So as the two sides battle, adamant that their position is in the best interest of Canadians, it has become obvious that there is no right or wrong in this debate. There is no good guy, despite what those clever TV tax ads suggest. Canadian broadcasters and the cable and satellite distributors — also known as broadcast distribution undertakings (BDUs) – are part of the same content industry in Canada that is expected to provide some programming  that represents the cultural experience of its citizens.

This is why the “bailout” commercials are so ridiculous. The Stop the TV Tax movement (BDU’s) wants to position the broadcasters as failed businesses that are seeking government help. But if the broadcasters are deemed failures, it is just as much a reflection of the BDU’s incompetence and inability to adapt.

Broadcasters and BDU’s need to adapt, and they need to do so by working together.

Each side agrees that this is a matter of a flawed and outdated model for broadcasters. The disagreement lies in who’s responsibility it should be to fix the problem. Negotiating a fee-for-carriage is a start, in that it at least gets the two sides talking, but on its own, it is not a sustainable solution. It is a temporary fix that does nothing to address the underlying problems.

Real progress can only come by way of revamping an outdated and ineffective broadcast model. Which is why this issue is  about more than a potential “tax” for consumers. It’s about the future of Canadian television.

The Good News

If you’re a cable subscriber in Canada, you likely wish you had more choice over which channels you could include in your basic package. Why should we have to pay so much for a basic cable package that has only five or six channels you actually watch?

Michael Geist suggests that the solution may lie in implementing a “a-la-carte” model, where cable subscribers could pick and choose the channels they want. This way, cable companies could provide a basic, all-Canadian package. Anyone interested in supporting local programming could do so by subscribing to this package. This would also prevent cable subscribers from being forced to pay additional fees for channels they didn’t want in the first place.

Canadian broadcasters would receive compensation for their signal and consumers in Canada would have more choice in programming.

The broadcasters have even proposed a similar model. In fact, on November 3, the CBC proposed a “pared-down” model, similar to the one suggested by Geist.

However, this proposed model would not only give the consumer more choice, it also lets them decide the fate of Canadian programming.

Throwing the baby out with the bathwater

I’ve seen a lot of reaction online from people who argue that the broadcasters are failing because their programming isn’t good enough. In other words, they don’t deserve any more support because the content they provide isn’t worth saving.

It’s a fair argument.

The only problem with type of thinking is that TV in Canada has always been used as a way of defining and preserving our national identity. Ever since television was first introduced to the world, regulations were put in place to combat the influence from the U.S.

It’s the reason we have a public broadcaster and the reason why every broadcaster is required to provide a certain amount of Canadian content.

But if a new a-la-carte system is put in place, the success of local programming would rely on subscribers. So with an obligation to provide local programming, and a need to increase their number of subscribers, Canadian broadcasters would have to evolve by putting a greater emphasis on producing great content.

With this new model in place, buying syndicated episodes of Seinfeld, and repeating it five times throughout the day, would no longer be a viable option. First, because as a subscriber you could receive American programming by selecting American channels, instead of watching the Canadian feed. Second, anyone paying for an all-Canadian cable package would expect to receive more Canadian content.

If the broadcasters fail to provide local and entertaining programming, they could end up becoming completely irrelevant (even more so), which would arguably compromise our ability to preserve a collective cultural identity.

Whether or not you agree that television should be used to influence cultural identity, there’s no denying that television does have that ability. Which is why every Canadian has a vested interest in saving Canadian television.

Now what?

Revamping the current model for Canadian television should do more than just create better cable packages. The current model for broadcasters is no longer profitable, and part of the reason for that stems from a lack of cooperation between Canadian broadcasters and BDU’s.

The TV Tax debate can be annoying at times (especially those ridiculous ads). But this debate has shown us that there’s more at stake than who’s right and who’s wrong. This is also about more than a potential TV “tax”.

The TV Tax debate has highlighted some seriously outdated approaches to programming that need revision. If the two sides can stop playing the blame game, this debate actually has the potential to reconstruct the current Canadian television system as a whole. In that way, this debate is a good thing.

I’m hopeful that Canadian television is entering an age of improvement. If broadcasters need more engaging and entertaining content, while still representing the Canadian experience, programming needs to evolve. We need a Canadian content industry that is more than just an afterthought or an obligation.

If we really do rely on television as a way of preserving our cultural identity, it’s time to make a successful content industry the priority. The first step is for the broadcasters and BDU’s to start working together, instead of spreading fear to gain public support.

VANOC, the Games’ organizing committee, is committed to changing that little blemish on Canadian Olympic history. They’ve made the commitment to securing a gold medal with programs like Own the Podium.

Kudos, VANOC. With your help, all Canadians have come one step closer to making history. So you will be forgiven if you have to take extreme measures to guarantee success.

The secret is out. The Americans are talking. Now everyone is listening.

American pundit and humourist, Stephen Colbert, has sparked controversy recently by accusing Canadians of cheating. His comments are a reaction to claims, from the U.S. and other countries, that non-Canadian athletes are being denied adequate access to Vancouver facilities. Meanwhile, Canadian athletes are receiving unlimited training advantages. Colbert and guest, Speedskater Joey Cheek, went back and forth taking shots at Canada, using terms like “Saskatchewhiners” and “syrup-suckers”. Cheek even went as far as calling the situation a “dick move” (possibly implying that VANOC Board member Dick Pound is somehow responsible?).

VANOC has yet to respond to Colbert’s allegations. It’s hard to say how they will react (if at all). But the worst thing they can do is ignore the problem. Sure, this can be seen as a harmless comment made in jest, yet it’s so much more than that. This is an affront to our Canadian pride.

This is an outright challenge.

Colbert is well aware of his popularity and clout. He has a whole nation behind him willing to support him at every opportunity. With the Olympics months away, the last thing this city needs is more controversy.  First there was the seal clubbing issue, then anti-Olympic protests and now this. Colbert, fully aware of the controversy surrounding the 2010 Games, has intentionally created another distraction as a way of compromising Canada’s efforts to secure the gold. As a sponsor of the U.S. Speedskating team, Colbert has a vested interest in seeing the Canadian Speedskaters fail.

According to a VANOC press release, they anticipated the demand for facilities leading up to the games. They even set aside specific dates for booking ice time. In November, for example, the Olympic Oval is available to international skaters from the 15th -30th. Two weeks is plenty of time to train! Sure, you have to book your time a month in advance to “balance the use of the facility between teams and the general public“.

But that doesn’t mean international athletes are competing with Canadian athletes for access to facilities. It just means that international athletes have to compete with the general public for access to facilities.

If international Speedskaters are losing their ice time because the general public wants to play a couple games of shinny, then who is Colbert to judge? Does he really expect Canadians to apologize for their love of skating? Skating is part of our heritage, along with fur-trading, igloo-building contests and Molson Canadian commercials.

Canadians shouldn’t have to compromise their national identity in order to please Colbert and the U.S.

It’s time to take a stand, Canada.  We are expected to turn the other cheek. But with our gold medal and national identity on the line, we need to be uncharacteristically aggressive.

VANOC, if you’re reading this, I implore you to call a press conference to tackle this issue head on. Instead of ignoring the comments, denying any wrongdoing, or relying on disingenuous corporate spin – why not be completely transparent?

I suggest we own the allegations made against us, much like we intend to own the podium. They accuse us of cheating, we respond with a hearty “fuckin’ rights, eh!”

Let the world know that Canadians are committed to ruling the podium and nothing will stand in our way – not sportsmanship , and definitely not Stephen Colbert.

The pediatricians cite several studies that identify a link between television viewing at a young age with things like obesity and violent behavior.

The article itself has incited a barrage of moral posturing in the comments section, along with  some creative retorts from a few defensive parents. Relying on the “what the hell else am I supposed to do with a crying one-year-old” argument, some parents feel that a little TV exposure can’t be that harmful.

And as long as companies keep producing content specifically designed for young children and marketing it as educational, parents will be able to justify their choice.

While the CBC article is new, the debate surrounding children and television has gone on for years.  There are numerous studies that talk about the harmful effects of television on young children. Still, despite the studies and repeated warnings, this issue remains a matter of personal opinion, values and experience.

After all, we are talking about a proposed guideline, not a law. There is no enforcement. As always, the final decision lies with the parents.

Based on the reaction from the article, the decision will not be an easy one to make.

Liz Lemon: I really enjoyed watching MTV Canada with you.

Gavin Volure (played by Steve Martin): They can’t seem to get anything right up there, can they?

By now I think most people have heard of the Stop the TV Tax movement. We have seen the corny TV ads. Here’s the set-up:It’s in typical man-on-the-street fashion where the interviewer approaches people randomly.  The interviewer asks if they have heard about the new TV tax that the “big networks” are trying to impose on the public. The reaction is shock and outrage. The interviewer then looks into the camera and announces a call to action: visit stopthetvtax.ca.

Well, it turns out that the Stop the TV Tax movement is actually a joint effort by Bell, Bell Aliant, Cogeco, EastLink, Rogers and Telus. Wow. I guess it’s pretty noble that a group of media giants would join together to inform Canadians of a possible television tax.  According to the website:

“The Coalition takes aim at a new tax being proposed by the broadcasters to fund television networks, which could amount for consumers to up to $10 more per month on their cable or satellite bill. The campaign marks an extraordinary union of competitors and consumers who are united in their opposition to the TV Tax.”

So basically, the website claims that the cable and satellite companies are teaming with consumers to try and stop a proposed TV tax. According to them, this tax is being proposed by Canadian broadcasters in order to fund local programming, despite the fact that broadcasters have already received government funding via the Local Programming Improvement Fund (LPIF).

Simple, no?

Define “tax”…

This is where it starts getting a little tricky.

The stopthetvtax.ca site was actually created in response to the Local TV Matters campaign (localtvmatters.ca), whose members include CTV, ‘A’, Global, CBC and CHEK News. According to the information on their site, what they are proposing is that the CRTC allow them to “negotiate with Rogers and other cable and satellite companies a fair value for providing access to local television programming”. They are basically asking for the right to impose a fee-for-carriage, a cost that the cable and satellite companies would have to pay for retransmission of their local signals and programming. However, Local TV Matters prefers call it a “Negotiation for Value”, because it is free of the regulated rate that usually comes with a fee-for-carriage.

Think of it this way: you know how if you don’t have a cable connection you can still pick up certain channels on your TV? Here in Vancouver, for example, channels 3 (CBC), 6 (CHEK), 9 (CTV) and 12 (A) are all available on your TV set even without a cable subscription. This is called over-the-air (OTA) television services. Free TV right? If this is free, why do we as consumers still have to pay for it when we subscribe to cable?

The broadcasters argue that if the cable and satellite companies are going to charge consumers to receive a signal that belongs to the local broadcasters, then they should have to pay a fee to re-transmit the signal, especially if they’re going to profit from it. In other words – “hey, we want our cut”.

So then  who’s taxing the consumer?

There is no “tax”.

The threat of consumers having to pay an additional $5-10 a month for their cable subscription is real, but ironically, it’s a fee that would come from the same cable and satellite companies that are behind the Stop the TV Tax movement. They are not required to pass the fee onto cable subscribers, but they would anyway to offset the cost of a fee-for-carriage. In fact, at this point, how can they even know the cost of the “tax” if negotiations between the broadcasters and the cable and satellite companies have yet to take place?

The Stop the TV Tax coalition are relying on semantics to scare the public into supporting their cause.

When the CRTC created the LPIF back in 2008, they declared “that there is no justification…to pass along any increased costs relating to the LPIF… to their subscribers”. But the cable and satellite companies did it anyway.

So let’s be clear. The only consumer “tax” is the fee that the cable and satellite companies would charge their subscribers. However, without the broadcasters pushing to receive a payment from the cable and satellite companies, there would be no potential charge for consumers in the first place.

So now what?

I become a little annoyed when I see big companies trying to pass themselves off as an advocacy group working with the best interests of the consumer in mind. Right now, both the broadcasters and the cable and satellite companies are guilty of putting the consumer in the middle of their fight. Both sides are pitting the consumer against their foe in order to advance their own agenda.

So before you join a Facebook group, or Tweet your support for either side, take the time to do a little research and make an informed decision.

I can tell you right now – if you’re taking a stance based solely on the TV ads, you’re letting the big companies make the decision for you.

The CRTC is seeking submissions from the public and will hold a public hearing commencing on 7 December 2009 at the Conference Centre, Phase IV, 140 Promenade du Portage, Gatineau, Quebec. The deadline for submissions is 2 November 2009. If you’d like to become involved in the debate, feel free to visit the CRTC website for more info.

And now that these pioneers have paved the way for the female television personalities we see today, I can’t help feel that, as important as it is for women to have a voice, some of them need to keep the volume down.

5. Judge Judy

Trying to promote the idea that you don’t have to be right, as long as you’re loud. Besides, even if she is wrong every now and then, she’s an old judge – so she has experience and legal authority on her side.

4. Stacy London

Known for destroying the self-esteem of female fashion victims, the What Not to Wear co-host is an opportunistic loud-mouth. She waits for just the right moment (usually when the guest is on the verge of tears) before going in for the kill.

To her credit, she does recognize when she has gone too far. As soon as a guest sheds a tear, Stacy is quick to console her with a sincere embrace and a reminder of why they’re on the show in the first place.

She also gets bonus points for being hot.

3. Mary Murphy

Dubbed the official “Queen of scream”, this hot tamale advocate is similar to Stacy London in that she prefers to save her ear-piercing squeals for just the right moment. But when she unleashes, watch out because no one is safe. But hey -  at least she can dance (or so she thinks).

2. The View

More than one woman, but they come together like Voltron to form one of the loudest group of TV hens ever assembled! This would probably be the appropriate time to mention that each woman offers a unique view on a range of issues. Unfortunately, I have no idea what any of them believe in because it’s hard to decipher any meaning out of the all that squawking.

1. Nancy Grace

An ex-prosecutor turned pundit, Grace spends 60 minutes dissecting every gory detail of America’s most gruesome criminal cases. She invites case experts to participate on  her show and encourages them to shout out reasons why, in their opinion, the person being accused of the crime is guilty. The louder the response, the more likely it is to be credible. Unless, of course, that shouting contradicts Grace’s own theories. In that case, Grace employs a clever tactic to argue against her own guests: she interrupts them and raises her voice until the guest decides to give up.

If that doesn’t work, she shuts off their mic.

But aside from pronouncing people guilty by using speculation and fear tactics, this screaming-head also takes time out to offer her sanctimonious views on current events and celebrity gossip.

So what’s your Top 5?