We are not quite there yet, but the 500-channel universe that everyone has talked about since so long ago that I don't even remember (Or before I was born. Either way, this term has been in our vocabulary for a long time) is near.
In a few short weeks, the CRTC will distribute several digital TV licenses among tens of bidders. So for those who are lucky enough to get satellite or digital cable will have a few more channels to choose from. As for the rest of us, we are still stuck with providers that give us such little choice that it makes the number of choices available in the recent federal election an astronomical amount.
Many of you probably believe that a mass medium should have diverse representation with inputs from as many voices as possible. The truth is that I have no problem with that ideal. The only question I have is, when will the expansion ever end? Having too many channels will only dilute the interest of the television viewers.
These days most of the shows on TV (by my standard, 70?0%) are so bad that they shouldn't have seen the light of the day in the first place. Look at the number of new shows that don't survive the first year and you will understand what I mean. On some days, flipping through the channels is more fun than watching any particular "program".
It takes a lot of dough to establish a TV station/network, and it takes much more to keep it from being deep-sixed (or being tanked, going under, etc). How do TV stations get their money? Commercial revenue, more commonly known as ad fees. The sponsors watch the ratings very diligently. If there is a consistent drop in rating or the rating hovers just above the level of Lake Ontario, the sponsor pulls the plug with such a speed that no trail is left behind. As far as I know, the number of channels is growing at a faster rate than the number of viewers. This kind of growth is very unhealthy. Sooner or later, the sponsorship well will run dry.
We are often stuck with awful programming, but the CRTC continues to grant licenses like there are no more to be granted ever again. But then again, we are talking about the CRTC, where logic goes out the window and the laws of rationality don't exist. The CRTC should be renamed the Commission Ran by TV Companies. How else can you explain that our cost of watching television climbs faster than a monkey up a tree?
The municipal election happened over 2 weeks ago, but some election matters have yet to be settled. A mayoral candidate in Toronto has launched a lawsuit against the City of Toronto for a "significant" omission on the ballot. She claimed that she registered with the middle name "Supermodel", but that her name on the ballot did not contain the word "Supermodel". This candidate placed third in the final tally. She claimed that had the officials included the word "Supermodel", she would have won the mayoral election in Toronto.
I think this is nothing but a vain attempt to extend her 15 minutes of fame. Among those in Toronto who voted, 80% of them voted for Mayor Mel (Lastman). Adding the word "Supermodel" won't change the result by much, if any. Anyone who knows a little math can quickly realize that this particular candidate would have needed to get at least 30% (of the total vote) more votes in order for her to win. I think people of Toronto aren't THAT dumb. I don't think 30% of Toronto voters would have changed their votes just because one of the other candidates claimed herself to be a supermodel. If she thinks it is that significant, then I should be able to win any election if I declare myself a superhunk, in spite of the fact that I'm not. "Supermodel", drop the lawsuits before everyone accuses you of being a bitter person who doesn't admit defeat in spite of concrete evidence.
Jason "the Screamer" Lau