Journal of the mental environment
A Legal Action for Media Democracy
Adbusters Media Foundation has filed an appeal against the recent decision by the B.C. Supreme Court allowing Global Television and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to continue censoring citizen-produced TV ads.
- Tue, 29 Jul 2008 11:36 am — Posted by Abdul
- | 18 comments
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
JULY 18, 2008
CONTACT: Paul Cooper, (604) 736-9401
VANCOUVER, B.C.– Adbusters Media Foundation has filed an appeal against the recent decision by the B.C. Supreme Court allowing Global Television and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to continue censoring citizen-produced TV ads. Adbusters claims that this refusal to sell airtime to citizens and NGOs violates our right to freedom of expression under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
“This case raises important questions regarding the nature and scope of freedom of expression on the Canadian broadcasting system,” says Adbusters’ lawyer, Mark Underhill. “Parliament has confirmed in the Broadcasting Act that our broadcasting system is a publicly owned resource, but access to the system is controlled by private corporations. We intend to argue before the Court of Appeal that the broadcasters, including Global and the CBC, must remain as defendants in Adbusters’ groundbreaking case because they play a critical role in ensuring that the public airwaves are open to a variety of viewpoints on matters of public interest. ”
Kalle Lasn, the founder and editor-in-chief of Adbusters, says he’s committed to carrying the case forward all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada if necessary.
“Canadians should be able to walk into their local TV stations and buy 30 seconds of airtime under the same rules and conditions as corporations do. The CBC especially, should immediately stop blocking citizen-produced messages or stop calling itself our public broadcaster.”
For more information or interviews with Mark Underhill or Kalle Lasn email paul [at] Adbusters [dot] org.
MEDIA LIAISON: Paul Cooper
TELEPHONE NUMBER: 604-736-9401
EMAIL: paul [at] Adbusters [dot] org
EDITOR’S NOTES
For more information about Adbusters and the global media democracy movement visit
[1] Canadian Media facts:
Four corporations (CanWest, Quebecor, Torstar and Gesca) control 72 per cent of the country’s daily newspaper circulation:
Five major media acquisitions in Canada have occurred or are currently in the making in the past two years: CHUM was purchased by CTVglobemedia for $1.4 billion, which then sold five CityTV stations to Rogers for $375 million; CanWest purchased Alliance Atlantis for $2.3 billion; Astral Media bought Standard Broadcasting for $1.2 billion; and Black Press and Quebecor are vying for the Osprey Media newspaper chain in a deal that will be worth more than $400 million.
[2] Facts about Media Democracy:
More than 30,000 people have signed the Media Carta
In the past year a growing number of grassroots media activist groups have been formed in Canada to express their dissatisfaction with the continued consolidation of the country’s media:
END/
Comments
Could we have an update on what is happening on this front ‘cause the mainstream medias are certainly not covering this one???
Adbusters can try and be creative with the adds by posing as a veritable trash commercial but using it as a trojan horse to export ideas or at least create an unease in the mind of a least common denominator, news anchored torso. It could be made so utterly dumb and repulsive that even a housewife would think twice about the issue. Or on the other hand one might advertise universal beaty like a cloud or a tree. Make art basically
Go get'em adbusters. I don't own a TV because it's not worth having based on what's on the tube.
adbusters is wasting money and time. they should have put all the court money towards starting more media outlets to reach a wider audience. yeah we have freedom of speech, but the monopolized television has the freedom to choose its sponsors. so stop thorwing money towards our court system, which is probably lovin all that donated "hope cash" represent yourselves, or stay home and make pamphlets to distribute throughout the country, dooor to door. which would probably be cheaper and more effective
I think it's great to keep going after Big Media, all the way to the supreme court if necessary, but have you stopped to think of what may happen if you win. By virtue of a win the action will have to be reciprocal. Big Media will argue they have the right to advertise in Adbusters and how could you possibly deny them? In browsing your latest issue let me point out possible ads a lawyer could have a field day with:
ADBUSTERS ONLINE adbusters.org
rethink capitalism blackspotshoes.org
BACK TO SCHOOL Media Empowerment Kit
DESIGN ANARCHY by kalle lasn
Subscription plug and Big Ideas 2009
memewarriors.org
CULURAL REBIRTH RETHINKCAPITALISM.ORG.
Are you ready for this kind of phyrric victory?, talk about a way to ruin a good thing. Why not try as well to get ads on local cable provider channels, the IFC or some such channel, or solicit enough interest to start up a counterculture tv channel on cable. Good luck but remember, what you win will affect all magazines of you stature, and we the readers do not want to go back to reading Macleans or Time.
Be subversive in your ads presented . . . give your website address, or ask a good question which will disturb the general public's "view" (or lack thereof).
Adbuster's cover which had a head with a product scan on its brain was great.
A jarring visual which does not state an outright view is great - for instance, the CPP funds are really low: gov't investments went down, and people fear their CPP is in huge trouble, thus the Conservatives will not release the report until December - that is 6 months late and to be after the election!
So, if you want working Canadians to worry about who to vote for, hit their pocketbook future and their pension nightmares.
I would not underestimate "regulating" the TV medium because of its decline. It is an important part of our media environment (like it or not) and the key reference for mainstream web medias (business model and branding) originate from TV.
Neil Postman's insights on how the public discourse has evolved for the worse as a result of TV are noteworthy. rf. "Amusing ourselves to death". The same insights of contextless newsbits become most relevant when citizens and NGOs start getting the rights to add context to their contextless newsstreams. In spite of the web linking abilities to provide context, the mainstream web often try to perpertuate IMO this contextless news environment.
The media carta battle for sanitizing our mental environment remains as important as as the physical environment one. Thanks to Adbusters for leading the way!
Television is the most powerful social communications tool in the world able to capture the mainstream public imagination in ways the internet still cannot . . . that's why McCain & Obama are spending hundreds of millions of dollars on TV and corporations/industries spend one hundred BILLION dollars every year on TV. Everyone should have the right to walk into their local station and buy airtime - that's what free speech is all about. Networks, like Canada's CBC and the big U.S. networks who routinely censor Adbusters ads make me very angry. After we win our legal action, we'll show them what democracy looks like on TV,
for the wild, Kalle
it's true the internet is the place to focus, but it is a grave mistake to say "no one watches tv anymore, especially the commmercials".
sure, you don't, i don't, many intelligent and otherwise aware individuals don't...BUT a LOT of people still do watch. (munching on their potato chips and drinking their sodapop) i hear them talk about it in the lunch room. people you wouldn't expect. and the thing is, you never want to watch the commercials, but they are still there. we need to stop preaching to the choir here and actually get through to those still stuck staring at the tube. can you imagine a commercial that didn't try to sell you anything?
tv time is getting cheaper too. i just made a bunch of commercials that don’t sell anything and aired them on MTV in Canada for a few hundred dollars. (they just say a nice message and don’t ask for anything) they didn’t reach that many people with a few hundred dollars but its the act of doing it that i think is important. anyone can do it. i used marker and pen and just made sure the spots went by the broadcasters rules. while the big brands are focused on the next big thing (the web to them) we can get TV time for cheap. im going to post a DIY kit on the site soon. www.tvlovepoems.com
I totally agree with Liam. The television viewing audience is gradually becoming irrelevant. The true battle will be for the hearts and minds of the Internet. The key is to teach critical thinking skills.
I posted a question on the Huffington Post copied on blog which ask, "Why has the media not bothered to look into McCain’s family life history. The Arizona press is full of details on how the Viet Vet hero, whose primary military experience was spent holed up in a Cong Prison, divorced his injured wife and left his three children to marry the daughter of one of the richest men in Arizona. I don’t claim to know the facts, but there are too many juicy stories for the press to ignore about his father-in-law’s ties to crime, and his own prison experience. Seems spending time in jail is a family trait."
I challenge someone to run with this story, or use it for an ad.
http://zrants.wordpress.com/
zRants
Have you herd the one where his hotdog actions are suppose to have started a fire on board an aircraft carrier (can't remember which one)that resulted in the deaths of over one hundred navel personnel?
Apparently his admiral dad was instrumental in having him quickly transfered to another carrier.
i'm grateful to adbusters for this action on everybody's behalf. i too have wondered over the years why we don't get alternative information from various interest groups on tv. if the concern has been that only the wealthy would get their views published, surely this is not a reason to prevent any and all efforts to inform eachother but a reason to be careful to ensure both the rich and poor get access.
Liam, the TV set is still in just about every home, we all still gather around it and stare at it for hours. Also TV programming is free unlike the internet, so most poor folks will have that available vs. the net. I want to same advertising power as any other big company, I want equal access to my airwaves.
What is the back up plan when the appeal fails. The system can not allow open ideas broadcast to citizens, beyond the powers that be.
Also is there an American version of this effort? We have the same problem, as does everyone else in the world.
Imagine a world where ideas are exchanged openly on network TV...
"Adbusters claims that this refusal to sell airtime to citizens and NGOs violates our right to freedom of expression under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms."
Freedom of expression does not guarantee you a platform for that expression. No one is being censored here. If you call refusal to take ads censorship, what word do you have left for when the government outlaws your ad?
Why don't you guys stop worrying about TV and find ways to dominate the web? Nobody watches TV anymore and they certainly don't watch ads.
Use the $100,000 to support new online alternative media like rabble.ca and The Dominion? Use it to create an 'alternative media venture unit' to keep media democracy in the country. Use it to support Canadians for Democratic Media.
TV is so 1950s.
Thanks!
Liam.
Post new comment