Hockey, Politics, Corporations | rabble.ca

Last week we once  again witnessed politics trumping principle in the swift, complete co-operation of the four main political parties in agreeing to shift the french debates up a day to allow Canadian viewers to watch the Habs game. What does this say about the parties' underlying  attitudes towards and trust of the Canadian public?  Something sadly cynical, I'm afraid:  that Canadians can't be trusted to choose the potential good of their country over a mere hockey game, that "sports" means more than the fate of our country, that the parties fear viewers might just not tune in because most would prefer hockey to the debate?  Alas, they're probably right.

But who else benefited from this particular shift?  RDS and Mother Corporation, of course, both of whom are now probably overjoyed at this opportunity to have  recovered potential lost revenue.  Had the game and the debate taken place on the same night, potentially splitting the viewing audience, the already reduced revenue because of the ad-free debate would have been further eroded, though one could argue that the bulk of that audience for the debate would be Quebec, not necessarily an increased across-Canada viewer-ship, who could still watch the game in comfort if they're not bilingual or interested in the debate. But since it's the Habs, that viewer-ship in Quebec had the potential to be very large.

The financial  relationship between the CBC and the other hockey corporate broadcasters  and the NHL, itself a large  corporation, is also foregrounded here in this decision, and the story in theglobandmail today about the NHL inking a new contract with NBC TV -  a contract, by the way, that might prevent the move by the Coyotes back toWinnipeg - reveals just how insidious that relationship is. Hockey of course is a big ad revenue generator for Canadian broadcasters, but the larger U.S. markets generate much more revenue for both the U.S. broadcasters and the NHL in absolute numbers.  And this corporate driven thinking is the main reason the NHL is resisting any move to the tiny TV market of Winnipeg.

On a personal note,  I have relatives who work in profession hockey operations (who, as Jack Webb would say, shall be nameless to protect the innocent),  and I myself once played in the Leaf organization for a few years when I was a teenager until I got sick of playing what I now see as propaganda, recruiting games in North Ontario in  addition to regular games and practices -- seven days a week.   I wasn't very good, so no big loss for the Leafs. But we all know - that is, my relatives who are still working in professional hockey and I - that the illusion of professional hockey as a “sport” dissipated years ago.  I mark the original expansion from six teams as the day the music stopped.

And aren't most such expansions quite obviously driven by corporate agendas to expand the market and therefore make more money?  Isn't it always about money?  We all know, my relatives and I - especially because of the massive expansion into the U.S. -  that professional hockey, like most professional sport,  is positioned for marketing purposes as undignified entertainment, not sport, and that corporations and their bottom line  agendas are what really matters.  Plain and simple, hockey is deeply inscribed in capitalism:  NHL teams are designed to make money - sometimes they’re successful and sometimes they’re not -- and the players with their outrageous salaries are, as in all professional sport, bought and sold  commodities.

I haven't watched a game since that original expansion.  And I'm just as proud of that political gesture as the fact I never shop at Wal-mart, for, as I learned a long time ago, all shopping is political, and so too, one might argue, is all television watching.

via Hockey, Politics, Corporations | rabble.ca.

Elizabeth May's Answer on Climate Change Excluded from Mansbridge Interview

My comment on the CBC's exclusion of Elizabeth May's answer on climate change in the interview with Peter Mansbridge on last night's National.

I suppose you'll call it editorial discretion or privilege, but what happened to Elizabeth May's answer to the Climate Change Crisis?  When did the CBC become a Climate Change Denier?  Bad enough that the Consortium has excluded her from the debates; appalling that the people's network has also chosen to practice the politics of exclusion.

“2010 was the warmest year on record around the world, with 19 countries setting all-time temperature highs.” (Jeffrey Simpson, GlobeandMail 08.04.11)

We are currently spewing 388ppm (parts per million)  of CO2 in the biosphere, a disturbing notch on an escalating  trending pattern of 2ppm a year, way past the tipping point of 350ppm that scientists maintain is the real tipping point. This is what James Hansen of America’s National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the first scientist to warn about global warming over two decades ago, wrote recently:  ”If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm.”   In other words, this is our last chance: if we don’t reverse that trend in the next ten years, we’re done.   Job growth, economic development, health care, pensions, education, tax credits, the ethical behaviour of politicians — these mean nothing as issues of concern  if we are on the way to self-extinction.

http://bit.ly/dEoHMP

Lame Letter from CBC on Debates

Below is the email I and probably everyone who lodged a protest about  Elizabeth May's exclusion from the debates received from the CBC .  It's classic alibiing, pass-the-buck, lame excuse stuff. So much for the people's television network. Not an ounce of courage, just PR spin about how the decision was made as if that were a satisfactory answer.

Thank you for your e-mail addressed to Jennifer McGuire, General Manager and Editor in Chief of CBC News, concerning representation of the Green Party in the upcoming leaders’ debates. Ms. McGuire asked me to reply.

I want to emphasize that the decision about which parties will be included was made by the Broadcast Consortium, a group of Canada’s largest English and French television networks – including CTV, Global, TVA and CBC/Radio Canada. It is the Consortium that organizes leaders’ debates during federal elections. While CBC/Radio Canada is a full participant, the decisions reached by the Consortium are unanimous.

This year, the Consortium has invited the leaders of four major parties to participate in the debates. That decision was made on editorial grounds, including, among other things, representation in the House of Commons. I might point out that the broadcasters are not alone in making that decision. Party leaders’ debates programs are staged in full agreement with the political parties.

From CBC/Radio Canada’s point of view, the Green Party is playing an increasingly significant role in the election and we fully expect that the party and its leader will receive the fair and equitable treatment it merits in our election coverage.

Thank you again for writing.

Sincerely,

G. Fortescue

CBC Audience Relations

Carbon Footprints in the Election Campaign

A report on the CBC National last night reveals that the four federal parties are creating in their campaign travels a carbon footprint of 45x the average  of an ordinary Canadian household for a year -- a total of 405.5 T.   And the campaign has just started. Surely, there’s a less carbon intensive way to run a campaign, or does politics once again trump the environment?

At least the Liberals, Dippers, Bloc, and Greens are buying carbon offsets, and Elizabeth May to her credit, as we would expect,  is using the least carbon intensive modes of travel she can -- a Prius and trains.   Not the Harperites, who have chalked up the most kilometres at13,500 generating 139.5T of carbon emissions.   Of course not.

Now here’s something politically entertaining.  Get this: they actually consider their campaign promise of a loan guarantee to Newfoundland for a hydro project a serious contribution to reducing carbon emissions.   Yeah, that’s right:  a campaign promise,  a loan guarantee (of our money), vitual money, not a real initiative, not real action.

Let’s end here on a whimper if not a groan:  at least they’re consistent in their total disregard for the environment, but consistency in everything this party does, as we know, is not a virtue.

http://bit.ly/h569um