Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!utcsri!utegc!utai!ubc-vision!alberta!bjorn From: bjorn@alberta.UUCP Newsgroups: can.politics Subject: Re: 'Free' Trade? Message-ID: <233@pembina.alberta.UUCP> Date: Fri, 20-Feb-87 04:58:59 EST Article-I.D.: pembina.233 Posted: Fri Feb 20 04:58:59 1987 Date-Received: Sat, 21-Feb-87 01:21:19 EST References: <12419@watnot.UUCP> <1469@hcrvx1.UUCP> <827@ubc-cs.UUCP> <466@danger.UUCP> Distribution: can Organization: U. of Alberta, Edmonton, AB Lines: 159 In article <466@danger.UUCP>, neil@danger.UUCP (neil) writes: >You have to be kidding! In a mature market, the possibility of a small >company becoming big is remote. With the television media, big means lots >of influence, that means the power to get people to accept garbage. What! >You don't think people can be made to accept mediocrity? :-) No I'm not kidding, the possibility of ANY company becoming big is remote almost regardless of the market. Perhaps you would care to reveal your opinion to Kenneth Olson, Ted Turner, Steve Jobs or the Japanese auto makers, the Koreans etc.. Mature market my, er ahem, foot. Not only can small companies grow big, large companies can easily end up in Drumheller. > ... The giants institutionalise mediocrity No argument on the first part of this sentence. But hey, some people have told me they LIKE TO VEGETATE in front of a TV. >so much that it takes external factors to create change. Such as? Here is the crux of the matter. >If the US >auto industry had been committed to providing a better throughout the >'502 '60s and '70s, the Japanese would never have made inroads. Yes, using your words: "they had institutionalized mediocrity" and of course they lost when someone with a better idea put it into practice. >> If Canadians would rather view US programming (and I'm not saying >> that this is the case) than that supplied by Canadian companies, >> then I ask you: >> >> Whose material is more relevant to (those) Canadians? > >You presume that they are making a consious rational choice when in >fact it is the product of what is available, and how much of it is there. >I'm not saying that people mindless zombies, I am saying that often >people people turn on the TV as a "pass-time", they really don'y care >what they watch so long as it isn't totally boring for them. In other >words, the reasons people watch what they watch are not based on simple >choice. And you care so much about what other people watch that you would like nothing better than to hold their remote control for them. I care too, but I'm not about to force people to watch (swinging into the saddle of a tall horse here) what quality programming there is to be had. My experience is that at times when there's "nothing on" many people will leave their TV on WITHOUT watching it. But then vegetables will vegetate. I've got some ideas on how to survive such hardships some of which require the participation of more than one person. >TIME is a perfect example of the myopea of American media. It is >practically impossible to get any foreign news coverage in any US >media. Any foreign coverage is invariable chosen because there is >an American interest. I suspect that this is a function of the size/population/power (s/p/p) of the country and not a conscious decision to shun foreign coverage. It's obvious isn't it from the relative s/p/p's of the US and Canada that what they do affects you more than what you do affects them. You think you get broad coverage in Canada? I'll offer yet another thesis: The smaller the country the broader the news coverage. There. > ... Is that wrong you ask? You bet, it entrenches >the Americans simplistic view of the world. What is this simplistic [sic] view? Expound please. In what way is this "view" more simplistic than some other (presumably different) view of the world. And who holds these supposedly less simplistic views? > ... Why should they hear about >these things? What things? Tuna Scandals? Ministers in Strip-clubs? The sale of Canadair or de Haviland? Give an example of "foreign" coverage in the Canadian media that is not matched in one way or the other by the US media. Are you hard pressed? Not at all? Good let's hear it. > ... First, they have no choice in the matter, the US networks >do not have any programs that report them. Second, the attempt of >aspiring to a well rounded news system is, in and of itself, a good thing. Tell that to the shareholders. If you don't have the stomach for that, help pay to produce and broadcast your vision. >It is impossible to point to specifics, but the argument is identical >to the one use above for the US auto industry. Yes I know it's impossible to point to specifics if you have no idea how to fix the perceived problem(s). >Canada should, ought must strive for a pluralistic society. It is the >freedom to be anything you want in Canada, that sets us apart from >the US. This statement I'm sure would take must US citizens by surprise as well as some of what follows. > IT is that pluralism that ensures a rich vibrant society. That >allows people to go to Cuba, to criticise Mulroney, that allows me >the privacy of my bedroom. Are you implying that a US citizen cannot go to Cuba or that Americans are not allowed to throw dung at their chief executive? Are you suggesting that you have less privacy in an American bedroom than a Canadian? I know some states in the US have some rather kinky (No I'm not about to apologize) laws on what may and may not take place in a bedroom or otherwise, I will not defend this, it's atrocious. But then again if you would like to avail yourself of certain types of sexually explicit material for whatever reason (fantasy aid, spice, etc.) you are out of luck in Canada and North Carolina. >Nonesense, people don't think Canadian's are inferior, only Canadian's >think they are inferior, and they're wrong. Agreed. And of course this does not include all Canadians. Some Canadians really are inferior (to other Canadians of course B-). >... Perhaps it's because >Americans think they are superior to the rest of the world, they really >do too! Do you have proof positive that they are not? > I suppose when you define your own yard sticks, you'll convince >yourself that you are superior, but you'd be wrong. I'm not going to quibble with this statement, (B-) but of course it's not true in general. > Do you really >believe the New York Giants are world champions. They do!! Who cares. >I just wish Canadians would stop apologising for themselves. Funny how >Canadians who criticise the US are derisorily labelled anti american, >but somehow the sources of the derision aren't called anti canadian. >It's almost as if being anti canadian was ok. I could write a very long essay on this. I'll spare you this time. >All sweeping statements above are exactly that, we're dealing in >generalities here. Precisely B-). Alas, my bark is worse than my bite Bjorn R. Bjornsson alberta!bjorn