|
| |
CONTENT RESTRICTIONS ON CANADIAN TELEVISION.
Term Paper ID:30359
|
|
|
Essay Subject:
Examines and contrasts two different perspectives.... More...
|
7 Pages / 1575 Words
2 sources, 12 Citations,
MLA Format
$28.00
Return to List of Papers
|
Paper Abstract:
Examines and contrasts two different perspectives. David Miller's argument that national cutlure must be protected, even at the expense of individual liberities. John Stuart Mills' philosophy that the principle of freedom and individuality should prevail. Issue involved is regulation that Canadian broadcasters must restrict amount of foreign programs.
Paper Introduction:
In their respective works, John Stuart Mills and David Miller offer contrasting perspectives on this issue of content restrictions on Canadian television. Mills’ work, On Liberty, celebrates the principle of freedom and individuality. On the other hand, Miller’s work, On Nationality, highlights the importance of protecting national culture, even at the expense of individual liberties. Thus, Mills would regard the requirement that Canadian broadcasters restrict their amount of foreign programs to 65 percent as a gross invasion of individual freedom. In contrast, Miller would agree that this regulation is necessary to prevent further erosion of the Canadian culture through American programming.
The basic premise of Mills’ position is that individuals should have the freedom to think and act as they wish, as long as th
Text of the Paper:
The entire text of the paper is shown below. However, the text is somewhat scrambled. We want to give you as much information as we possibly can about our papers and essays, but we cannot give them away for free. In the text below you will find that while disordered, many of the phrases are essentially intact. From this text you will be able to get a solid sense of the writing style, the concepts addressed, and the sources used in the research paper.
In its effort to regulate television content, the Canadiangovernment has infringed on the liberties of three groups of individuals:1) Sellers of American programs, 2) Canadian broadcasters who purchaseprograms and 3) Canadian consumers of television programs. Furthermore, they furtherexploit their position by selling their programs at an exceedingly lowprice that essentially shuts out all other competitors. On Nationality. However, from Miller's point of view, national culture must beprotected even if it means the violation of individual liberty becauseevery individual derives an integral part of their identity from theirnational identity (85-6). The Canadian producers of shows withCanadian content are one of the key instruments for presenting the Canadiannational culture. Mills' work, On Liberty, celebrates the principle of freedomand individuality. In his opinion, the market is an idealmechanism for regulating all trade: "...both the cheapness and the goodquality of commodities are most effectually provided for by leaving theproducers and sellers perfectly free" (94). In this case, the Canadian broadcasters should beallowed to decide for themselves the proper course of action. Mills' description of the state is still a complaint used byliberalists who believe that state intervention in television programmingrepresents "an increasing inclination to stretch unduly the powers ofsociety over the individual both by force of opinion and even by that oflegislation" (13). The global market that is governed byprivate individuals engaging in the pursuit of profit cannot be used as asole mechanism for regulating businesses that can impinge upon nationalproducts such as national culture. However, this objection does not take into account the lack ofbalance in the competition between American producers and Canadianproducers. In this situation, the Canadian government's interventionenables Canadian producers to have an opportunity to demonstrate thequality of their products to Canadian broadcasters. Oxford: Clarendon P, 1995. Based on the discussion of these two opposing viewpoints, it isevident that the Canadian issue of content restrictions raises aninteresting question for people living in democratic countries: To whatextent should the individual liberties of people be compromised in the nameof national identity? a national identity...involves anessentially historical understanding in which the present generation areseen as heirs to a tradition which they then pass on to their successors"(175). As the cultural homogenization of the world has shown,the term "cultural diversity" is masqueraded by the most superficialfeatures of various national cultures. Works Cited.Mill, J.S. Society has no other right to intervene with the activities ofindividuals: "His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficientwarrant... Furthermore, one's national identity also serves as a significantforce in bringing disparate individuals together when their nationconfronts an external aggressor that threatens the existence of theirnationhood. Beyond the issue of restricting television program contents, theliberalists' main objection to the protection of national culture is thestate's imposition of power over individual liberties. Thus, their existence should be protected fromthe unfair encroachment of the American culture that has come to dominatethe global market. With the 35 percent limit, the Canadian government has actedfairly by permitting free trade and creating an environment that preventsnational culture from "being eroded by economically self-interested actionon the part of particular individuals" (Miller 88). Considering the powerful effects of theelectronic mass media on the thinking and lifestyles of individuals ofmodern nations, it is important for governments to intervene and ensure thepreservation of the unique characteristics of their national culture. Otherwise, theindividuality and freedom of Canadian producers would be undermined by thedynamics of the global market that serves not as a liberating force, but asan oppressive institution that advances the interests of the rich at theexpense of others who do not possess the same resources. In conclusion, the Canadian government's restriction of thetelevision contents is justified as a legitimate means of preservingnational culture and identity. The state's regulation of television contents in order to ensure theadequate inclusion of Canadian programs is extremely important in thecontemporary society. Essentially,the Canadian government's regulation restores a degree of balance to theunfair market competition between American producers and Canadianproducers. Elizabeth Rapaport. Furthermore, the sole reliance on the global market for thedistribution of resources and cultural products will intensify thedisparities between the rich and the comparatively poorer people who cannotafford to purchase cultural products of a high quality. AsMiller puts it eloquently: "... Although liberalists believe that this archaic nationalist perspectiveshould be replaced by cultural pluralism, they do not realize that nationalcultures risk being diluted by individuals who have not inherited thenational traditions (Miller 186). The expansion of international tradetestifies to the devastating impact on the unique qualities of nationalculture. First, Miller would argue that the principle of free trade between thesellers and the buyers is violated. At the sametime, Canadian consumers of television programs should also be given theopportunity to determine whether they would prefer cheap American programsor Canadian programs. Miller captures this phenomenon withthis revealing statement: "...as cultures become more accessible tooutsiders, they also begin to lose their depth and their distinctivecharacteristics" (186). Essentially, an individual's loyalty to their nationcontributes to the nation's capacity to provide security for its people topursue their life (Miller 165). In contrast, Millerwould agree that this regulation is necessary to prevent further erosion ofthe Canadian culture through American programming. Clearly, they are not competing on a level playing field whenAmerican producers are selling programs at a price that is below the costsof production because they are able to spread the costs among theiradvertisers. The non-elite will have to put up with a lowest common denominator mass culture..."(187). Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hackett, 1978.Miller, David. Second, the capacity of theCanadian people, both the broadcasters and the consumers, to develop theirown thinking and determine their own choices is undermined by thegovernment's self-righteous belief that it is infallibly correct (Mills 21,32). With the decrease in the face-to-face contact betweenpeople from all walks of life and the increasingly pervasive presence ofthe electronic mass media, individuals of a nation are increasinglydependent on television as a means of transmitting information about theirsociety and the world (Miller 87). Because of the increase in population,individuals rely increasingly on the mass media to promote characteristicsof the national culture (Miller 32). Similarly, Mills' wholehearted support of "free trade" and themarketplace as a perfect mechanism for determining the exchange ofcommodities fails to take into account the unfairness of the global market.In this situation, the American producers of Americans shows clearly havean unfair advantage over their Canadian counterparts because they haveadvertisers to support their costs of production. Without governmentintervention, Canadian broadcasters are more likely to purchase Americanprograms than Canadian programs based on the market forces. Clearly, the market alone thatresponds solely to profit cannot be counted on to protect the interests ofthe public. On Liberty. Thus, there is no doubt that the total domination of Americanprograms in Canadian broadcasting will inevitably destroy all aspects ofCanadian culture. The basic premise of Mills' position is that individuals should havethe freedom to think and act as they wish, as long as they do not hurtothers. Thus, Mills would regard the requirementthat Canadian broadcasters restrict their amount of foreign programs to 65percent as a gross invasion of individual freedom. Most of all, the media has played a large role in homogenizing theconsumption and thought patterns of people from all over the world (Miller155). Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual issovereign" (9). On the other hand, Miller's work, On Nationality,highlights the importance of protecting national culture, even at theexpense of individual liberties. In his book, Millerpaints a vivid picture of the inequality that will arise between an eliteand the rest of the people: "The benefits of the global culture will beconfined very largely to the elite, who can buy high culture... Canadian producers who are not able to competesuccessfully with American producers risk being shut out of the marketwithout state regulation. According to Miller, the reliance onthe mechanism of the market is inadequate in ensuring their existence (87).The fact that American producers are able to sell their programs overseasfor much less than their costs of products places them at an economicallyadvantageous situation vis-à-vis Canadian producers. Without governmentrestrictions, the Canadian broadcasters will be more likely to purchase"cheap imported" programs in order to increase their competitiveness,albeit at the expense of quality programming and the national culture. In their respective works, John Stuart Mills and David Miller offercontrasting perspectives on this issue of content restrictions on Canadiantelevision. In our contemporary society that is characterized bythe increasing globalization of the economy and homogenization of cultures,the content restrictions imposed by the Canadian government represent animportant effort to preserve unique characteristics of Canadian culture.The distinctive characteristics of individual nations give their citizens asense of belonging and enable them to know their place in history. The government's intervention in ensuring that the non-elite publiccan have access to quality programming and cultural offerings once againprotects the interests of its people. The constant "rewriting" of a nation's story documents the rich andvivid heritage of its people. Essentially, thegovernment's advocacy of national culture should not be imposed on everyindividual. Ed.
If this paper is not what you are looking for, you can search again:
or
Click here to request an essay written just for you.
|
|
|
