The NDG Monitor, which shut down in February and became online-only, and recently criticized a borough-produced newspaper for being nothing but press releases, is now itself cutting and pasting press releases to create news stories, as evidenced by this story which is identical to this release from Concordia University (and doesn't mark it as such).

I'd say I was shocked, but I wasn't. I'd say I was disappointed, but my expectations for this Transcontinental project were low to begin with.

The Monitor's deterioration as a legitimate news outlet began long before its last issue came off the presses. It started in 1996 when it was sold to Transcontinental, which gutted everything to save money.

Now all it does is list community events and republish open letters, while contributing whatever news articles can be churned out with as little effort as possible. The rest of the website is filler from Transcontinental and its other community weeklies.

The Monitor is going to die eventually as a forgotten relic of a time when small communities could sustain local newspapers. Though I mourn the loss of any voice and the job of any journalist, part of me thinks they should just put it out of its misery.

Related Posts

• End of the road for The Monitor
• NDG Monitor to go online-only
• Quebecor sets sights on Transcontinental with two new weeklies
• West Island newspaper editors give up on former jobs
• Transcontinental centralizes pagination in Maritimes

But I also get a lot of news about executives changing jobs. Like Jon Dube, who left as CBC's director of digital media to join ABCNews.com. I understand the CBC writing a little article about it, and Inside the CBC repeating it, but does every news media blog in the universe also have to repeat the story?

First of all, anyone interested in media is going to be subscribed to a bunch of these blogs and is just going to read the same thing over and over again.

Secondly, this news might be more interesting if I knew who Jon Dube was, or what if anything he did at CBC to make him worth my interest.

I have nothing against Dube, and he seems like a great guy, but it's a bit annoying to see all these rewritten corporate press releases regurgitated as news without any background or analysis, by people who have no idea of the news value of what they're reporting.

Related Posts

• NDG Monitor news article actually a press release
• CRTC roundup: Cancon porn, TSN2 and the Rural Channel
• Industry is at fault for HDTV confusion
• Symantec survey thinks highly of Symantec
• YouTube Canada is pointless and insulting

Insert "beaver" joke here

The biggest news (or at least the most titillating) is the approval of a new Canadian-based pornography channel. Called Northern Peaks (cute), it would feature 50% Canadian content (i.e. Canadian-produced porn) from various categories, including pornographic sitcoms and game shows (that actually sounds like fun, but it's really just the company covering all bases, so to speak).

The 50% mark is actually quite unusual, and is well above what would normally be required for such a network. But apparently it was the applicant's request, according to the National Post:

Mr. Donnelly said he was required to offer as little as 15% Canadian content to appease regulators.

But because he wants "to legitimately be Canada's adult channel," he started at half Canadian. He said there is a huge unfulfilled market in Canada for local porn. Beginning last year, he began getting calls from cable companies looking to license his Canadian productions.

"I've always found there's a real turn-on to watching and knowing it's people you could run into in the grocery store," he said.

But with more than 200 titles (and presumably they can be replayed over and over again, since most viewers wouldn't mind repeats of classic programming), he thinks he can do it.

Quoth the CRTC: "The Commission did not receive any interventions in connection with this application." Really? Not even from the pizza guy? Or that nosy peeping-tom neighbour you're just waiting to have sex in front of so they can masturbate to it?

Needless to say the media had a field day with this one, the National Post turning it into a front-page story (complete with photo) and an opinion piece that's pretty tongue-in-cheeks (sorry) asking readers to comment and either denounce the channel or come up with some programming ideas for it. (A funny side-effect of the latter is offhand mentions of Sheila Copps and Avi Lewis, which means searches for these two under "related stories" brings up a comment about a porn channel they have nothing to do with.)

One comment posted to the Post:

When do the adults at the Post return from summer holiday?

Of course, it wasn't just the Post. The Globe and Mail also had a lengthy article on it (about 12 inches), and the news was picked up by Canadian Press and Reuters and Agence France-Presse and reached news outlets all around the world (well, those two anyway). It also got a mention on an anti-abortion (but still pro-women) conservative website.

The channel is being run by Real Productions (apparently not this Real Productions nor that Real Productions, which appear lower in the Google raking and I'm guessing confused or offended at least a few potential customers), which is run by a man named Shaun Donnelly (but not this Shaun Donnelly, Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Europe and the Middle East).

Due to the nature of the channel, it can't be included in any channel packages and must be specifically requested by the subscriber. The network also promises to spend at least 25% of revenues on developing new programming.

Also of note is the 100% closed-captioning requirement, which may foreshadow a fight with Videotron concerning their demand that they not have to closed-caption on-demand video porn.

UPDATE (Aug. 18): The Globe has more on the channel, including an idea of what a broadcast day would look like. And then even more on the channel here. (They won't let this story go, will they?)

UPDATE (Aug. 24): Farked. With suggestions on Canadian porn titles. Some of these people should write headlines for a living.

TSN "alternate feed" becomes TSN2

The other news to hit the papers this week was basically rewrites from the Globe and Canwest of a TSN press release saying that it would launch TSN2 (in standard and high definition) on August 29. The second TSN network has two purposes: To have an alternative channel for conflicting live sporting events, and to have a place to replay events for west coast audiences and anyone else who missed it the first time.

The digital network replaces the "TSN alternate feed," which was used on a limited basis to get around regional blackouts.

The press release says that:

TSN2 will be operating pursuant to an authorization in the TSN broadcast licence from the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission.

It's kind of ambiguous: Does this mean they're waiting for authorization here, or that they've gotten it? I only mention it because minutes of searching on my part has shown no such authorization from the CRTC (see below).

The story of the TSN alternate feed and TSN2 goes way back. TSN2 was first approved in 2000 as a "best of TSN" channel that specifically prohibited the broadcast of live sporting events. This was back when digital TV specialty channels were new and hip and everyone was applying for one. By 2003, the CRTC gave an extension to those who hadn't launched yet (including TSN2 and dozens of other channels that never made the light of day like Global's Quebec News Network). Since no such network launched, one can assume the authorization expired.

Meanwhile, TSN, beset by annoying regional blackouts of live programming, got the CRTC to give them permission to split their feed regionally (for up to 10% of its broadcast schedule), so that everyone would still get something and not a blank screen. When cable companies started carrying two feeds of TSN to give customers choice, Rogers SportsNet complained and got the CRTC to tell TSN to stop. Very quickly, TSN came back and asked to setup a special digital channel which would allow regional programming.

Despite protests from Rogers SportsNet, Canwest and the CBC, the channel (or technically, the license amendment) was approved, "in a single region on a digital-only basis."

Considering all but the conclusion of the CRTC decision makes it seem as if the 10% limitation would still apply, expect these competitors to get mad that TSN is setting up a new channel with this "alternate feed."

The decision is confusing, since it says earlier that:

While the Commission has considered the possibility that TSN Inc. could use the additional flexibility to outbid other licensees for the rights to high profile sports events, it notes that the amount of unique programming on TSN’s second feed would be limited to 10% of its quarterly schedule, thereby minimizing any negative impact on the competition for sports programming rights.

It then proceeds to remove that limitation without explanation from TSN's license.

Whether or not the limitation still exists, the other one, that the feeds be regional, remains. This means that TSN2 (assuming it's running under this license) would have to have "regional" programming (much like Rogers SportsNet must have "regional" programming), which would presumably be different across the regions. Since their first event is the U.S. Open, I don't see how that can be considered "regional programming."

I've asked TSN for clarification on their license for TSN2 and will update if I get a response.

UPDATE: TSN's response in its entirety apparently assumes that I'm an idiot who can't read, and simply repeats a part of the press release:

TSN2 will be operating pursuant to an authorization in the TSN broadcast licence from the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission.

No word yet on whether Videotron plans on carrying the service. Unlike TSN's main feed, digital TV providers are not required to carry TSN2 and so must choose to add it to their lineups.

All-baseball channel coming soon

The CRTC approved an application from Rogers Communications (owner of Rogers SportsNet) for Baseball TV, which would focus on baseball-related programming. The approval is for both standard-definition and high-definition versions of the network.

Part of the question over this channel was whether it would compete with protected cable networks TSN and SportsNet (the latter being somewhat ironic). But the commission appears to be following precedent here set by the NHL Network and Raptors TV, arguing that more specialized channels won't compete with the general networks.

Nevertheless, this meant a condition of license that live programming must be limited to 10% of the broadcast schedule. That doesn't sound like much, but it still means six baseball games a week, which is about what SportsNet offers now.

Much as I understand the CRTC's policy on protection of classic, format-protected specialty TV networks, the fact that TSN and SportsNet have both requested and received separate channel licenses I think shows that for sports networks it's no longer necessary. The entire point behind having separate networks is to allow for more live programming. Placing a 10% restriction doesn't serve the viewer.

Also of note here is that Rogers tried to weasel its way out of the 100% closed-captioning requirement, citing "technical issues" (does Rogers not have an engineer on staff?). The CRTC saw through this transparent attempt to save money and is forcing them to comply with the requirement.

Telelatino expanding

Telelatino got mixed results at the CRTC from its proposals for four new specialty channels, all of which would provide 100% English programming destined for Canadians from particular ethnic groups:

• APPROVED: Pan Desi Life TV, for Canadians of South Asian origin. Also allowed a limited amount of local/regional advertising (presumably directed at that same ethnic group). But the CRTC poo-pooed the company's request to get an excuse card out of 100% closed-captioning on the grounds that they just didn't want to pay for it.
• DENIED: Eurolatino, Italian Television and Spanish Television. The CRTC determined their proposed programming of all three proposed networks was too broad for approval. Because the programming would be in English, it would compete with existing protected cable networks.

In brief

• Approval of The Rural Channel, an English channel that would focus on rural life and agriculture. (The Post highlighted the porn channel but not this? Come on!)
• Approval of eScapes, an English channel that would show nothing but nature scenes and landscapes and stuff. Most interesting is that they plan to have no audio besides nature sounds. It's like Fireplace TV, which I'm sure someone's going to setup at some point. (The CRTC said that even though moot, they should still have a 100% closed-captioning requirement, just in case someone says something)
• Approval of Cuisine, a French channel that deals with food-related programming. Owned by Serdy Inc. (the people behind Canal Evasion), the channel would be able to show most kinds of programming, provided it was food-related. This includes sitcoms, so I guess that means Two Guys, a Girl and a Pizza Place is OK but Two Guys and a Girl isn't.
• Approval of Radical Télé, a French channel that would focus on "extreme" sports, including "snowboarding, surfing, skateboarding, wakeboarding and FMX (freestyle motocross) and to the lifestyle associated with these extreme sports (fashion, social events and places where these sports are practised)."
• Approval of HD versions of the Discovery Channel (Discovery HD had previously been approved under a provisional license and had more freedom to have separate programming from its standard-definition counterpart) and RIS Info Sports, RDS's sports-headlines sister station. Like other stations that have HD versions, 95% of content must be the same on both channels, and the remaining 5% must be entirely HD on the HD stations.
• CBC is applying to have its bold network (formerly CBC Country Canada) add a matching HD service.
• LCN is applying to increase its allowed analysis programming from 12% to 19% per week. I guess this means more Franchement Martineau and Claude Poirier.
• As if to exemplify why you should always ask for more categories of programming than you need, AdrenalineHD's Rush HD outdoor sports channel is applying to add feature films to its allowed programming up to 15% per week. Ditto Treasure HD, the museum/flea market channel, and Oasis HD, the nature channel.
• Télé-Québec has applied to add a digital transmitter for its CIVQ Quebec City station, which would provide local digital programming to the three people in Quebec City using a digital over-the-air receiver and don't want that crappy CIVM Montreal station.
• RNC Media, which runs affiliate stations of TVA, TQS and CBC in Gatineau, Rouyn-Noranda and Val d'Or, wants an exemption from having to provide programming logs since the stations it runs are essentially retransmitters with the bare minimum of local news. It instead wants to provide quarterly reports of its activities.
• Digital Home Canada (which, if you've read this far into this post, should really be in your feed reader) reports that Rogers Cable in Ontario has dropped TSN from its basic analog cable package for new customers, forcing them to get digital cable in order to access it. This is part of Rogers's move to phase out analog cable. If I were a conspiracy theorist (like some people), I might point out that TSN's competitor, Rogers SportsNet, is unaffected and will remain on analog cable. But I'm not, of course.
• And in what little radio news is interesting for us here, Radio Ville-Marie (CIRA 91.3) wants to add a retransmitter in Rimouski for its Montreal programming on 104.1 FM.

Related Posts

• CRTC Roundup: The American retransmission consent model
• CRTC Roundup: Rogers gets its own CP24
• When is a channel not a channel?
• Broadcasting regulation nerdgasm
• CRTC Roundup: Shaw seeks CNN International license

While technology articles in newspapers and tech segments on TV news are, indeed, either confusingly jargon-laden or condescendingly over-simplifying, I don't think they're the reason for all the misinformation about HDTV.

Instead, I blame the industry itself:

• An industry that defines "HDTV" as anything above NTSC standard, which could mean a bunch of different formats because the industry couldn't set a proper standard.
• An industry that compresses video signals over digital distribution systems to cram more channels in, making some digital signals better than others.
• An industry that combined HDTV with a change in aspect ratio that served to confuse people into thinking the two were the same.
• An industry that can't agree on an optical media format for HDTV.
• An industry that uses terms like "1080p" which means nothing to people like me, and then tries to develop brand names like "Full HD" which makes even less sense. (Is there a "Partial HD?")
• An industry that has developed five different types of cable connectors for video
• An industry that uses closed, proprietary protocols so that consumers are forcibly tied to cable boxes forced on them by their cable or satellite companies instead of being able to buy televisions with digital tuners built-in.
• An industry that converts HD to SD to HD, or SD to HD to SD, resulting in black bars all around images once they're actually shown on TV screens.

But I don't expect Sharp to bring that up when they're busy masturbating over how great they are.

Another example of investigative journalism

*Dear CBC: If you're going to rewrite a press release, maybe you should make it slightly less obvious that you're doing so. For example, you could change the headline. Or you could find another source to quote. Or you could not copy and paste half the press release into your article.

For example:

The knowledge gap persists despite a truly healthy market for flat panel TVs. Overall, the market grew by 72 percent last year, with sales of LCD TVs growing by 84.4 percent. For 2008, projected sales figures from the Consumer Electronics Marketers of Canada (CEMC) indicate a market demand of 2.75 million units.
The poll reports Canadians have a basic understanding of the differences between flat screen technologies - 53 percent prefer LCD to plasma screens - yet few Canadians feel themselves to be truly knowledgeable about the technology.
Women are especially unaware of HDTV features; almost 60 percent said they were not at all knowledgeable about the latest advancements, compared to less than 40 percent of men polled across the country. The jargon-laden language of tech reports may be an issue, with 29 percent of Canadians getting their information about new models from TV ads and programs, compared to only 20 percent from print media and 16 percent from weblogs and product websites.

That was from the press release.

This is from the CBC story:

The knowledge gap persists despite a truly robust market for flat-panel TVs, according to the findings from Nanos Research, commissioned to do the survey by Sharp Electronics of Canada.

Overall, the market grew by 72 per cent last year, with sales of LCD (Liquid Crystal Display) TVs growing by 84.4 per cent, Sharp said. For 2008, projected sales figures from the Consumer Electronics Marketers of Canada (CEMC) indicate a market demand of 2.75 million units.

The poll reports Canadians have a basic understanding of the differences between flat-screen technologies — 53 per cent prefer LCD to plasma screens — yet few Canadians feel themselves to be truly knowledgeable about the technology.

Women are especially unaware of HDTV features, the survey suggested. Almost 60 per cent said they were not at all knowledgeable about the latest advancements, compared to less than 40 per cent of men polled across the country.

The jargon-laden language of tech reports may be an issue, with 29 per cent of Canadians getting their information about new models from TV ads and programs, compared to only 20 per cent from print media and 16 per cent from weblogs and product websites.

Notice some similarity? (I've bolded all the changes the CBC made.) I'm just going to go ahead and assume the CBC did not, in fact, check to make sure these statements were true.

(And another thing: "weblogs"? If people don't understand what a blog is, what makes you think they'll understand "weblogs"?)

Related Posts

• CRTC roundup: Cancon porn, TSN2 and the Rural Channel
• CRTC roundup: CTV wants everything in HD
• Habs bring ratings boost to HNIC
• Should the CBC dump TV?
• Caption CBC president Hubert Lacroix

Reading that, you might ask yourself how geography is relevant to online security or other stupid questions. But rather than take a comprehensive look at online fraud, bank/mail fraud, or information security practices of businesses and government, it commissions a poll that rates cities based on how many people say they've installed up-to-date anti-virus software on their computers.

Talk about thinking highly of yourself. Naturally, the solution to all this is to get more people to install anti-virus and other security software on their computers. And it just so happens...

The press release cherry-picks selections of some other data, without giving any idea how to get full breakdowns from them. Either way, all the data is based on what people say, not on what kinds of online crime actually happen in those cities.

Any bets on how many other news outlets will overlook these facts and run this as if it was a StatsCan report?

Related Posts

• Lies, damn lies and metro statistics
• Yes, he was a sexual predator
• It’s a crime wave!
• NDG Monitor news article actually a press release
• Who steals a Subway tip jar?

YouTube, an American video-sharing website, was not available to Canadian Internet users prior to today. Internet traffic would be stopped at the border, searched, and then forced to pay taxes and duties before being allowed to continue. As a result, no Canadian-made videos had ever appeared on the No. 1 video-sharing site.

Oh wait, none of that is true? Then what's the purpose again?

"YouTube Canada", which looks exactly like regular YouTube except that its featured content is from obviously-Canadian sources, is basically nothing more than a bunch of content licensing agreements with media outlets like Dose.ca (funny they don't use CanWest's crappy internal video portal), the Canadian Football League, CBC and others. You'll note that these groups already have YouTube channels, which just makes the pointlessness of this launch even more apparent.

The Globe and Mail's Mathew Ingram was one of the few not to be taken in by the smoke and mirrors. He asks, very reasonably, what the point of a "localized" Canadian site is in the first place. (His remarks remind me a bit of Casey McKinnon's views on CanCon.)

One thing that Ingram didn't mention though, is a mistake a lot of these companies make when they create Canadian versions of themselves: The "Canadian" YouTube is English-only.

It's not that YouTube lacks translation abilities. YouTube France is in French. So what's the story?

Don't get me wrong. I'm no Guy Bertrand or anything. But to launch a website branded as "Canadian" in only one of its languages is a pretty big "Fuck You" to francophone Canadians.

So colour me underwhelmed about all this.

Related Posts

• Bilingualism isn’t a threat to Quebec
• So you think you can produce original programming?
• Justin Trudeau calendar has 33 pictures of Justin Trudeau
• CRTC limits musical montages on French radio stations
• The Ruth Ellen Brosseau love song

Am I the only one getting tired of Canadian networks creating Canadian versions of shows developed in other countries and selling it to the CRTC as original Canadian content? Think of what we've done so far:

1. Are You Smarter Than a Canadian 5th Grader? (Global), adapted from Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader? (FOX)
2. Canada's Next Top Model (Citytv), adapted from America's Next Top Model (CW)
3. Canada's Worst Driver (Discovery), adapted from Britain's Worst Driver
4. Canada's Worst Handyman (Discovery), adapted from Britain's Worst DIYer
5. Canadian Idol (CTV), adapted from American Idol (FOX), which was in turn adapted from Britain's Pop Idol, all part of Simon Cowell's empire
6. Deal or No Deal Canada (Global), adapted from Deal or No Deal (NBC)
7. Entertainment Tonight Canada (Global), adapted from Entertainment Tonight (Syndicated)
8. No Opportunity Wasted (CBC), adapted from No Opportunity Wasted (New Zealand)
9. Project Runway Canada (Slice), adapted from Project Runway (Bravo)
10. Who Do You Think You Are? (CBC), adapted from Who Do You Think You Are? (BBC)

And that's the only ones I can find on a quick search.

I'm not the only one who thinks this is a problem. Canadian actors, writers, and other artists are objecting to the trend, demanding the networks invest in Canadian ideas instead of American ones, and stop sending hundreds of millions of dollars down south to license their shows.

What's wrong? Is it because we don't have as much money as they do? Is it because our ideas suck? Is it because Canadian viewers are so allergic to home-grown content that we have to be weaned onto it using comfortable American shows?

Or is there nothing wrong? I enjoy Canada's Worst Driver/Handyman, and I watch American TV a lot during prime time. Is the problem me?

Related Posts

• If you were a journalist now, what would you have done that Mr. Murphy has not done?
• Internet CanCon is already here
• YouTube Canada is pointless and insulting
• Congratulations, Mr. Mulcair
• Bell Let’s Talk Day: “This is why we do it”