Just who is Culturally Irrelevant: YOU or the CBC?

Straight from CBC.ca: "The public broadcaster says it's in talks with the Heritage Department about the dire effects of a sinking economy, which it says will plunge the corporation into a deep deficit in 2009-2010."

Really? That doesn't surprise me much.

In its quest to become culturally relevant, the CBC has stopped doing its job: bringing news, culture, and information, with a Canadian perspective, to Canadians. Instead, it's opted to buy foreign game shows and hire trendy radio hosts who are only able to relate to people living in Toronto, Vancouver or Montreal. In fact, sometimes, I get the idea the CBC's new media stars: George and Jian couldn't tell a maple from an oak and wouldn't know a beaver from a rat. And in their quest to reach 'youth', they ignore Canadian history and institutions they think are 'politically incorrect', 'out of date', or God forbid, 'small townish and stereotypically Canadian'. (Sometimes, I think they are making tapes for auditions in New York.) As a result, they reach practically nobody.

Why? Because, a lot of Canadians do, at least partially, fit Canuck stereotypes -- polite, conservative (in lifestyle, but not necessarily politics), nature loving, and oh yes, just a bit 'small townish'. We sometimes wear toques, parkas, and ugly winter boots. A lot of us have eaten oatmeal for breakfast, tuna sandwiches for lunch, and meat loaf for dinner.(Not everyday, of course.) We might even take offence at a guy hosting a national arts and culture show who claims he can't understand Lent. (It's kind of a Christian version of Ramadan with fasting flexibilty, Jian. Does that help?)

I believe that we are enriched by the many cultures that have come, and continue to come, to Canada. But, face it, most guys and gals that get off a plane at Pearson and get a job, any job, in 21st Century Canada don't know much about staking a homestead or turning colonial wilderness in homes. To listen to the CBC, you think that the majority of Canadians landed here yesterday. In fact, most Canadians are not immigrants -- not even the West.

(The demographic gurus trying to sell advertising would be surprised at how many potential viewers, even in Western Canada, have pre-Confederation French, Metis, or British roots. And, because we all have at least two parents, it's impossible to fully determine ethnicity by somebody's colour, social status, or last name.)

Our colonial past is almost totally ignored by our public broadcaster. (Big mistake, because we WERE the Empire and if there are injustices still to fix in the Commonwealth, we have no business leaving the UK to do the job.) And God help you if you are are descended from colonials and pioneers, especially if they were British. In that case, you are expected to be ashamed of the political, social and cultural institutions your ancestors' helped build: You are nobody's target audience: no matter how much you have to spend.

It's clear our national broadcaster isn't very good with demographics. Exactly who were they trying to lure with the acquisition of two American game shows that spout nary a question about Canada? Last time I checked most game show viewers weren't part of the demographics the CBC seems to value above all others: the young, trendy, the urban, and the immigrant.

But CBC is not alone: most mass media, public institutions, and large corporations in Canada, have been too busy marketing themselves to some imaginary demographic that they have lost touch with Canadians outside Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal.

That's really too bad, because some of the most interesting people I know aren't young, trendy, beautiful, urban or obviously ethnic. In fact, I've made a career writing about them. And I wouldn't have changed that for all the CBC contracts in the world. 'Cause I love the boonies and the people that never make the front page or the top story.

so who's responsible for negative attitude

I don't use this blog to comment on American politics. The U.S. is not my country and, frankly, I think it's rude to interfere in our neighbours' democracy. Of course, we wish Americans well and support their choices.

However, I will comment on the Canadian media's reporting of the Obama Inauguration. Firstly, I'm really happy they've all had a really good,really long vacation from looking for any news stories in Canada or around the world. Party's over guys. Now it's time to get back to work and dig for some stories.

Secondly,several times this week I've heard one national news anchor, who really should know better, say no one does pageantry as well as Americans. Seriously. Has he ever heard of the changing of the guard on Parliament Hill? Oh and wasn't that the network that cut pageantry from their broadcasts at the opening of Parliament? Don't Canadian media usually make fun of Canadian pageantry? And didn't that particular network forget to play the Governor General's New Year's greeting?

And how is it they keep asking if a black can hold power in Canada after they have seen pictures of Mdme. Jean? Why is it that they are trying to bring the 'race' card to Canadian politics? I'm proud of the fact that the amount of pigment in Mdme. Jean's skin is irrelevent to Canadians.

Another common comment from Canadian viewers watching these broadcasts: "We would like someone to inspire us, too." Good point. I have to agree. So, let's start with the politicians and pundits who spend most of their time picking apart our system and making negative comparisons like, "Of course, we can't expect to have this in Canada. We're just a small country."

First, we're not that small a country, economically, geographically or even in population, and if we'd stop navel gazing and whining about how weak we are, we could impact the world greatly. Of course, we can expect to do and accomplish greatt things.

Secondly, it's time for Canadian media to drop the negative attitude toward our history, our culture, and Canadians. They might even point out that the Canadians, who opposed George Washington's vision, also built a country based on their own view of what democracy is -- and that it didn't come easy. That it is a different, but equally, valid view.

And it's our job to hold the media accountable.

walls/bridges/ and Canadian regionalism

In 1877, my great-great grandfather built a new house -- a beautiful stone house for his large blended family. I almost thought this house, along with tales of my great-grandfather's squandered inheritance, were fairytales. But this week I saw the house -- or at least a picture of it. Still standing. Still occupied.

The house still stands, but the family that once lived in it has scattered. The walls could not hold them. In fact,'walls' may have scattered them.

The lady who made time to tromp through snow covered rural Ontario to find my great-great-parents' land also sent me a picture of a bridge her grandfather built. A beautiful curved wooden bridge. It, too, stills stands after 100 years. Apparently, her grandfather built bridges in Western Canada too. I'm keeping my eyes open for them.

Aren't bridges beautiful things? Not only do they get you from one side of a deep ravine or a raging river to the other, they are beautiful architecture. Useable art.

I live in a city where more joggers, getting fit along the coulee top trails, turn east to look at the huge viaduct spanning the river valley than west to look at the outline of the Rocky Mountains and Porcupine Hills. Canada Post put our bridge on a stamp once.

Groups, like TWG are bridges too, linking people of diverse backgrounds in many regions of the country -- even beyond. Too often we talk of walls: rights and regional competition. What 'they' did and how we carry more than our fair share of the load. Too often we hold onto to our grudges and prejudices. Too often we take pride in building thicker and thicker walls and hurling insults at our kin -- and we are all kin if we go back far enough.

We love our walls, but we need more bridges,especially in Canada.

Christmas and New Year Message Links

Do you get annoyed when the media interprets speeches by government and opposition leaders, rather than letting you hear the entire message yourself? I do.

I often wish the pundits would stop explaining and playing 30 second blurbs of the speeches. I prefer to listen to what is said and make up my own mind what the message is.

In the Spirit of the Season, I am adding the following Christmas and New Year Message links. No comments. No interpretations. Just a chance for you to listen for yourself. I am sure you'll figure out what each of these people is trying to say. And you don't need me to explain.

The Queen's Christmas Speech to the Commonwealth

New Year's Message from the Governor General of Canada, Her Excellency Michaëlle Jean

Christmas Message from the Prime Minister of Canada, the Right Honourable Stephen Harper

Christmas Message from the Leader of Canada's Official Opposition, Michael Ignatieff

Want to follow this blog?

Hi, I've just added the followers icon to this blog. Feel free to join the group and you will receive regular posts as I update them.

Sorting out Fact from Propaganda

Hi everyone. I hope your Christmas planning is going well and that all this snow shovelling isn't dampening your Christmas spirit. Here's a little political myth busting that the media doesn't seem to want to tackle. I posted this article on the TWG blog about a week ago. The Word Guild is an organizations for Canadian writers are Christians. Since I know many of my readers are of different faith perspectives, I'm also posting it here:

Let me begin with a verse from scripture: Prove all things, hold fast that which is good. 1 Thessalonians 5:21

Now let me share a couple of historical facts that I've discovered that run counter to what you hear on the news. First, Michael Ignatieff's, promotion to Leader of the Opposition, without an election, is nothing new in our democratic tradition. Both Ralph Klein and Ed Stelmach, in Alberta, became Premiers without an election in their first terms. This has happened several times at the federal level as well.

As loyal members of their parties, the caucus members (MLAs and MPs) of our political parties normally accept their memberships' choice about who should be their leader in the Legislative Assembly or House of Commons.

That is convention. It is not law, although some parties do have by-laws, within their organizations, to require members of the party sitting in the legislature or Parliament (which includes the Crown, Senate, and House of Commons) to follow the party's instruction about who to choose as First Minister or Leader of the Opposition.

But, rarely, a party's caucus (MLAs or MPs who sit as members of that party) chooses a leader without a party vote. That too is acceptable in our system of Parliamentary Democracy.

For example, when Alberta Premier William Aberhart died suddenly in 1943, there was no party convention or consultation. Instead, the Social Credit Members of the Legislature got together at a caucus meeting and made Ernest Manning the Premier. The voters and the Opposition had no say in this decision. This is a perfectly acceptable way of becoming Premier in our system of government.

We are a Constitutional Monarchy. It is the role of the Crown to ensure that there is always a stable government in Canada and the Crown has several options to ensure it. The Crown can also deny unconstitional laws as the LG of Alberta did when William Aberhart tried to deny Freedom of the Press in the Province of Alberta. His decision was backed up by both the Governor General, the Provincial Courts, and the Supreme Court of Canada. I assure you that Albertans are very glad the LG took his job seriously enough in 1935 not to sign away our Freedom of Speech because the Premier asked him to. (Interestingly, this episode is not usually discussed by the popular media, although Lord Byng's decision to deny Mackenzie King an election is.)

Why? Because first ministers (Premiers, Prime Ministers - these words literally mean first minister- are elected as members of an assembly (legislature, House of Commons) for a particular riding (sometimes called 'constituency'). Canadians, like Brits, Australians, New Zealanders, and other Commonwealth Realms elect members of assemblies (Legislatures, Parliaments). They do not elect First Ministers.

It is convention that the head of the largest party becomes First Minister. The leader of the second largest party usually becomes Leader of the Official (or Loyal) Opposition (Also sometimes called Leader of Her Majesty's Official --or loyal- Opposition.

But coalitions are also acceptable: one coalition was between Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir Georges Etienne Cartier. It led to Confederation.

In the 1950s, the parties of British Columbia formed a coalition to deny the Commonwealth Cooperative Federation power. In a rather dramatic story, typical of British Columbia's colourful political scene, the plan led to the election of W.A.C. Bennett's Social Credit Party.

Learning one's history and constitutional framework helps us discern what is being said to us by our 'leaders' and, with prayer, leads us to where we need to go.

Role of the LOCAL MP

05 July 1858. The Province of Canada's new Inspector General rises to speak in the colonial assembly. He has an idea to end fighting and factions in the Canadian Parliament and to save British North America's economy. Why not federate the colonies? Why not bring Rupert's land into the arrangement? Perhaps even the colonies across the Mountains? Surely such a grand country will not remained embroiled in petty squables.

The House of Assembly (also called the Legislature or Parliament) agree to take a chance on Galt's idea, to move beyond their personal prejudices and grasp a bigger vision. They choose three members of their assembly: John Ross, George Etienne Cartier, and Alexander Torrance Galt put the idea before the British Government.

The idea is so big that, when the MPPs arrive in London, many British officials doubt it can be accomplished. But the Colonial Secretary, Sir Edward Bulwer Lytton, gives it a fair hearing. He likes the idea even if it is grand. (Not surprising, Lytton is a novelist and a friend of Charles Dickens.)

It take eight more years before Canada becomes the first nation within the British Empire (other than Britain herself). But, without that first vote in the Canadian Assembly, it would never have happened. Without the authorization of ordinary MPPs (MLAs) on all sides of the house, no moves would have been made.

Canada's House of Commons and Provincial Legislatures are the modern version of that 1858 Assembly. We elect members to represent us in these assemblies. No law in Canada can come into effect without their authorization. Or the Senate's. Or Royal Assent. (In short, the Cabinet has no authorization to govern on its own.)

Over the past 60 years, many Canadians have lost sight of the importance of making sure their Member of Parliament (or MP, MPP, MLA or MNA) carries their vote in these assemblies.

The role of political parties (and the highly paid hired hands in these backroom) has impinged upon the role of elected members of legislative assemblies. So much so, that many people no longer vote for their local member, they vote for a party. They accept that their member of the assembly should be follow the dictates of poltical parties and their funders. Several of these political parties capitalize on regional and ethnic divisions within the country to get support. (That's a separate post.)

But political parties have no Constitutional role in Canada. The Prime Minister is merely the Member of Parliament who has the confidience of the House. Much of the powers that job has garnered in recent years are in fact counter to democracy in Canada.

Given the current political crisis in Ottawa, perhaps Canadians will take greater care to elect members of their legislative assemblies that can represent them. Perhaps the role of political parties and ideologues will wane.

And perhaps Canadian kids will be taught how their system actually works.