 hours away. My x roomates mom is dating someone who is at A channel Windsor (don't want to say much more). But it's been fairly temultuous lately.
Cheryl Gallant, M.P. Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke, presented her case to the CRTC concerning Pembroke and stated they were down to a videographer and an ad salesperson. Media consolidations have not delivered for local communities. What we now have in mid and small markets are stations in name only.
Editorial decisions have been taken out of the communities these channels were licensed to serve. The program you see at 6pm may have been packaged in Edmonton or Vancouver or Toronto and then relayed back for airing. Is that a local newscast just because it includes some stories shot in Windsor or Pembroke?
The CRTC seems to accept that it still is a local newscast. The commission does not recognize that there is a disconnection between these channels and their communities that has happened under its watch.
Tommy_Paine, the 2007 Star article about CTV having to divest some stations doesn't have anything to do with this situation. It was already dealt with at the time when they sold the Citytv stations to Rogers.
Ah, thank you for the clarrification, asterix. I found that rather confusing, and wasn't sure if it fit in with the current story or not.
{thread drift}
"Funny you would mention chain maille. My cousin called me from work and asked me about where I got all my chain maille info from. Canadian site called Ring Lord(lol nice pun). He wants to put some armour together. I don't think he understands how much work that requires."
My wife, the seldom posting Rebecca West, here, makes jewellry, and has made a few pieces that encorporate a couple of different chain maille techniques. While the techniques don't look difficult to master, the repitition and maintenance of attention to detail certainly is.
Now, when I look at something like a hauberk, where many of the links had small hammered pins closing many of the rings, it gives me a new appreciation for what those craftsmen-- I suspect this was the work of apprentices, mostly-- did. Without artificial light and rudimentary tools.
Rebecca says she's familiar with the Ring lord site.
Yeah the effects you can get from the chain are pretty interesting. But it is tedious. Though I suppose no more than pearl 1, pearl 2 etc while doing knitting. I tried to do it with some copper from work and a mandrel I had concocted but it was more trouble than it's worth. I went out and got a side of leather, 13 ounce battle grade, Been working on it a bit, but haven't been able to find rivets that are 1/2 inch long as the material can get .250 thou in some places.
Once I figure out how to hold the straps on with maybe some kind of weave I should be able to finish it. It's pretty touch on a even a great sewing machine. I will probably have to use strips of leather to fasten the belts. Chatham (about 45 minutes south of London Ont) Is having their 5th annual Gregors Crossing renaissance festival on may 30th. I am trying to get my nerd buddies to go. We usually go but unlike when we head to michigan we don't go in costume. I have my pirate captain like outfit but that is a little old. i could wear my kilt as well. But I want to bring full armour for once.
It is very interesting, I had a chance(very rare apparently) to pet a great horned owl. Also they have the joust falconing and such. The prolem is it's only into it's fifth year so it's not a huge event like in michigan where there are 10,000 people that may show up per weekend. We are trying to support a canadian one in this way. If we get our costumes together maybe it will encourage others to do so, like in michigan.
Sorry for thread drift. If anyone is living in southern ontario(I'm driving from windsor) and would like to help get a canadian renaissance faire up and running, come and join the fun in Chatham at the conservation area on the 30/31 I believe they also have education days on 28/29. I'm not affiliated with them, But I would like them to succeed. It is still in the beginning stages so don't expect too much. Though they do have the joust which is very cool! I'll be there looking like a 30 something short captain morgan with spectacles.
Thanks to anyone that decides to attend. I hate having to cross the border to enjoy the faire, that is why I am promoting the canadian one.
BTW If that is too much drift could someone throw my post where it belongs or notify me to change it. Thanks again.
What we now have in mid and small markets are stations in name only.
Editorial decisions have been taken out of the communities these channels were licensed to serve. The program you see at 6pm may have been packaged in Edmonton or Vancouver or Toronto and then relayed back for airing. Is that a local newscast just because it includes some stories shot in Windsor or Pembroke?
The CRTC seems to accept that it still is a local newscast. The commission does not recognize that there is a disconnection between these channels and their communities that has happened under its watch.
With Channel Zero buying chch and making it a news-only station from 6am to 8pm, it sounds like a great thing for the people in Hamilton and surrounding towns. At least the station will be out of the clutches of Canwest.
Local news should be the first priority for every local tv station. But how do you ensure that the owner will make it his first priority? And how do you avoid the situation described above, where what is news is decided elsewhere than by the people at the station?
Even with the best intentions, what will Channel Zero do if they don't make money on the news format? They aren't a charity: they will do whatever it takes to make a profit. If that means cutting back on news and putting in cooking shows or whatever rubbish they think will work, then that is what they will do.
It seems to me the only way around this is local ownership along the lines attempted by the employees of chch, with financial help from the local communities served by the station.
