I set myself the task of writing about the value of culture in my next CBC post and then was very quickly swamped by the pages -- too many pages for a blog post -- of facts and arguments that came out. My husband glanced at a printout. "I've seen many people try to explain the value of culture before," he said. "It never works."
"People either get it or they don't."
But here I am, ever the optimist.
Or, as my therapist has been known to call it: stubborn.
At one point, I thought I would just try to speak from the heart:
To some of us, threatening to take away our culture is like threatening to take away your church.
But, I can hear the right-wing privatize-CBC argument going, privatizing CBC isn't taking culture away. It's just letting business interests who know what they're doing take it over.
Sputter! Sputter!
Besides, I don't ask for your taxpayer money for my church.
I was speaking from the heart. It's not a perfect analogy. Now shut it. This is my blog. Get your own blog. It's easy. Any asshole can do it.
Good, he's gone. I hate the right-wing privatize-CBC guy in my imagination. He is a REAL jackass.
Okay, so I started out writing about culture, and found I was writing just as much about the money, happiness, and power that's related to it.
1. Money
In 2007, the Canadian culture sector was worth $84.4 billion, 7.4 per cent of the national GDP, and meant 1.1 million jobs. Culture is a significant part of our economy. Entertainment culture in particular is a money-making industry and its value is quantifiable to anyone with a financial stake in getting our attention. Outside of the CBC, whose budget is 2/3 public and 1/3 advertising, entertainment is funded mainly by advertisers making bids for our hearts, minds and wallets.
The thing is, while we pay for CBC with our taxes, we also all pay for that advertising.
How? Let's look at a prime example all over the news this week with Kim Kardashian's divorce. Kardashian's family has a reality show or three on E! Their qualification for being celebrities who get paid to have their lives filmed and broadcast? Other than being good-looking and gaining notoriety as a Hollywood socialite with a sex tape, I can't tell you. I don't watch it and know nothing about them except what shows up on magazine covers in the supermarket checkout and on headlines and my Facebook feed. But I'm going to hazard a guess Kim has no special education or talents in arts, science, or technology.
No matter, because she's doing very well for herself as a celebrity. In 2010, the family earned $65 million dollars. This year, E! paid her $17.9 million for the rights to air the wedding. The wedding itself cost $6 million after "deep discounts" from vendors in exchange for the publicity. This week, Kim filed from divorce.
E! had planned a marathon of reruns of the wedding special for this week. Would they cancel it in light of the divorce? No! They added additional reruns to the schedule. This is the network banking on the idea that this week's news would draw additional eyeballs to "Kim's Fairytale Wedding," earning them ratings that would translate into advertising dollars.
E! pays the Kardashians, but that money has to come from somewhere.
E! pays the Kardashians, but that money has to come from somewhere.
So it comes from us. The cost of advertising (including freebies for celebrities) is built into the price we pay in checkouts, restaurants, and car dealerships. Any product we buy from a company with an advertising budget costs us extra -- a little fee to convince us in the first place that's a product or a brand we need or want. Even people who don't watch commercials but buy that product pay the fee.
The public paid for Kim Kardashian's wedding.
It's gotten to be fashionable to talk about taxes as if they are a nuisance expense. But why do people want their taxes lowered? So they can keep that money and buy stuff and pay for advertising on "free" networks? If CBC goes private, its new owners will still have their hand out for that $34 bucks -- guaranteed.
Granted, the Kardashian phenomenon is particularly American. But up here, the private nets in Canada have the entertainment-for-eyeballs trade well covered, too -- mainly by airing American shows. Conventional wisdom says that American entertainment is just better than Canadian. The kind of American entertainment we're talking about when we say that is the kind that's well funded by advertising and box office -- compared to the Canadian entertainment industry, the US one has had the resources over the long term to get very good at what they do.
The question, when it comes to CBC, is whether culture that doesn't turn a profit has value.
2. Happiness
That right-wing privatize-CBC guy is fond of saying that CBC is just for "cultural elitists," and therefore not worthy of taxpayer dollars. Your average Canadian is happy with a bit of simple entertainment at the end of a hard day's work, and CBC gives them none of that -- so what's it worth?
I don't consider myself a cultural elitist. I've loved (truly, madly, deeply) watching thousands of hours of popular television in my life. It's the kind of TV I'm most interested in writing myself. Of last year's top 20 shows by ratings, I watched some or all episodes of 11 of them. Personally, I'll take me some Grey's Anatomy over a broadcast of the opera any day. But I'll line up with the cultural elitists if only to say this: so what?
Why shouldn't cultural elitists get some of the public-spending pie? They're out there doing their jobs and paying their taxes, too. And you want them to sit down after a hard day's work and watch Two And A Half Men? Well, they won't do it!
I don't doubt the CBC audience is made up of more intellectuals than those of Global, CTV or SunTV. After all, any good network has its brand. And we need our intellectuals. They run the universities we all want to send our kids to so they can get jobs and move the heck out of the house. We need them so we can have someone to call when we have questions about the science-y stuff. Even SunTV needs cultural elitists, so they can have someone to mock.
When the right threatens to take the culture of CBC away from Canada's elitists, intellectuals, and left-wing nutbars -- the people like me to whom the very existence of a public broadcaster is important -- they threaten our happiness.
Happiness psychologists say that happiness is made up of three things. First, there's pleasure. That's the kind of feeling we get from a really good meal or an episode of Glee. Second, there's engagement. People who are communicating with others and participating in the world around them tend to feel more satisfied. Finally, whether or not you feel your life has meaning contributes to how happy you are.
While the private nets bring us lots of Glee, CBC provides the cultural engagement and meaning. Here, in fact, the private nets and the public one diverge hugely. Think Fifth Estate and Doc Zone, RMR and 22 Minutes. Radio One is a near-constant stream of Canadians talking to Canadians about things that matter to them. Even Being Erica, which I'd argue is the closest CBC comes right now to popular entertainment, walks the line into meaningful territory more than most mainstream dramedies.
Besides contributing to meaning for their audience through their news and entertainment, CBC contributes to the quality of life for thousands of Canadians as a place of meaningful work. Governments love to tout their "job creation," but strangely calls for cuts at CBC seem divorced from the notion that they are also cutting jobs. There is a right-wing implication that jobs in the culture industry aren't "real," but of course they are as real as the mortgage bill to the people who have them. Not only that, on a quality-of-life level, there's "jobs," and then there are good jobs. For many Canadians, the opportunity of working for or with CBC makes a significant contribution to the satisfaction and meaning we gain from our careers.
Besides contributing to meaning for their audience through their news and entertainment, CBC contributes to the quality of life for thousands of Canadians as a place of meaningful work. Governments love to tout their "job creation," but strangely calls for cuts at CBC seem divorced from the notion that they are also cutting jobs. There is a right-wing implication that jobs in the culture industry aren't "real," but of course they are as real as the mortgage bill to the people who have them. Not only that, on a quality-of-life level, there's "jobs," and then there are good jobs. For many Canadians, the opportunity of working for or with CBC makes a significant contribution to the satisfaction and meaning we gain from our careers.
While profit-driven media has more and more turned towards giving the people what they want -- that bowl of ice cream -- the public broadcaster can be empowered to give them what they need -- the meat and potatoes. CBC is our shot at a balanced diet -- at staying healthy and happy as a culture. And what is the cost of a society that's not engaged and provided with meaningful information?
For one thing, we stand to weaken our identity as a nation. Already, the saturation of our market with US media means that often when Canadians look in the mirror, they see Americans looking back at them. Most of us can recite the Miranda warning, but have no idea what our rights are in Canada when placed under arrest. Many of us know more about Obama than we do about Harper. If we don't know our own system, how can we properly participate in it?
For one thing, we stand to weaken our identity as a nation. Already, the saturation of our market with US media means that often when Canadians look in the mirror, they see Americans looking back at them. Most of us can recite the Miranda warning, but have no idea what our rights are in Canada when placed under arrest. Many of us know more about Obama than we do about Harper. If we don't know our own system, how can we properly participate in it?
Granted, a unified, national source of engagement and meaning can be inconvenient for some. It can mean that we're not buying what they're selling. It can mean we're questioning our government -- and we're coming armed with information.
3. Truth
The single most valuable thing to Canadians about the CBC is its journalism. And yes, we should be paying for it.
Despite journalism's credibility, news can be quite different from truth. The truth according to corporate interests is sometimes quite different from the truth as the rest of us see it: their perspective and priorities are very different. And news divisions aren't exempt from fighting for eyeballs. This means that the news is not just about the truth, but about the truth that sells. To see the contrast between the two, compare CNN and BBC for a while.
If this part of our culture is entirely privatized, corporate media will be solely in charge of who has a voice and what information the public gets -- and it will be the voices and information that raises ratings, sells advertising, and more or less follows the "correct" worldview.
Well, the rest of us will still have the Internet, right? I've seen an anti-CBC argument that the Internet makes CBC obsolete. But if you believe the Internet allows truth to be free and widespread regardless of business interests, first take a look at the current state of WikiLeaks. Second, reconsider the importance of professional journalists and editors.
Journalists are trained and experienced in news-gathering and writing. (For a good, pithy definition of what a journalist is, check out the point-form definition at the end of this post.) Citizen journalists, bloggers and tweeters contribute to the flow of news and information, but they can't and won't do the whole job. For one thing, journalists make a living at it -- if society stops paying for journalists, it simply won't get as much of the good stuff. For another, journalists have a responsibility to at least attempt to achieve objectivity; in contrast, it's strong opinion that's valued on social networks. Both are great, but what are we going to have strong opinions about as the flow of information dries up?
Editors, meanwhile, are the curators of the information. Faced with the onslaught of material online, from sources of varying degrees of credibility or integrity, editors do us all the valuable service of narrowing down the news to that which is trustworthy in an amount we can manage. They also serve to guide the ongoing coverage of any given issue, making choices about what stories need more background, in-depth reporting, or expert opinions.
CBC has a stable of real journalists and editors. Ideally, our public money entrusts them with the responsibility to do balanced journalism rather than political propaganda like SunTV. Ideally, CBC has the resources and is at liberty to report any and all relevant news, rather than only the kind that will sell more ads framed in a context that will be comfortable for the biggest swath of audience. Ideally, money from all taxpayers in Canada enables CBC to report news relevant to all taxpayers in Canada, not just the news one political party or one corporate owner wants to see. Ideally, the standard of journalism at the CBC serves to lift standards at other news organisations.
With its massive journalism machine, the CBC as a whole serves as one of the major foundations of information in Canada. An important story that goes up on joeschmo.blogspot.com might be read by 30 people. An important story that goes up on CBC.ca is going to also be broadcast on TV and radio, be read, shared, and talked about by thousands and picked up by other stations and papers, thereby getting more in-depth coverage and reaching even more people. Even if you never sit down to watch The National, the reach and value of CBC news extends far beyond CBC itself.
This is the strength of the foundation CBC represents. And whether or not CBC always lives up to those ideals and standards, it is vital that it always exist because no broadcaster in the private sector will ever be striving towards these particular ideals and standards and therefore will never have the opportunity of coming as close to achieving them as CBC does.
The Harper Government has already cut CBC funding, circulated surveys that promote the option of privatizing CBC, and supported SunTV over CBC and the courts in the access to information case. Harper is also notoriously secretive and tends to control access to the truth. Some would argue he lies fairly regularly, and some would say this is an ordinary day in Ottawa for any party.
Either way, on issues that matter to them, no matter who is in government, the public needs good journalists tasked with gathering as much truthful information as possible. Otherwise, we give away our power to participate. How often do you take action on an issue or change your vote because of an issue you don't believe you understand? How often do you care about an issue that doesn't directly effect you and doesn't make headlines?
4. Power
Culture, money, happiness and truth all create power. The CBC costs us $1.1 billion dollars a year, and what we're buying isn't just culture -- it's the power of communicating with each other, the power of enjoying a good quality of life, and the power of information that's crucial to a healthy democracy.
We need to stop thinking about attacks on CBC as attacks on some wishy-washy, ill-defined notion of culture, and start recognising them as attacks on our power -- as attempts to weaken our roles as citizens, and undermine our status as smart people who want to contribute to or make art, entertainment, and good journalism. Citizenship and knowledge and culture aren't frills in a democracy; they're vital to it.
We need to think instead about CBC in terms of what it can be empowered to do, and what the best results of its work can be for Canada and the world. And we need to fund it in terms of the real value it provides, in a way that enables it to live up to its mandate and excel at its important work -- not to the tune of $1.1 billion, but more.
Despite journalism's credibility, news can be quite different from truth. The truth according to corporate interests is sometimes quite different from the truth as the rest of us see it: their perspective and priorities are very different. And news divisions aren't exempt from fighting for eyeballs. This means that the news is not just about the truth, but about the truth that sells. To see the contrast between the two, compare CNN and BBC for a while.
If this part of our culture is entirely privatized, corporate media will be solely in charge of who has a voice and what information the public gets -- and it will be the voices and information that raises ratings, sells advertising, and more or less follows the "correct" worldview.
Well, the rest of us will still have the Internet, right? I've seen an anti-CBC argument that the Internet makes CBC obsolete. But if you believe the Internet allows truth to be free and widespread regardless of business interests, first take a look at the current state of WikiLeaks. Second, reconsider the importance of professional journalists and editors.
Journalists are trained and experienced in news-gathering and writing. (For a good, pithy definition of what a journalist is, check out the point-form definition at the end of this post.) Citizen journalists, bloggers and tweeters contribute to the flow of news and information, but they can't and won't do the whole job. For one thing, journalists make a living at it -- if society stops paying for journalists, it simply won't get as much of the good stuff. For another, journalists have a responsibility to at least attempt to achieve objectivity; in contrast, it's strong opinion that's valued on social networks. Both are great, but what are we going to have strong opinions about as the flow of information dries up?
Editors, meanwhile, are the curators of the information. Faced with the onslaught of material online, from sources of varying degrees of credibility or integrity, editors do us all the valuable service of narrowing down the news to that which is trustworthy in an amount we can manage. They also serve to guide the ongoing coverage of any given issue, making choices about what stories need more background, in-depth reporting, or expert opinions.
CBC has a stable of real journalists and editors. Ideally, our public money entrusts them with the responsibility to do balanced journalism rather than political propaganda like SunTV. Ideally, CBC has the resources and is at liberty to report any and all relevant news, rather than only the kind that will sell more ads framed in a context that will be comfortable for the biggest swath of audience. Ideally, money from all taxpayers in Canada enables CBC to report news relevant to all taxpayers in Canada, not just the news one political party or one corporate owner wants to see. Ideally, the standard of journalism at the CBC serves to lift standards at other news organisations.
With its massive journalism machine, the CBC as a whole serves as one of the major foundations of information in Canada. An important story that goes up on joeschmo.blogspot.com might be read by 30 people. An important story that goes up on CBC.ca is going to also be broadcast on TV and radio, be read, shared, and talked about by thousands and picked up by other stations and papers, thereby getting more in-depth coverage and reaching even more people. Even if you never sit down to watch The National, the reach and value of CBC news extends far beyond CBC itself.
This is the strength of the foundation CBC represents. And whether or not CBC always lives up to those ideals and standards, it is vital that it always exist because no broadcaster in the private sector will ever be striving towards these particular ideals and standards and therefore will never have the opportunity of coming as close to achieving them as CBC does.
The Harper Government has already cut CBC funding, circulated surveys that promote the option of privatizing CBC, and supported SunTV over CBC and the courts in the access to information case. Harper is also notoriously secretive and tends to control access to the truth. Some would argue he lies fairly regularly, and some would say this is an ordinary day in Ottawa for any party.
Either way, on issues that matter to them, no matter who is in government, the public needs good journalists tasked with gathering as much truthful information as possible. Otherwise, we give away our power to participate. How often do you take action on an issue or change your vote because of an issue you don't believe you understand? How often do you care about an issue that doesn't directly effect you and doesn't make headlines?
4. Power
Culture, money, happiness and truth all create power. The CBC costs us $1.1 billion dollars a year, and what we're buying isn't just culture -- it's the power of communicating with each other, the power of enjoying a good quality of life, and the power of information that's crucial to a healthy democracy.
We need to stop thinking about attacks on CBC as attacks on some wishy-washy, ill-defined notion of culture, and start recognising them as attacks on our power -- as attempts to weaken our roles as citizens, and undermine our status as smart people who want to contribute to or make art, entertainment, and good journalism. Citizenship and knowledge and culture aren't frills in a democracy; they're vital to it.
We need to think instead about CBC in terms of what it can be empowered to do, and what the best results of its work can be for Canada and the world. And we need to fund it in terms of the real value it provides, in a way that enables it to live up to its mandate and excel at its important work -- not to the tune of $1.1 billion, but more.
Pretty much.
ReplyDeleteThough the big problem with the post-modern media/political sphere is that the talking point wins. "CBC is elitist, expensive and boring" takes a few seconds to rattle off. "No its not" is not an answer. You have to get down into the weeds to make an answer and by then, you've lost the arguement, because you spent all that time. Which is, incidentally, a symptom of the rot that is hacking away at the major state and serious broadcasters around the world. Private media is going to do repeated talking points, Kim Kardashian and press releases. Journalism is going to do its job. One will have all the advertising dollars, the other will constantly lose out. Unless our leaders want us to become a society of uninformed, pop culture obsessed peons (they might, but let's hear the bastards say it), they really do have to make sure that forums for journalism, culture and serious drama exist.
Yes, despite the fact that I obviously am happy in the weeds myself, I totally agree with you about the dynamic.
ReplyDeleteYour comment makes me think that a good idea is to brainstorm slogans, sound bites and talking points that will penetrate the minds of the "undecided." I have a feeling that between the rabid right and the outraged left, there are a whole bunch of minds to sway out there.