Found Link: In case you didn't hear, Canada did well at Games

I'm still going to hold off a few more days before summing up my feelings on CTV/Roger's Olympic coverage. (Hint: They're trying to ruin the country in order to make a profit)

In the mean time, here's a link to The Globe and Mail's former sports media columnist William Houston. (He took the early retirement package, cause, ya know, newspapers are dying) Writing now for Yahoo Canada, his final assessment isn't far off my own, although he is far too forgiving and positive. I see an evil plot behind all the chest pumping and flag waving produced by CTV's Olympic coverage. I'm not going to give it all away, but it has something to do with Stephen Harper, the Conservative party and a desperate and dying industry looking for salvation from the grave.

In case you didn't hear, Canada did well at Games - 2010 Olympics - Yahoo! Canada Sports:

"For the rest of the day, it was wall-to-wall Canada, with video after video after video of Canadian athletes winning their events. It was great to see the clips, accompanied by the “I Believe” theme song, the first time, the second, third and fourth, and in the days previously. But it never stopped."

We shouldn't worry about how much kids consume media, but how they understand what they consume.

The Olympics are over. Thank the heavens. I have some pretty angry and spite-filled things to say about how horribly CTV/Rogers coverage of the games have affected this country's psyche, but I'll wait a few days for things to cool down. Most Canadians have worked themselves into such a tizzy that I don't think anything I say will get passed their delusional excitement.

I want to focus on a concept that has been one of the main subjects consuming CBC News so far today. (How they can spend so much time on this and post-Olympic foo-ey while people are dying in Chile is beyond me, but I don't understand much of what the CBC does anymore.) It appears that an American pediatric study shows that kids consume too much media. The result of the study is hardly surprising and not anything new. It makes the following conclusions on how saturated media consumption can affect children:

Violence — the impact of media violence on real-life aggressive behavior is 0.31 times higher, compared with 0.39 times for the link between smoking and lung cancer.

Early and unprotected sexual activity, particularly if exposed to pornography.

Alcohol and tobacco consumption, with exposure to smoking in movies in Grades 5 to 8 predicting the likelihood of starting smoking within eight years.

Obesity, with possible culprits including the marketing of junk food and fast food and the tendency to eat while watching media.

Heavy television-viewing — that is, two to three hours a day in early childhood has been linked with attention-deficit disorder during the early school years, though experts disagree about the nature of the connection.

I can't help but wonder how these studies get commissioned. How much money is spent on research to draw these obvious conclusions? You can't help but wonder if there are more productive areas in which the resources needed to complete such a study could be put to use. Nevertheless, I want to approach this topic from a slightly different angle than the CBC has been covering it with.

Instead of worrying about how much time kids spend in front of the TV or computer, perhaps we should be more concerned with how they perceive what they consume. If a child is presented with what's offered on Television or Radio and accept it as the true reality of how the world works, they sure as heck may turn into violent, sex-crazed obese jerks. If they were informed that the true nature of what they watch is often nothing more than a cheap form of entertainment cooked up in focus groups and meant to sell advertisements, they may approach media with a healthy dose of skepticism that will help them steer clear of side effects of contemporary media. They need education into the working of media, the art of persuasion and the commercial/economic needs that drive the media they consume. If they understood these principles then they could watch all the TV they want without turning into the sociopaths that this study suggests.

The problem as I see it is hardly that of the amount of exposure that children receive to media of any sort. Quite the opposite. Young impressional children need an explanation into what they watch. The problem as I see it lies mainly in the child's parent who may be equally susceptible to the same negative impression as their children. The society as a whole has become far too trusting in the media. Parents, who may not consume as much media as their children, are just as able to believe what they see. The danger for children is the emulation of what they see. While those of a more advanced age may be wise enough to know not to practice what the tube preaches, they still may find themselves having the world view skewed by the whims of the broadcaster. Therein lies the most important part of being able to be an intelligent consumer of media.

A viewer, whether that viewer be a child or adult, must ask these very important questions: Who is behind this programming and why have they created it? The answer is typically as follows: a private organization intent on making a profit. Once this piece of knowledge has been taken into account, then it becomes easy for anyone, young or old, to identify where the representative programming ends and the sensational marketing begins. Everyone you see on TV, no matter how friendly they may appear, has an agenda of profit making. They will do or say anything it takes to earn their dollars. So when the friendly face appears on the screen telling you to buy something, or do something, or believe something is true, the immediate reaction must be skepticism. That seems to be a skill lacking in most adults of the world today. How can we expect their kids to cope with this?

This is the most shocking part of the study for me. And I quote:

"...parents should play a role in their children's media consumption by:

• Limiting the amount of time spent using media, particularly for children under two years old, to less than one or two hours per day."

This bothers me. This is terrible advice. How in the world is a child under the age of two years supposed to consume media with any form of skepticism? I'm shocked that anyone would suggest that children under the age of two consume ANY media whatsoever. At such a young age they barely understand how the world works, let alone be able to understand the twisted message of the kind that evil empires such as Disney put out. I'm pretty shocked at this so-called 'advice'. If I was in a position to offer advice to parents on child raising (I'm not, not at all) I would advise them to keep their kids as far away from any media whatsoever until they are fully aware of the world and their own surroundings first. A young mind is far too sponge like, willing to absorb anything it sees and take it to heart. I really worry for the current generation of newborns who are being exposed to brainwashing rubbish like Disney's Baby Einstein.

The bottom line in my opinion is as follows: traditional media has truly become such a cesspool that I wouldn't want anyone, regardless of age, to take anything they see too seriously. Newer forms of 'media' such as the internet (and I think to count internet as just another media platform underlies one of the fundamental misunderstandings of its true nature) is such a wide open terrain that it's currently too hard to condem it fully and completely. Needless to say that as we transition away from old broadcasting models, we're going to have to adjust our expectations.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2010/03/01/media-children-teens-health.html#ixzz0gxuUswpq

Portable People Meters make Canadians seem like delusional idiots

There are plenty of filthy rich CTV executives who are rubbing their genitalia even more vigorously than usual today. It seems as though the Canada-USA hockey game was the most watched single piece of television in this country's history. Wooooo. Better sushi! Higher class hookers! Ivan Fecan probably thinks that at this rate he can buy every hooker in the country. If Canada gets into the hockey finals, Fecan will have every hooker on the planet sucking on his Globemedia (if you know what I mean). What exactly is happening here? Did more Canadians actually watch the men's national hockey getting their bucks whipped by The States (note: capital T capital S, mucho importantes) than watched the gold medal game in 2002? Methinks not. Methinks you have all been lied to. Bamboozled. Deceived. Misguided. Swindled. Robbed. Here's an obscure movie quote for ya:

"Beans, Jake! Magic beans!"

Don't believe what you read in the paper. Don't buy into the hype. The whole broadcasting community is rallying behind the Portable People Meters (hence forth PPMs) and suddenly the number of people watching sports in this country has gone through the roof. Did everyone suddenly find their remote controls at the exact same time these things were introduce. Again, methinks not. Why would so many Canadians watch a preliminary hockey game in which the home teamed was blowing chunks all over the ice? Are they crazy? Stupid? Delusional? Well, it's possible, but I surely hope that isn't the reason. In fact, with some simple logic the truth behind these silly numbers can be easily understood.

When CBC aired the 2002 mens hockey final at the Salt Lake City Olympics, the old way of measuring audiences was in effect. Numbers, particularly for sporting events, were much lower under this system. When the ratings were broken back them, it was quite a feat. Since the PPMs were introduced, we've had records broken for World Junior Hockey, The Grey Cup and the Super Bowl. The Vancouver Olympics, much as I predicted before starting, are also breaking records across the board. When CTVglobemedia puts out a press release taking all the credit for breaking the ratings record, (outside the usual PR spin) they're giving themselves too much credit. For the record, let's get this right: they broke the record UNDER THE NEW SYSTEM. They did not have the largest audience in Canadian sports history.

If they did actually break all records, I'd have to say this country is in serious need of a mental checkup. How stupid and desperate do we have to be to watch ourselves get humiliated in what hardly was a do-or-die game? I'm going to refuse to believe that we're that delusional as a country. It's possible, but I doubt it. I think this is really just the last dying attempt of a dying industry trying to save their jobs. PPMs aren't going to change the fact that TV is dead.

The dumb just keep getting dumber, and the dying just get deader. In the end of the day, let's hope that a future sans-TV might mean Canada can get its brain back. If 2 in every 3 Canadians were actually watching that pathetic game, then I say we should just throw in the towel and call our country expired. We're done. Finished. 10 feet under and sinking. Give me a break people.

Let's get this straight...CTV's coverage stinks and CBC would have also broken records

CTV is sending out daily press releases claiming that the quality of their coverage is the reason for the record breaking ratings. Give me a break. CBC would have had the exact same ratings and have done so without all the fluffy gimmicky tricks that CTV keeps ramming down our throats. The real reason people are watching is because these are high-stakes Olympics on home soil. They want to see how the "own the podium" program has worked out and are looking for a return on the country's large investment. (p.s. it's been a waste of money) They are largely putting up with CTV's American style because they spent $90 Million to make sure Canada has no better choice. Thanks a lot.

What bothers me the most about CTV's presentation is how American it makes Canada seem. Thankfully I'm not alone with this assessment. The Toronto Star* has an excellent article that sums up my thoughts almost perfectly. Am I the only one who felt slightly uncomfortable when CTV hyped the heck out of Charles and Francois Hamelin only to have them fail completely. Sure, CBC probably would have done a feature on their history, but to have the amount of flag waving and hype that proceeded their disappointing run was enough to make me question if this was actually NBC's coverage all along. It might as well have been. I worry that this is going to set a dangerous precedent for Canadian sports broadcasting in the long term.

If anyone has followed CBC's recent news makeover it should be painfully obvious to see that our public broadcaster is very willing to take the American style approach to broadcasting that they've long stayed far away from. I'm worried that if they get the rights to the Olympics back, they might see CTV's style as the one that Canadians actually want because of all the high ratings (which I've explained are not really a product of how great their coverage has been). These Olympics might spell the end of Canada's world class coverage. The CBC has spent the last few decades covering the Olympics in a down-to-earth style. The focus has always been on the events and the athletes, and they were never afraid to focus on every other country in the world as much as they did Canada. With CTV's style, the focus is on Canadians and singing O Canada as much as possible. I thought Canada was supposed to be a quiet polite country, not a bunch of flag waving Americans. What's going on here? If CBC gets the rights back they might feel the need to employ this chest thumping style because CTV is breaking every record in the ratings book. As I posted previously, some American's are upset with the quality of CTV's broadcast, not just because it's harder to get south of the border, but the straight and clear CBC coverage is completely gone.

* I've been quoting The Star's media analyst frequently because there has scarcely been an alternative. According to The Globe And Mail's former - now retired - columnist, CTVGlobemedia has put a muzzle on their media critic who has not written any analysis of CTV's coverage thus far. This is pretty clearly an example of corporate censorship. CTV is worried that their own employee might critique their coverage. What ever happend to freedom of the press? Another reason I'll be glad to see the newspapers all go out of business. It's all corporate controlled lies and propaganda.

Found Link: Americans hate CTV's Olympic coverage too!

To possibly prove that I'm not the only one who is very upset with the style of CTV's coverage during winter games, here's a link to The Toronto Star's spots media columnist. He write of a group of American viewers who have started a Facebook page calling for the CBC to take the rights back from the private network. Apparently, despite being south of the border, there are many who rather enjoyed CBC's no baloney focus on sports better than the fluffy NBC style that CTV has presented us with. Sure, the ratings are through the roof and CTV is taking all the blame, but in reality the numbers would be the same if CBC carried the games. As I've explained, the fact that these are highly hyped games on Canadian soil in tandem with the new (evil) portable people meters that are used to measure audience, these games were rating in the bag before they began.

Chris Zelkovich's Sports Media Watch:

"But some aren't happy because they don't like CTV's way of doing things. A Detroit lawyer has started a Facebook page calling for CBC to return to Olympic broadcasting. Kurt O'Keefe says he misses CBC. ``They covered the Games as if they were about the athletes and the competition and not self-promotion of network personalities,' he writes. Others have decried what they see as un-Canadian flash."

The economics of Olympic broadcasting, or: how to throw money down the drain

I'm going to need some help in formulating a complete understanding of the economics behind broadcasting the Olympic games. Despite their best efforts to earn some sort of profit from the Vancouver games (which, as I've already mentioned, include means that are quite distracting and evil) it appears as though the CTV/Rogers consortium are on track to lose millions of dollars. In fact, NBC in the states have already said that they are on track to lose two hundred million dollars.

This boggles the mind considering that they are doing outstandingly well in the ratings. In fact, the Olympics actually got a bigger audience than American Idol in the states for the first time in something like 6 years. (I really think that is a pathetic occurrence and just goes to show how empty headed most American TV viewers are. But I digress...) What motivates these networks to pay so much money for the rights to broadcast the games in the first place? I know a network like NBC, who hasn't been doing too well in the ratings south of the border (if I understand correctly), use the ratings boost to promote other shows on their network and hope that the numbers stick around after the closing ceremony. Even with this reasoning, I'm still not convinced that the money spent makes any sense (clearly doesn't make cents).

CTV's motivations are even harder to decipher. CTV is hardly a starving network. They seem to be in relative decent financial standing. They aren't anywhere near the trouble that Canwest Global's currently dealing with. They teamed up with a theoretical competitor in the form of Rogers to be able to summon up the cash needed to outbid CBC by the amount they did. They must see some long term benefit to the cost, which goes far beyond simply acquiring the rights. The staff on hand, the camera men and equipment, the sleepy sound engineer; all these things cost a heck of a lot of loonies. Not to mention that they are the host broadcaster for the Canadian games and have an additional responsibility of helping out with the world feed of the games. Why spend all this money with the knowledge that you are probably going to end up in the red?

You can't say they are not ceasing upon every opportunity to earn an extra buck. The high ratings will probably mean a bit more profit per-ad aired. If you're lucky you might actually see some sports in between the commercial breaks. That doesn't diminish the fact that ads still aren't going for nearly as much as they used to even a few years ago. The recession did plenty of damage there. Is it all for the glory of just having the bragging rights that come with having the rights to the games? When CTV/Rogers got the rights from CBC, it came at a time when it seemed that CTV was doing everything they could to get all the sports on their own networks and away from the public broadcaster. They got the CFL and curling rights away from the ceeb along with those costly Olympics. Don't forget that they also stole the rights to CBC's famous Hockey Night In Canada song not too long after, which really had everything to do with bragging rights.

Maybe I'm missing something here. It's very likely. I'm hardly an expert when it comes to these matters of finance. I know that when the rights were acquired, ad rates were going through the roof. Maybe CTV mistakenly believed that the good times would keep on rolling and could actually make back on their investment. It's possible. Profit driven corporations tend to be miserable at looking into the future.

It also looks like the number of people watching the games online is sky rocketing. If you have a good enough computer, the experience online often surpasses what you experience on TV in terms of quality and content. While on the surface more viewers are generally better, this trend has to worry Rogers and all cable and satellite providers. Technology is finally at a point where streaming content is just as good as what you get on traditional TV. It's a mere triviality to hook up a computer to an HDTV and all of a sudden the need for cable vanishes in thin air.

I can't help but think that these Olympic games are a bit of a turning point for broadcasters. If the economics of broadcasting sports continually end with negative profits, why would any private organization invest in such obscure things like amateur sports? One thing is for certain, things are changing one way or the other. Which way they go depends on how the wind blows.

"I Believe" Probably the worst song in the history of terrible songs

I want to be happy whenever Canada wins a medal, but CTV has put too much of an investment in their garbage 'I Believe' song and just can't quit. As terrible as the song is, (and really it's pure trashy fluff) it's the motives behind using the song that disturbs me to the very core of my soul. (no exaggeration, I can't sleep at night)

I've already mentioned why it's a manipulative song. The composition is recycled from every corporate-made piece of music ever. There is nothing to it beyond reliance on a formula. The formula has been grown in a test tube, squashed through a focus-group and checked versus charts and graphs. It's artificial and designed to manipulate and control you. The arrangement features cheesy orchestral chords and way-too-corny-to-be-believed children's choir. If you have ever been caught feeling for the piece, you are a victim of CTV/Roger's corporate grip. They are trying to own you. Now, many would argue that this is hardly a new tactic. Jingles have been used in advertising since the inception of radio. This, while true, doesn't make the practice not evil. It is evil. Let me explain...

CTV/Rogers has moved in to the Olympic broadcasting game after a lengthy absence. They have only returned because the corporate bosses (picture old white men in suits sitting around a boardroom table) have deemed that Olympics on home soil in the year 2010 would amount to huge profits. There has also been a tremendous push to actually provide Canadian athletes with sufficient funding and training possibilities for what may be the first time in this country's history. Canada winning medals + Olympics at home = HUGE MONEY (and higher grade sushi at boardroom meetings on the CTV private jet (yeah, very rich very white men))

By punctuating every half decent moment that a Canadian athlete has with their terribly evil music, they are subliminally associating your joy of victory with "I Believe" (in what? Jesus? Buddha? This is sport, not a religion). Suddenly they start playing the same music to sell you additional merchandise: DVD boxsets, clothing and of course the song itself. It really is no more than a cheap marketing ploy and part of the consortium's greedy plan on making gigantic profits on the back of our athletes. Please, do yourself a favour and don't fall for these tricks. Show some dignity and resist the mind control of Canada's biggest broadcasting corporations. It's evil and just plain wrong.