PDA

You are viewing a trimmed-down version of the SkyscraperPage.com discussion forum.  For the full version follow the link below.

View Full Version : Hamilton Media



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5

raisethehammer
Sep 2, 2008, 3:52 PM
this is possibly some good news today:

September 02, 2008
THE HAMILTON SPECTATOR
CHAM Radio is dropping country for talk.

The longtime Hamilton country music station at 820 on the am dial announced this morning at 8:20 that it is going all talk.

The station is owned by Astral Media. It's now called Talk 820.

Watch thespec.com for updates


Hopefully it's decent and adds some much needed competition to CHML.
Now if we can land a CBC station, we'd be getting somewhere.
Astral Media owns CKOC/K-Lite, but not the Main West batch of stations. Let's hope they offer different viewpoints and informed opinion, as opposed to just copying the Spec all the time.

SteelTown
Sep 2, 2008, 4:04 PM
I believe CBC wanted to work with CHAM for a CBC radio station in Hamilton. I guess these guys gave up on CBC and went alone.

DC83
Sep 2, 2008, 4:23 PM
I hope it takes on the same format as AM 680: All News, All Day... repeating themselves all day every day. Except with a Hamilton base, obvi.

AM 680's Weather & Traffic on the 1's is really convenient. Trying to get Hamilton Weather & Traffic from 900chml is annoying.

astroblaster
Sep 2, 2008, 4:45 PM
i also like the 680 format. it makes a lot of sense, especially when driving

SteelTown
Sep 2, 2008, 5:01 PM
CHAM Country goes all talk

September 02, 2008
By DOUG FOLEY
The Hamilton Spectator

Hamilton country music station 820 CHAM has headed to Boot Hill.

The venerable radio station dropped its country format yesterday after 25 years and rebranded itself  Talk 820 with a 24-hour schedule of talk shows.

“The bottom line is that music on AM radio is a dying breed,” said Tom Cooke, Astral Media Radio Hamilton Vice-President and General Manager.

“It’s a tough business and the ratings weren’t there on CHAM and there is only so long you can put up with it before you have to make a change.

“We are under a new owner going back to November and we were mandated to produce the best product we can and this was an option we presented and they told us to get our butts in gear and make it happen.”

The switch puts Talk 820 in direct competition with AM 900, Hamilton’s other talk station.

It was AM 900’s FM sister station, Country 95, that put the bullet in 820 CHAM’s country format.

The stations will find out how the new competition is working out when the fall radio ratings are released Nov. 27 by the Bureau of Broadcast Measurement.

Cooke said no jobs were lost in the radio switch, which has been three months in the planning.

The station’s new lineup mixes local broadcasters and syndicated material, including U.S. social comic and critic, Dennis Miller,  whose show will air on Saturdays from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. with a repeat Sunday from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m.

Talk 820 is sticking with long-time morning man Jason Farr, with new co-host Jodi Gaskell from 5 a.m. to 8:30 a.m.

Station traffic man Mike Nabuurs will handle the mid-day time slot and Dave Shuttleworth the drive home show.

Veteran news director Robyn Foley (no relation to this reporter) will host a half hour news magazine show Hamilton at Noon, on weekdays.

The station says programming will also feature traffic, weather and sports, including NFL night game broadcasts.

Cooke said TALK 820’s arrival will not have any affect on Astral’s two other Hamilton station, 1150 CKOC and 102.9 K-litefm.

Astral acquired the stations in November after it took over privately-held Standard Radio for $1.08 billion in cash and stock to the Slaight family for its 52 stations in five provinces. The deal made Astral the biggest radio broadcaster in Canada, ahead of Corus, which owns Country 95, AM 900  and Y-108 in Hamilton.

Suzanne Carpenter, general manager for the local Corus was not available for comment on Astral’s move.

Other programs on Talk 820 will include Coast to Coast, Monday to Sunday from 10 p.m. to midnight (and rebroadcast over night);   Ask The Experts with Mike Wyman and Prime Time Sports with Bob McCown at 6 p.m.; John Biggs and    Go-To Gadget Guy Leo Laporte

SteelTown
Sep 2, 2008, 5:03 PM
They got Prime Time Sports. That will help with the ratings. A lot of sport guys listen and watch Prime Time Sports with Bob McCown.

ryan_mcgreal
Sep 2, 2008, 6:47 PM
Sounds like pretty typical talk radio format: cranky conservative blowhards punctuated by unfunny right-wing comedians (Dennis Miller), with a generous dollop of sports coverage and Sun Media style false populism. We can probably expect plenty of rambling, stream-of-consciousness rants against the Culture War bogeyman du jour with little by way of substantive analysis or real, constructive debate.

Unfortunately, demographics pretty much drive this format, since liberals will listen to conservative radio but conservatives will not listen to liberal radio.

raisethehammer
Sep 2, 2008, 7:27 PM
geez....forget I even started this thread.
More of the same bullcrap. No good news in there at all.

highwater
Sep 2, 2008, 10:33 PM
And no chance of a CBC station under a Conservative government.

drpgq
Sep 2, 2008, 10:49 PM
And no chance of a CBC station under a Conservative government.

I thought that David Sweet, the Ancaster Tory MP was pushing for this.

Anyways, as a Hamiltonian I'd prefer massive CBC cutbacks or outright
privatization. It is not like they even have a CBC reporter even stationed
here anymore.

FairHamilton
Sep 2, 2008, 11:07 PM
Anyways, as a Hamiltonian I'd prefer massive CBC cutbacks or outright privatization. It is not like they even have a CBC reporter even stationed here anymore.

Now, that's pretty narrow-minded. You mean you'd prefer all media to be run on advertiser driven station, and as such position their news/reporting based on not offending current or prospective advertising clients?

BTW, they had a segment on Saturday morning's Fresh Air highlighting day trips to Hamilton.

drpgq
Sep 2, 2008, 11:44 PM
Now, that's pretty narrow-minded. You mean you'd prefer all media to be run on advertiser driven station, and as such position their news/reporting based on not offending current or prospective advertising clients?

BTW, they had a segment on Saturday morning's Fresh Air highlighting day trips to Hamilton.

I'd be willing to accept that yes, although with the caveat that sites like this one and raisethehammer are far better suited than at disseminating local Hamilton information than anything that comes under the aegis of the CRTC.

With regards to a single Fresh Air segment, I would say perhaps that you're a bit of a cheap date with the portion of your Hamilton tax dollars that go to the CBC and what one ends getting back from it. Sorry if it sounds like I'm being a jerk, but I've listened and watched the CBC enough to know that we rarely get mentioned (and we're certainly not the only community that gets ignored).

I should say that I don't really have a huge hate on for the CBC, but lately I've been thinking that strong centralized goverments both provincially and federally haven't really served Hamilton's interests as a non-capital city over the past few decades. With large government revenues, inevitably a huge chunk ends up being recycled in Toronto and Ottawa, benefitting those communities with public sector jobs, scads of lawyers and on and on. The US used to be better in this regard, but the massive military and government spending of late (and really since Reagan) has been fueling massive growth in the DC region. Generally now when I hear someone in the media extolling strong centralized governments in Canada I figure it is probably someone who lives in the Glebe.

FairHamilton
Sep 3, 2008, 2:22 AM
With regards to a single Fresh Air segment, I would say perhaps that you're a bit of a cheap date with the portion of your Hamilton tax dollars that go to the CBC and what one ends getting back from it. Sorry if it sounds like I'm being a jerk, but I've listened and watched the CBC enough to know that we rarely get mentioned (and we're certainly not the only community that gets ignored).

Cheap date, huh. Well my life, travels and experiences extend past Hamilton's city limits. With your reasoning, it seems yours is limited.

raisethehammer
Sep 3, 2008, 2:25 AM
I'd prefer little or no profit-based media, but whatever.....

FairHamilton
Sep 3, 2008, 12:31 PM
I think a far bigger 'crime' in Hamilton is CHCH being the E! Network.

There was a time when they produced their own programs, and had a closer connection to the community than they appear to have currently.

And they are located within the city.

highwater
Sep 3, 2008, 2:33 PM
I thought that David Sweet, the Ancaster Tory MP was pushing for this.

Sweet himself was supportive, but his government refused to follow the heritage committee's recommendation to extend CBC funding for more regional broadcasting such as Hamilton. If your're miffed at the CBC because they don't cover Hamilton, you should be directing your ire at the government which consistently underfunds it. CBC brass would like nothing more than to set up a radio station here.

raisethehammer
Sep 3, 2008, 2:52 PM
I think a far bigger 'crime' in Hamilton is CHCH being the E! Network.

There was a time when they produced their own programs, and had a closer connection to the community than they appear to have currently.

And they are located within the city.

absolutely.

FairHamilton
Sep 3, 2008, 5:01 PM
I'm waiting for the first person to say, "You mean that quality program, The Kardashians isn't about a local family......"

It proves a local address and a newsroom doesn't make a TV station local ............ Global blows for what they've done to CH.

Millstone
Sep 3, 2008, 6:01 PM
I tried listening to 820 today and was all ZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzz

drpgq
Sep 3, 2008, 7:36 PM
Cheap date, huh. Well my life, travels and experiences extend past Hamilton's city limits. With your reasoning, it seems yours is limited.

Thanks for your insightful comments on an idea I was trying to flesh out.

What I'm interested in and I didn't explain fully is the idea that Hamilton is subject to strong forces of city primitization with regards to Toronto and Ottawa and what Hamilton can do to combat these forces from making us into more of a bedroom community than we already are. I realize that these centralizing forces aren't just governmental.

With regards to such centralizing forces in the media in Hamilton, Torstar is a perfect example. It owns the Spec, the Star, the KW record and so on. The Spec doesn't even have a fulltime Queen's Park reporter, relying on joint Torontocentric coverage from Coyle and before that Urquhart. Every once in a while Hamilton will get mentioned, but it is usually only a few sentences. Dreschel covers provincial issues too, but a full timer would be better. Obviously newspapers across North America have been cutting back on reporting, but I think that Hamilton loses out on relations with the provincial government when our issues aren't discussed properly.

Commercially in Hamilton, I'm envious of the regionalization of the banks in the US. I'm amazed when I look at the fact that Buffalo (which I admit I'm guilty of deriding at times) has the M&T bank headquartered there, which is fairly sizable with almost 14,000 employees. All across the US there are a litany of regional banks catering to their communities. In Canada we have the big five pretty much, with most of the good employment and decision making concentrated in Toronto. I certainly think that if over the last twenty years communities like Hamilton, London, Windsor and Sudbury had their own regional banks, their local economies would be better off.

Talking about government centralization again, raisethehammer has often commented how in the past Hamilton was an important city in Ontario in relation to some other smaller cities. What are the factors that have led to Hamilton's relative decline over the years? Obviously the decline in local manufacturing from Studebaker on has been critical, but Toronto has lost plenty of manufacturing jobs itself. However over that time, Toronto has benefited from a substantial increase in the government's share of GDP in that time period and the spoils that go with it. Ottawa was a relatively sleepy place until the Trudeau years and has obviously benefited from the increase in the relative size of the federal government to the rest of the economy. I don't have a PhD in geography or the economic history of Ontario, so I'm no expert, but I am interested in these factors and what they have meant to Hamilton and what they will mean going forward.

Finally with regard to the CBC, I think it is a microcosm of how government centralization has benefited Toronto economically, partially at the expense of Hamilton and other communities, regardless of the inherent value of the service. From wikipedia the CBC employed approximately 6000 employees in 2005, which I'm guessing a decent chunk of that is in Toronto. I remember a number of years ago Paul Wilson interviewed the last CBC reporter in Hamilton as he was packing up his office, as they were closing it down. I'm not exactly sure when that was, but I'm pretty sure it was during the Chretien years, so it seems that unfortunately no government has made CBC service in Hamilton
much of a priority. Would I like to see the CBC decentralized somewhat, with a shiny studio on Gore Park and 50 employees telling the stories of Hamilton, Burlington and Niagara? Unlikely, no doubt, but I'd love to see it.

While I'm dreaming I would love to see a provincial ministry with its HQ here (maybe there is one I don't know about) and I'm glad that CANMET is coming although I'm disappointed at how long it has taken. I'll admit that I could well be wrong that increasing governmental, media and commercial centralization has hurt Hamilton over the years, but I think it is worth discussing and what if anything we can do as a city to move forward.

And just one final point, living and working in Germany for three years and observing the relative decentralization that government and industry have across the country and the constituent Bundeslande made me see how centralized some institutions in Canada really are and got me thinking about Hamilton in that regard.

FairHamilton
Sep 3, 2008, 8:09 PM
^ Hey, I understand what you are saying. I've railed here before about Torstar's ownership of The Spec (and CH outside ownership) in other threads. The Spec especially because of the lack of investigative/hard hitting journalism that outside ownership means for Hamilton.

My disagreement with your original statement centred on your simply wishing for CBC funding cuts, or for it to be privatized. I think what you really want is expanded funding, which will be spent in the 'regions', not the centres.

I can't see that happening, but that's a want I'd support.

raisethehammer
Sep 10, 2008, 3:39 PM
some more crackpot broadcasting by our media:

http://900chml.com/Channels/Reg/NewsLocalGeneral/Story.aspx?ID=1025489

"city's east end" - Barton and Crooks. Lol.

LikeHamilton
Sep 10, 2008, 4:11 PM
some more crackpot broadcasting by our media:

http://900chml.com/Channels/Reg/NewsLocalGeneral/Story.aspx?ID=1025489

"city's east end" - Barton and Crooks. Lol.

Crooks runs York to Barton 3 blocks east of Dundurn Park.

holymoly
Sep 10, 2008, 4:22 PM
I don't see a reference to "east end" in the linked article -- I guess they changed it.

BTW, anyone know why the street is called Crooks?

SteelTown
Nov 13, 2008, 3:11 AM
CanWest is cutting jobs and it'll affect CHCH.

News at Noon will be cut down to 30 minutes instead of one hour. Niagara Express and Sports Scope on Sunday will be cut out of the program.

raisethehammer
Nov 13, 2008, 3:23 AM
let's hope they keep cutting until the entire station is closed down.

flar
Nov 13, 2008, 3:34 AM
As bad as CHCH is these days, it would be worse without the local news (and I say this as someone who doesn't like their newscasts--I walked by a tv this morning and our local newspeople were talking about Britney Spears' son.)

SteelTown
Nov 13, 2008, 3:52 AM
CHCH cuts staff, shows
Parent CanWest to eliminate 560 jobs across country

November 12, 2008
By Daniel Nolan
The Hamilton Spectator

CHCH-TV is cutting staff and programs to help parent company CanWest Global Communications deal with plunging share prices and cost pressures.

As part of a company-wide initiative, CanWest announced today it will cut 560 jobs to save $61 million. The firm, criticized for going on a binge of acquisitions, saw its shares trade at 84 cents today on the TSX. The stock traded at $7.33 at the start of 2008.

The union representing CHCH employees says the station is chopping 12 union jobs and two non-union jobs. Two other union members took early retirements last week.

Two on-air members are set to lose their jobs — entertainment reporter Kate Stutsman, and James McDonald, who has handled anchor and reporting duties. CHCH News general manager Patrick O’Hara said numbers were not finalized, but the cuts will come Dec. 1.

The station is also closing its Halton bureau in Oakville, reducing its noon news program from 60 to 30 minutes and cancelling four shows effective Dec. 1. The shows that will disappear are CH Straight Talk, CH Niagara Express, Sportscope and At Home.

This will cut the station’s locally produced content from 41.5 hours a week to 37 hours per week.

Its CRTC licence requires it to broadcast 36.5 hours of local programs.

There were other developments. The Global-TV station in Toronto is cancelling its morning show and, starting at the end of January, will simulcast CH Morning Live with Bob Cowan and Annette Hamm.

CanWest is also postponing plans announced a year ago to centralize studio work at a new broadcast centre in Toronto in 2009.

CHCH was to lose 25 jobs from that move, but union president Nick Garbutt estimated only a few of those jobs have already migrated to Toronto.

O’Hara said he was not given a target to cut by CanWest, but said the moves “were all about having a closer look at our business and adjusting to the economic reality.”

He said the company is always reviewing its operations and couldn’t rule out future cuts.

Garbutt said there were “a lot of sad faces” at the station after O’Hara hosted a meeting to outline the changes.

“It was a sad day,” said the head of Local 1100 of the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers.

“You work at a place and they’re not just your co-workers, they’re your friends. We’ll certainly miss them.”

comadriver
Nov 13, 2008, 3:20 PM
As bad as CHCH is these days, it would be worse without the local news

Although I sincerely sympathize with the people who will loose their jobs, I do have a question: this day and age, what benefit do we derive from the news being read to us over the radio/TV? Why wait for someone to decide which story to tell us and which one to avoid? Don't you find the stupid commercials intellectually insulting? Do we seriously like the music on the radio? What do you get from CHCH that you can't get in a more efficient way elsewhere (internet anyone?).

Again, it's not my intent to sound insensitive to the job cuts -- it can be devastating to anyone.

FairHamilton
Nov 13, 2008, 3:39 PM
Although I sincerely sympathize with the people who will loose their jobs, I do have a question: this day and age, what benefit do we derive from the news being read to us over the radio/TV? Why wait for someone to decide which story to tell us and which one to avoid? Don't you find the stupid commercials intellectually insulting? Do we seriously like the music on the radio? What do you get from CHCH that you can't get in a more efficient way elsewhere (internet anyone?).

Again, it's not my intent to sound insensitive to the job cuts -- it can be devastating to anyone.

I think the bigger issue is the further deterioration of our local media outlets. 30 minutes local programming over the minimum for their CRTC license requirements is embarrassing.

I think it's important to have varying news sources, i.e. TV, Daily/Weekly newspaper/internet vs. relying on just one because that's the safest get the broadest perspective and avoid bias.

adam
Nov 13, 2008, 4:29 PM
I am with you comadriver, I find its nearly impossible to get unbias news when all of our media outlets are owned by the same very exclusive group of people. Canada is world renowned for its extremely tight group of media moguls.

comadriver
Nov 13, 2008, 5:12 PM
I think it's important to have varying news sources, i.e. TV, Daily/Weekly newspaper/internet vs. relying on just one because that's the safest get the broadest perspective and avoid bias.

Agreed. We should definitely get our information from multiple sources. I consider the internet more as the medium that gives you quick access to multiple sources. It makes me smile when I hear "... more on this topic at 9 PM Eastern, 9:30 in Newfoundland...". Are you kidding me? When I need to know more, I will log in and look it up. And I will get as much detail as I need, on my own time. And I will get the facts and statistics I need -- not the predigested mash of opinions. When I need analysis, I will read world-renowned experts' take on the issues, not the local Raymond James adviser pushing the sales pitch on the radio.

Anyway, I suppose we are a different generation, and these guys aren't really catering to us. In the long-term, TV and radio in their current form will continue to die off. Anything that's not interactive or on-demand has no mainstream future IMO. Specific content requirements (i.e. Canadian, local, French, etc) are another cute relic from the stone-age days.

Just my 2 cents :)

Now, where is that lunch...

markbarbera
Nov 13, 2008, 7:54 PM
Currently CH news is doing not much more than re-reading the 680 News script. Local news coverage is not much more than an on-air reading of the Spec. With the morning news program simulcasting with Toronto, there will be even less local coverage.

fastcarsfreedom
Nov 13, 2008, 11:00 PM
Quote
let's hope they keep cutting until the entire station is closed down.

The most apalling comment I've read on this Forum in a very long time. I question your desire for Hamilton to truly be a better place when you wish away a local media outlet and the well-paid jobs that accompany it.

I also bemoan the loss of individual local identity and depth of coverage in news coverage. Nonetheless, it is not a situation that is unique to Hamilton or Canwest-owned outlets--it's a global phenomenon--and it's here to stay.

MsMe
Nov 14, 2008, 12:05 AM
And with the news on tv, it's on at certain times. When we have the net now one can find many news sites and get the news right then.

adam
Nov 14, 2008, 4:10 AM
Quote
I also bemoan the loss of individual local identity and depth of coverage in news coverage. Nonetheless, it is not a situation that is unique to Hamilton or Canwest-owned outlets--it's a global phenomenon--and it's here to stay.

When was the last time a media giant like Canwest adequately gave local identity? Things are shifting to the internet where individual identity can be expressed by the rich, the poor, the middle class. Its the best thing that's happened to free speech in hundreds of years..

fastcarsfreedom
Nov 14, 2008, 4:29 AM
adam--presumably you can recall CHCH-TVs period of ownership by Western International Communications--it was branded as ONtv at the time, and was completely devoid of any local content. Canwest may be an imperfect owner--but they've invested in technology and produce news and current affairs programming that's about Hamilton...as opposed to Toronto. You may well choose to seek your information from the internet--more power to you.

SteelTown
Nov 14, 2008, 12:14 PM
CH stars might be next to go
Longtime news anchors Smith and McLean in negotiations

November 14, 2008
Daniel Nolan
The Hamilton Spectator

More changes may be coming to CHCH News with the potential loss of two of their longest serving and most recognizable on-air personalities.

The station has made proposals to Dan McLean and Connie Smith, who co-host the station's noon news, that could lead the pair to leave the station they both have called home since the 1970s.

The actions follow job cuts and program cancellations on Wednesday to help parent company Canwest Global Communications deal with cost pressures. Canwest announced it will chop 560 jobs to save $61 million. It lost $21.5 million in the first nine months of its business year on $2.4 billion revenue.

The company said 210 jobs will be cut through restructuring of news operations at its E! stations, which includes Hamilton. The station will chop 14 jobs, cancel four TV programs, reduce its noon news to 30 minutes and close its Halton news bureau.

McLean, 61, has been at the station since 1971 and hosted two talk shows before becoming a news anchor in 1980. Asked if the station had offered him a buyout package, the Welland native said yesterday. "I'm not at liberty to say anything. Does that tell you anything? I'm not at liberty to be able to respond to that. I would think in two weeks we will know something. ... I'm in negotiations and I'm not in a position to talk about it yet."

Asked if the negotiations don't go well, it could lead to him leaving the station, he replied, "It might."

Smith, 54, has been at the station since 1976. Her station bio says she was the first woman weather person at CHCH and was the first woman anchor of the weekday news. She launched the first noon news show in 1988 with the late Tom Cherington.

Smith said she was told after Wednesday's show her anchor duties would end Nov. 28 and her show CH Straight Talk was being cancelled.

The Ancaster resident has been told she can return to reporting, but is mulling over her future. She is talking to a financial adviser, family, friends and a lawyer. While she may decide to stay with the station, she said, "There's a lot of other stuff I haven't done yet, so maybe this is a good time to do some things that I've always wanted to do."

Both McLean and Smith stressed they are in pain over the layoff of their colleagues. "I just feel badly it comes to this because I feel sorry for the people that are going," said McLean. "I wish they weren't."

thistleclub
Nov 14, 2008, 12:20 PM
adam--presumably you can recall CHCH-TVs period of ownership by Western International Communications--it was branded as ONtv at the time, and was completely devoid of any local content. Canwest may be an imperfect owner--but they've invested in technology and produce news and current affairs programming that's about Hamilton...as opposed to Toronto.

I believe that at the time of the Canwest purchase, one of the Aspers said of ONTV that he couldn't imagine why anyone would watch it, let alone consider it a local station -- and I agree that, although the station is abundantly flawed, local content is something that Canwest made a mandate, as opposed to the regional focus of the late '90s. I'm sure if anyone bothered to compare some old ONTV-era TV listings with even the E!/CH lineup, the difference would be notable. I believe ONTV had the evening news, recycled at 11, and that was it... of that, my guess would be 10-15 minutes of local stories.

flar
Nov 14, 2008, 2:07 PM
Although I sincerely sympathize with the people who will loose their jobs, I do have a question: this day and age, what benefit do we derive from the news being read to us over the radio/TV? Why wait for someone to decide which story to tell us and which one to avoid? Don't you find the stupid commercials intellectually insulting? Do we seriously like the music on the radio? What do you get from CHCH that you can't get in a more efficient way elsewhere (internet anyone?).

Again, it's not my intent to sound insensitive to the job cuts -- it can be devastating to anyone.

A lot of people don't read news on the internet, and they don't read papers. They still watch TV, especially older people. As bad as the local news is, it would be a great loss to Hamilton if there was no Hamilton presence on the air. For example, my parents-in-law watch the Hamilton news just because my wife, daughter and I live here.

SteelTown
Nov 14, 2008, 2:11 PM
Kinda disappointing to see Connie Smith go. I bump into her a few times, she must live in the area. She's a really nice lady and super tiny haha, she's just a stick.

Dan McLean and Gord from CityTV is the longest serving news anchor in Canada.

Really these two anchors are Hamilton’s ambassadors to television.

FairHamilton
Nov 14, 2008, 2:42 PM
Got approached at the corner of John & Main by CH this morning to comment on the proposed increase in transit fares.

Unfortunately, I had to pass on the opportunity. It was just the wrong day......

raisethehammer
Nov 14, 2008, 3:59 PM
A lot of people don't read news on the internet, and they don't read papers. They still watch TV, especially older people. As bad as the local news is, it would be a great loss to Hamilton if there was no Hamilton presence on the air. For example, my parents-in-law watch the Hamilton news just because my wife, daughter and I live here.

and they probably scratch their heads wondering WHY you live here after watching that crap. LOL.

LikeHamilton
Nov 14, 2008, 5:35 PM
CHCH owner Canwest Global loses $1billion

TheSpec.com

The Canadian Press

WINNIPEG - CHCH TV owner Canwest Global Communications Corp. (TSX:CGS) has taken a $1.01 billion writedown on its Canadian television operations, dropping the media company to a fourth-quarter loss of $1.02 billion.
Canwest says the big charge against its earnings reflects a deterioration in its profit expectations for the TV business due to softness in advertising revenues.
The Winnipeg-based company, which publishes the National Post and owns the Global TV network, also says it expects some financial headwinds from regulatory challenges facing the Canadian conventional television industry.
Canwest cut 560 jobs, about five per cent of its workforce, earlier this week, saying it faces a rougher economy and more competition.
President and CEO Leonard Asper says many other major North American media companies are facing the same economic pressures as Canwest and are also taking similar big charges.
He says the company, which employs about 10,500 people in Canada, plans to do whatever is necessary to improve its financial performance.

sofasurfer
Nov 14, 2008, 8:47 PM
and they probably scratch their heads wondering WHY you live here after watching that crap. LOL.

you could say that about pretty much all north american TV... ;p

FWIW, I've found CHCH pretty useful as a newcomer to town. If there are other local broadcast media options people on this board can recommend, though, I'm all ears/eyes.

If only there was more variety on the airwaves, though... CFMU just about keeps me sane (depending what's on!)

FairHamilton
Nov 14, 2008, 9:15 PM
[B][COLOR="Red"]Canwest cut 560 jobs, about five per cent of its workforce, earlier this week, saying it faces a rougher economy and more competition.

Funny, they didn't say it's also the result management mistakes.

fastcarsfreedom
Nov 14, 2008, 9:43 PM
You know, even though some here have a natural bias against the station--the truth is they do a good job covering the local news. It is a one-outlet town--and thus they cover it the way one-station markets are covered. The on-air staff is good, many have been in the market for years--and they do their best. Seeing layoffs, etc, is not a positive--and what appears to be the departure of Connie Smith is really unfortunate.

adam
Nov 14, 2008, 10:35 PM
On a broader scale, TV is dying.. get used to it.

fastcarsfreedom
Nov 15, 2008, 2:33 AM
TV is dying.. get used to it.

Dewey defeats Truman.

raisethehammer
Nov 15, 2008, 2:48 AM
On a broader scale, TV is dying.. get used to it.

what a glorious day that will be.
hopefully when people turn the TV off for the final time, they'll also turn their brains back on.

markbarbera
Nov 15, 2008, 2:53 PM
From my perspective, TV is no more than a light for the stupidity moth. There was plenty of stupidity out there before TV came around, and not watching TV will not prevent the onset of stupidity. 20 years from now we'll be blaming the internet for stupidity. People believe anything as long as it is posted on the net, just like they believe anything that is broadcast on TV. The fact is a big chunk of humanity is just plain stupid. You can't blame the media source for that.

the dude
Nov 15, 2008, 4:18 PM
well, we may not be dumber but we are a lot lazier than we used to be thanks in part to tv. the net and video games haven't helped much either. time to pull the plug on all of it, though i have grown fond of this internet thingy.

comadriver
Nov 15, 2008, 5:01 PM
From my perspective, TV is no more than a light for the stupidity moth. There was plenty of stupidity out there before TV came around, and not watching TV will not prevent the onset of stupidity. 20 years from now we'll be blaming the internet for stupidity. People believe anything as long as it is posted on the net, just like they believe anything that is broadcast on TV. The fact is a big chunk of humanity is just plain stupid. You can't blame the media source for that.

Amen.

I think many in this forum will appreciate Clay Shirky's thoughts, specifically about TV and the internet. http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/shirky08/shirky08_index.html

HackD
Nov 15, 2008, 6:59 PM
what a glorious day that will be.
hopefully when people turn the TV off for the final time, they'll also turn their brains back on.

I think more people are doing it, and certainly more people are watching much less.

I am counted among those without a TV signal.

I still have my quality, commercial-free A/V entertainment that really interests me enough to go to the trouble to find... what i want is covered by the monthly bandwidth download allotment from my cable provider.

I now know why my father always called it the boob-tube. Free the mind, smash the TV.

Traditional forms of media (TV, print newspaper, the recording industry) all are going to need to adapt to survive, or die, to the reality that there just isn't enough public interest in them anymore in the competition for time, and the competition/replacement by the internet as it is today and tomorrow. Radio will survive in it's current form, for now.. I'm not saying nothing new here, obviously.

BCTed
Nov 15, 2008, 7:52 PM
let's hope they keep cutting until the entire station is closed down.

Wow.

fastcarsfreedom
Nov 15, 2008, 8:40 PM
I think balance is important. I don't watch a significant amount of TV--I use it mostly for sports, news, weather and some other programming. Most of what I would call "entertainment" programming I don't find particularly entertaining. Nonetheless I've grown tired of people who sit around talking about how enlightened and evolved they are because they don't watch TV. Good for you...seriously, you're free to make the decision. Whether or not that somehow makes you magically smarter I will leave as an open point for debate--rest assured it is the rare person who lives without TV that doesn't manage to seize every opportunity they can to inject it into conversation.

BCTed
Nov 15, 2008, 8:56 PM
Nonetheless I've grown tired of people who sit around talking about how enlightened and evolved they are because they don't watch TV. Good for you...seriously, you're free to make the decision. Whether or not that somehow makes you magically smarter I will leave as an open point for debate--

I do not believe that not watching television makes you magically smarter.

raisethehammer
Nov 15, 2008, 11:18 PM
I do not believe that not watching television makes you magically smarter.

that's debatable.
I concur that one should replace their mind-numbing TV time with something more productive, and then that would help them become 'smarter' but I do think that some people are actually becoming dumber by watching their TV's. Hence, turning it off would actually make them smarter.

BCTed
Nov 16, 2008, 12:40 AM
that's debatable.
I concur that one should replace their mind-numbing TV time with something more productive, and then that would help them become 'smarter' but I do think that some people are actually becoming dumber by watching their TV's. Hence, turning it off would actually make them smarter.

I don't really know if we can objectively measure what makes one "smarter" versus making one "dumber", but I think a strong argument can be made that much of what can be seen on television is educational. I also believe that watching television can be a much more productive use of time than posting on this message board.

raisethehammer
Nov 16, 2008, 12:48 AM
I also believe that watching television can be a much more productive use of time than posting on this message board.

I agree with you here. Give it a try. LOL.

adam
Nov 16, 2008, 4:04 PM
We turn on TVs for entertainment, but 1/3 of the time they are on, we are being instructed on what products to buy, how to look, where to shop, what behaviours are acceptable. If that wasn't crazy enough, we are paying a premium for it. Cable/satellite bills...

The internet is fundamentally different as its an interactive experience and allows independant thought. I would consider this message board an important part of Hamilton's media.

markbarbera
Nov 17, 2008, 1:01 AM
We turn on TVs for entertainment, but 1/3 of the time they are on, we are being instructed on what products to buy, how to look, where to shop, what behaviours are acceptable. If that wasn't crazy enough, we are paying a premium for it. Cable/satellite bills...

The internet is fundamentally different as its an interactive experience and allows independant thought. I would consider this message board an important part of Hamilton's media.

The advertising to programming ratio on TV is more like 25%, or 1/4 the air time. I find that advertising on television pales in comparison to advertising on the internet. As I post here, there is an ad banner flashing at me 100% of the time. There is a direct correlation between the popularity of the internet and its advertising potential. At least you can PVR a television program and fast-forward through those ads. On the internet, there is no escape from the ad banner.

adam
Nov 17, 2008, 2:08 AM
The advertising to programming ratio on TV is more like 25%, or 1/4 the air time.

Nope. I have a few 1 hour long shows on my computer minus commercials and they are 42 minutes long. That's 30% commercials.


I find that advertising on television pales in comparison to advertising on the internet. As I post here, there is an ad banner flashing at me 100% of the time. There is a direct correlation between the popularity of the internet and its advertising potential. At least you can PVR a television program and fast-forward through those ads. On the internet, there is no escape from the ad banner.

I don't know what you mean about the banner ad - you aren't forced to stare at the banner ad for 30% of the time, are you?

Also you can download firefox and get a variety of ad blocking software. Then you don't see the ads unless you want to.

SteelTown
Nov 17, 2008, 3:51 AM
Those ads that you are blocking are less revenue to support SSP's server.

markbarbera
Nov 17, 2008, 2:30 PM
Nope. I have a few 1 hour long shows on my computer minus commercials and they are 42 minutes long. That's 30% commercials.

Check your times. According to the Canadian Broadcasting Act (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showtdm/cs/B-9.01///en):

ADVERTISING MATERIAL


11. (1) Except as otherwise provided by a condition of its licence and subject to subsections (2) to (4), the maximum number of minutes of advertising material that may be broadcast by a licensee is


(a) 12 minutes in any clock hour in a broadcast day before September 1, 2008; and



(b) 15 minutes in any clock hour in a broadcast day on or after September 1, 2008 and before September 1, 2009.



(2) If a program occupies time in two or more consecutive clock hours, a licensee may broadcast more than the maximum number of minutes of advertising material during any of those clock hours if the average number of minutes of advertising material broadcast during the clock hours occupied by the program does not exceed the maximum.


(3) In addition to the maximum number of minutes of advertising material, a licensee may broadcast


(a) during each clock hour, a maximum of 30 seconds of advertising material that consists of unpaid public service announcements; and



(b) partisan political advertising during an election period.



(4) A licensee may broadcast 14 minutes of advertising material in a clock hour between 7:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. in a broadcast day on or after September 1, 2007 and before September 1, 2008.

15 minutes is 1/4 of the broadcast hour. Either your timing is incorrect or the broadcaster is in violation of the Broadcasting Act. Or there are political announcements as part of the broadcast, which are seperate from advertising time.

realcity
Nov 17, 2008, 2:56 PM
On a broader scale, TV is dying.. get used to it.

It's true. TV as we know it won't exist in 5-10. Especially network tv. Why? Ask anyone under 25 if they watch network TV. Do they sit around and wait for Thurs night to watch one ep of Enterage. Or do they watch the entire season on a burned DVD, on YouTube, or Torent etc. The only reason why network tv is still on the air is because advertisers are still buying spots. Someday soon advertisers will realize they aren't getting the value for the dollar advertising on tv because of TIVO and DVD recorders that skip the ads. Even with older generations whom still watch TV in the traditional sense the 'mute' button works just fine on the ads.

The other point is that the CRTC recently made a ruling that will allow for commercial spots longer then 90 seconds. Which could pave the way for a Euro style format of mini branded content movies that are 5 minutes long and worth watching because they are entertaining. But to make them entertaining more restrictions will have to be lifted regarding nudity, swearing and actually allowing beer commercials to show people drinking etc. But if it ever happens, it will be likely too late, and too little to save network/commercial TV as we know it.

MsMe
Nov 17, 2008, 3:42 PM
It's true. TV as we know it won't exist in 5-10. Especially network tv. Why? Ask anyone under 25 if they watch network TV. Do they sit around and wait for Thurs night to watch one ep of Enterage. Or do they watch the entire season on a burned DVD, on YouTube, or Torent etc. The only reason why network tv is still on the air is because advertisers are still buying spots. Someday soon advertisers will realize they aren't getting the value for the dollar advertising on tv because of TIVO and DVD recorders that skip the ads. Even with older generations whom still watch TV in the traditional sense the 'mute' button works just fine on the ads.

The other point is that the CRTC recently made a ruling that will allow for commercial spots longer then 90 seconds. Which could pave the way for a Euro style format of mini branded content movies that are 5 minutes long and worth watching because they are entertaining. But to make them entertaining more restrictions will have to be lifted regarding nudity, swearing and actually allowing beer commercials to show people drinking etc. But if it ever happens, it will be likely too late, and too little to save network/commercial TV as we know it.

So true and look how many other things one can watch on the net now. "Even with older generations whom still watch TV in the traditional sense the 'mute' button works just fine on the ads."

Too bad we couldn't do that with people in real eh. :haha:

adam
Nov 17, 2008, 5:42 PM
The ads on the internet don't go as far as telling us how to live our lives, what clothes to wear, what we need to get, etc. At least not yet. The ads on this forum are not intrusive and I do not block them at all.

ryan_mcgreal
Nov 17, 2008, 6:20 PM
The ads on the internet don't go as far as telling us how to live our lives, what clothes to wear, what we need to get, etc. At least not yet. The ads on this forum are not intrusive and I do not block them at all.

This forum has ads?

/Firefox + Adblock Plus

ryan_mcgreal
Nov 17, 2008, 6:28 PM
I don't really know if we can objectively measure what makes one "smarter" versus making one "dumber"

Several researchers have tried to do just that (http://raisethehammer.org/article/603).

The Program on International Policy Attitutes (PIPA) found that people who get most of their news from TV were more likely to believe empirically false statements about Iraq, including false claims that the US found WMD and false claims that Saddam Hussein was somehow connected with al-Qaeda.

The Pew Research Centre found that people who got most of their news from newspapers (and, incidentally, watch The Daily Show) were the most knowledgeable about political affairs while people who got most of their news from TV (particularly FOX News) were the least knowledgeable.

A study from Leeds University on the first Gulf War found that "the correlation between TV watching and knowledge was actually quite often a negative one. ... [O]verall, the more TV people watched, the less they knew."

A study by the American Journal of Managed Care found that people who learn about health from TV news were more likely to hear false and dangerous advice. Another study, by the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, found that children and adolescents who watch more TV are more confused about what foods are healthy to eat.

It might be a stretch to state that TV makes you dumber as such, but it is clearly correlated with higher levels of confusion and misinformation.

ryan_mcgreal
Nov 17, 2008, 6:47 PM
Sorry for the triple-post, but you may be interested in this column by former Mayor Larry Di Ianni on Hamilton's media, posted on Chris Ecklund's website.

Note: Di Ianni suggests that a member of the Mayor's staff was recently a "constant contributor" to RTH. I contacted him about this, and he told me he heard that someone from the Mayor's office was commenting on RTH, though he has no evidence for this and RTH does not collect personal information about anonymous commenters.

http://www.chrisecklund.com/diianni_column_2008_11_10.html

The Role of Media in the City of Hamilton

By Larry Di Ianni
(posted November 10, 2008)

Contrary to one of Hamilton’s urban myths that this city is a ‘one-horse’ town when it comes to the media, the Hammer is actually replete with media sources, albeit many of them would fall into the ‘alternative media’ category. Consider this list: The Hamilton Spectator, Hamilton Weekly News (formerly the Brabant papers), ChCh T.V., Hamilton Cable 14, 900Chml, Talk820Cham, K-Lite FM, CKOC, CMFU (McMaster), Mohawk College Radio, The Bay Observer (a new weekly), Raise The Hammer (an on-line interactive magazine), and even CATCH which is more of a political party than a news magazine but it does publish on-line articles regularly. And these are the ‘news’ media. There are others, of course, that are purely culture and entertainment media.

In spite of this plethora of media in our town, if I heard any repeated complaint during my tenure as Mayor and Councillor in Hamilton is that there is media concentration and media ‘group-think’ in our city. Perhaps that is true as far as the mainstream media is concerned, but less so with the alternative media. Even at that, the ‘concentration’ is more the result of poor budgets for news gathering than institutional group-think by the reporters. For example, because the radio and television stations are not given enough staff to research their own stories, the media takes its cue from each other. So, if the Spec covers a story, the others follow-up, making it seem as if there is only one source in the city.

Another complaint I often heard is that the media is too negative on the city. The Hamilton Spectator has often come under particular attack from Hamiltonians who see the paper as too negative, too parochial, filled with left-wing bias, or favouring the status quo and old-boys’ network, depending on which side of the political spectrum you happen favour. There is certainly bias within the paper. I can certainly recount personal stories; however, the paper tries the best it can. The new Editor-in-Chief is attempting to stake out an identity for the paper’s struggling viewpoints, and I can see subtle differences. The paper also tries to broaden its editorials with regular contributions by ordinary citizens and that is always fascinating to read what is on the minds of these fellow travelers.

The various community weekly papers (Stoney Creek News, Mountain News, Dundas Star etc.) formerly owned by the Brabant group, now Hamilton Community News, owned by the same company that publishes The Spectator try to cover their communities in an independent way that occasionally comes into conflict with some Spectator personalities and hierarchy. Recall the furore when the Hamilton Weekly broke the story on Mayor Fred leaking confidential information to a Spectator columnist. The mother paper was apoplectic, I understand. However, the Managing Editor of the Weekly stood by his criticism of the role of the Spectator columnist. The mother paper, however, did manage to kill the ‘scoop’ by the weekly’s reporter and the hub-hub also cost this reporter his regular column as well as a guest-column on this very website. This reporter was often critical of City Hall happenings and what he perceived as a lackluster performance by the Mayor. The Mayor’s office had a hand in exorcising what they felt to be a thorn on their side, I understand. It is interesting that this story of potential political meddling in the media has never been told.

The Hamilton Weekly paper also seemed to give better coverage to the Hamilton Waterfall story than the mother paper has so far done. That is too bad. This is a good news story that deserves major attention.

But other media have also come in for criticism. CH CH T.V., although it does have a lot of local programming and great local personalities, is controlled by Toronto and its reportage often reflects that accusation. CHML does a valiant job of covering the news and offering opinions especially with the intelligent, topical, and avuncular, Bill Kelly having taken over from the hard-edged Roy Green. Hamilton has just added a new all-talk radio station with Talk-820 and that augurs well for those who love opinions. Under my tenure as Mayor, we even began lobbying the CBC to open a Hamilton studio to give us more breadth of reporting for the city. I know that the Mayor’s office was still working on this endeavour until recently, but to what end remains a mystery.

Recently, a new ‘mainstream’ weekly paper has been published called “The Bay Observer” which writes on happenings in Hamilton and Burlington. The paper has a circulation of 30,000 readers I understand and its content seems to be blunt but fair. They have already had one scoop in apparently exposing the lack of transparency related to Hamilton’s Waterfront Trust when it comes to financial matters. Hamilton Council, I understand, will now receive audited financial statements from this group. Just for the record, the Hamilton Trust has been responsible for all the good things that are happening at the waterfront and I have always been a big fan of their work, even though, I agree that transparency is good. This paper has also raised the lack of leadership in Hamilton’s Mayor’s office as an early theme and one has to wonder if their position isn’t filling the void of scrutiny vacated by The Spectator? It will be interesting to see how this paper develops.

It is always entertaining to read Raise the Hammer with its interactive content. This paper covers the news from a ‘progressive’ perspective and then invites readers to offer opinions. The paper’s left-of-center approach is clearly obvious; and their habit of vilifying any opposing views is readily ascertainable. They would strengthen their defence, which is that anyone can post a response to their thoughts, if they forced people to identify themselves. Anonymous opinions aren’t worth as much as transparent ones in my estimation. It is also my understanding that the Mayor’s office used to be, until some recent staff changes, a constant contributor to the opinions in these pages, but I haven’t had any independent corroboration of this.

And of course there is CATCH, a political party masquerading as a ‘media’ outlet. This group lines itself up alongside the media at city hall, records events and then writes articles slanted to their particular perspective, which is usually anti-business, and pro-unfettered taxation of Hamilton’s ratepayers. This group wants to kill the airport land development, eschews user fees on transit preferring that taxes be raised on the general levy to name just a couple of positions. What makes them an odd ‘media’ group is that at one moment they are behaving as reporters, albeit biased ones, and in the next minute some of them line up as ‘citizen’ reps making presentations to Council espousing a particular solution to a pressing problem. They are at the same time monitors and presenters, observers of the game and players in the game. It is this confused identity that some of their readers find perplexing. I find it amusing! They have one adherent on Council who usually mouths their words; and the Mayor fears them, but their influence has waned as people around the table have come to know what they are up to. The group does serve a purpose however. They offer up a different view of the world and they faithfully record verbatim conversations around the table. No one else does that!

The media, mainstream and unconventional, in its totality offer up diverse philosophies and viewpoints for readers to enjoy and be informed or entertained by. All of this is good. The media players, those who are paid and those who are dilettantes also deserve some attention, but that would be food for another column. In the meantime, let us all relish the democracy we have, especially as we approach November 11 and its historic importance, a date that allows us to say thank you to the brave Hamiltonians who fought and sometimes died to preserve the freedom of speech we often take for granted.

fastcarsfreedom
Nov 17, 2008, 8:07 PM
Advertising keeps the lights on--doesn't matter if it's radio, print, television or internet. End of story. If there continues to be a shift toward "new media"--the advertising (and volume of advertising) will simply continute to shift.

FairHamilton
Nov 17, 2008, 8:15 PM
Advertising keeps the lights on--doesn't matter if it's radio, print, television or internet. End of story. If there continues to be a shift toward "new media"--the advertising (and volume of advertising) will simply continute to shift.

And if the advertising is blocked en masse, then delivery will shift from free to a user pay format.

adam
Nov 17, 2008, 10:42 PM
Just curious.. when you say ads, do you mean the tiny little banner at the top of each page?

realcity
Nov 17, 2008, 10:51 PM
Advertising keeps the lights on--doesn't matter if it's radio, print, television or internet. End of story. If there continues to be a shift toward "new media"--the advertising (and volume of advertising) will simply continute to shift.

exactly.... the lights will go out on radio, tv and print.

There is very little tolerance for advertising in these media formats.

Radio: the station is tuned out with another push of the button (since it is basically listened to in vehicles

tv: commercials are skipped/muted/erased. plus the audiences are not going to be there for network programming in another generation.

print: advertising has some hope but only if the content keeps it's end of the bargain by delivering eyeballs. that is people who want to read current news (*emphasis on current, not yesterday's news today) and interesting and varied commentary on issues.

realcity
Nov 17, 2008, 11:21 PM
Several researchers have tried to do just that (http://raisethehammer.org/article/603).

The Program on International Policy Attitutes (PIPA) found that people who get most of their news from TV were more likely to believe empirically false statements about Iraq, including false claims that the US found WMD and false claims that Saddam Hussein was somehow connected with al-Qaeda.

The Pew Research Centre found that people who got most of their news from newspapers (and, incidentally, watch The Daily Show) were the most knowledgeable about political affairs while people who got most of their news from TV (particularly FOX News) were the least knowledgeable.

A study from Leeds University on the first Gulf War found that "the correlation between TV watching and knowledge was actually quite often a negative one. ... [O]verall, the more TV people watched, the less they knew."

A study by the American Journal of Managed Care found that people who learn about health from TV news were more likely to hear false and dangerous advice. Another study, by the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, found that children and adolescents who watch more TV are more confused about what foods are healthy to eat.

It might be a stretch to state that TV makes you dumber as such, but it is clearly correlated with higher levels of confusion and misinformation.

Ryan i enjoyed that article when you first wrote it and enjoyed again as much.

However I have a problem with those one-off, snap-shot stats. They are like that stats that claim 'babies that are breastfed grow to be smarter adults'. This may be true, but not from the breast feeding alone. The number crunchers fail to see other environment factors. Such as, perhaps the mother that choose to breast feed is more likely to be a more nuturing, caring, selfless mother, that devotes time and sacrifices... result.... a better mother? Whom likely has an equally present father, provider, and stable family life. I can also assume the baby formula user is a low-income, young single mother that puts their baby on formula so she can get back to her desired lifestyle, or the super-successful lawyer mom that takes 6 weeks off for her baby then it's daycare and formula. Is it the actual breast milk making babies smarter? I think not.

This is what actuaries and marketers do, it's less politically correct but more accurate then a one-off scientific study (which for the most part are done to benefit the author's career). Actuaries and marketers take a big picture stat to draw conclusions. Similarly to how two people applying for life insurance may score identically on tests, except for one thing.... occupation.... 1. is a truck driver.... 2. is a teacher. The teacher will pay a lower premium based on this one factor. There are several assumptions one can draw from occupation alone.

Similarly, I can assume that people whom largely get their news from TV are less educated and less motivated then people that read. People that choose a newspaper for their primary source of news are more likely to be better educated, more likely to read more then one newspaper, are more likely to get a larger variety of opinions.

While I believe PIPA results. This study, like many, fail to account for the big picture.

Is it the actual viewing of TV that makes one dumb? I think not.

highwater
Nov 17, 2008, 11:37 PM
However I have a problem with those one-off, snap-shot stats. They are like that stats that claim 'babies that are breastfed grow to be smarter adults'. This may be true, but not from the breast feeding alone. The number crunchers fail to see other environment factors. Such as, perhaps the mother that choose to breast feed is more likely to be a more nuturing, caring, selfless mother, that devotes time and sacrifices... result.... a better mother? Whom likely has an equally present father, provider, and stable family life. I can also assume the baby formula user is a low-income, young single mother that puts their baby on formula so she can get back to her desired lifestyle, or the super-successful lawyer mom that takes 6 weeks off for her baby then it's daycare and formula. Is it the actual breast milk making babies smarter? I think not.

Waaay off topic, but the study you you're citing took those factors into consideration. There is a chemical in breastmilk that can't be duplicated in formula that helps all those little neural pathways form. The physical closeness helps with brain development as well.

realcity
Nov 18, 2008, 1:29 AM
i believe i pointed that out. the other point i was attempting to make was that there are other factors that make babies 'smarter'.

Likewise other factors must be considered whether or not TV (media... what this thread is about) makes people dumb. the point is... they were dumber in the first place.

BCTed
Nov 18, 2008, 2:35 AM
Similarly, I can assume that people whom largely get their news from TV are less educated and less motivated then people that read. People that choose a newspaper for their primary source of news are more likely to be better educated, more likely to read more then one newspaper, are more likely to get a larger variety of opinions.

While I believe PIPA results. This study, like many, fail to account for the big picture.

Is it the actual viewing of TV that makes one dumb? I think not.

For once, I agree with you. There may well be a selection bias at play in that people who have a predilection for TV may be less intelligent to begin with. Beyond that, intelligence is extremely difficult to define and measure ----
ryan_mcgreal's study seems to measure level of adopted misinformation rather than "smartness" or "dumbness". Even further beyond that, for every study of this type that comes to this conclusion, there is probably another one that comes to the opposite conclusion.

adam
Nov 18, 2008, 2:43 AM
Please, feel free to show us one that comes to the opposite conclusion.

ryan_mcgreal
Nov 18, 2008, 1:22 PM
The number crunchers fail to see other environment factors.

You're right that it's important to control for other contributing factors, but at least some of the studies I referenced did this. For example, the Gulf War study (http://ics.leeds.ac.uk/papers/vp01.cfm?outfit=pmt&folder=30&paper=738) notes: "the relationships we explore have been isolated after running controls for other explanatory variables".

ryan_mcgreal's study seems to measure level of adopted misinformation rather than "smartness" or "dumbness"

As I wrote in my comment: "It might be a stretch to state that TV makes you dumber as such, but it is clearly correlated with higher levels of confusion and misinformation."

raisethehammer
Nov 18, 2008, 2:58 PM
new issue of HMag is out...it is awesome!
Anyone know where this new National Steel Car building is?? I want to check it out.

SteelTown
Nov 19, 2008, 4:07 AM
The Spec now has SpecTV, news video recaps.

Oh how I wish the CRTC awarded Torstar a TV channel instead of stupid Craig Media that gave us Toronto One, now the SUN TV that no one watches.

SteelTown
Nov 22, 2008, 4:59 PM
Canwest head says CH-TV programming unsustainable

November 22, 2008
Daniel Nolan
The Hamilton Spectator

Canwest Global head Leonard Asper is quoted on a website as saying the amount of local programming produced by CH-TV cannot be sustained.

"We're doing 35 hours a week in places like Hamilton and Victoria," the industry website Cartt.ca quoted Asper telling analysts in a conference call last week after his company announced 560 layoffs, 14 at CH-TV, due to massive losses.

It said Asper noted this cannot be sustained and predicted, "There's going to be a new norm in the obligations."

Asper's comments have come out at the same time he held a closed-circuit town-hall meeting Thursday with Global and E! staff (CH-TV is part of E!), in which he touched on the issue of obtaining flexibility in local broadcasting requirements from the CRTC.

His comments sent some CH-TV staff reeling as they deal not only with staff cuts, but the cancellation of four shows that will see the station's local hours drop to 37 hours from 41.5 hours Dec. 1.

"Almost nothing surprises us anymore," said Nick Garbutt, president of Local 1100 of the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, which represents CH-TV's members.

He expects Canwest to seek a reduction of CH-TV's hours when its licence comes up for renewal in April.

Canwest spokesperson John Douglas was on the conference call and said yesterday, "I honestly don't know if he (Asper) made that comment or not, but if you go to the end of that quote ... ultimately, it will be up to the CRTC to determine every licence. It's not something we can unilaterally do."

He noted CTV has also asked for flexibility on requirements relating to conventional television.

"The conventional television model ... is broken. Today in the digital world, the cost structure is very, very different, and that model has not kept up with the time."

BCTed
Nov 22, 2008, 7:40 PM
Please, feel free to show us one that comes to the opposite conclusion.

This article from last month references some pieces of research that do just that:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/chi-tv-good-for-you-1022oct22,0,7527688.column

LikeHamilton
Nov 27, 2008, 6:27 PM
Not Hamilton but anything in Toronto does effect us.

CTV cuts 105 jobs in Toronto

TheSpec.com

CTV is cutting about 105 positions at its Toronto operations, according to a company spokeswoman.

It wasn't immediately clear what departments would be affected the television broadcaster, which also owns the TSN sports network, CTV Newsnet and MuchMusic among other properties.

Spokeswoman Bonnie Brownlee says staff are still being notified about the layoffs.

Earlier this month, CTVglobemedia president and CEO Ivan Fecan sent a letter to employees warning that falling advertising revenues would force the company to lay off workers and freeze hiring.

CTVglobemedia is owned 40 per cent by the Thomson family's privately held Woodbridge Co., 25 per cent by the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan, 20 per cent by Torstar Corp. (TSX: TS.B) and 15 per cent by BCE Inc. (TSX: BCE).

ryan_mcgreal
Nov 27, 2008, 6:51 PM
http://www.raisethehammer.org/blog/1160

Merulla: CH News Should Address Council Over Programming Cuts

Councillor Sam "Have You Seen My Press Release" Merulla just issued a press release to advise that he will be asking the December 8, 2008 Committee of the Whole to put representatives from CHCH News on the hot seat over the station's proposed cuts to local news programming.

Much as I dislike seeing any reduction in local news coverage, I'm frankly not sure what Merulla is hoping to accomplish by asking CHTV News to address Council, other than possibly to score some rhetorical points. It's not as though Council can somehow simply compel Canwest Digital Media, the owners of CHTV, to increase their budget for local coverage.

MsMe
Nov 27, 2008, 6:58 PM
http://www.raisethehammer.org/blog/1160

Merulla: CH News Should Address Council Over Programming Cuts

Councillor Sam "Have You Seen My Press Release" Merulla just issued a press release to advise that he will be asking the December 8, 2008 Committee of the Whole to put representatives from CHCH News on the hot seat over the station's proposed cuts to local news programming.

Much as I dislike seeing any reduction in local news coverage, I'm frankly not sure what Merulla is hoping to accomplish by asking CHTV News to address Council, other than possibly to score some rhetorical points. It's not as though Council can somehow simply compel Canwest Digital Media, the owners of CHTV, to increase their budget for local coverage.



IMO in the near future there won't be much on tv on the news etc. As most people will be able to watch it on the net.

highwater
Nov 27, 2008, 7:09 PM
Council's time would be better spent lobbying David Sweet and Dean Allison to pressure their government to extend funding to the CBC.

SteelTown
Nov 27, 2008, 7:10 PM
I can't stand Merulla's tactics. Why must he have to tip his glass of water to get attention? A simple raise your hands would do like every other councilor.

SteelTown
Nov 28, 2008, 12:18 PM
CHCH's Connie Smith signs off today (http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/473704)
Canwest Global cuts claim city TV icon

November 28, 2008
The Hamilton Spectator

Connie Smith leaves her TV anchor position at CHCH today, and for viewers it's like losing a trusted friend.

If the day unfolds as she hopes, Smith will have a chance for a brief goodbye today to her faithful viewing audience on the air, in her final newscast at noon.

Viewers can expect to see a seasoned professional in action, able to summon the grit to present a sunny disposition to the world, even when clouds intrude on her own life.

Smith leaves her CHCH News job of more than 30 years after parent company Canwest Global Communications recently announced a plan to save more than $61 million by cutting more than 560 jobs. CHCH is cutting 14 jobs, cancelling four TV programs and reducing local news coverage.

"I'm not really at liberty to say a whole lot. I'm hoping to say a little goodbye ... at the end of the show, and that will be it," Smith said.

Smith's longtime co-anchor, Dan McLean, who's been at the station since 1971, would not comment about his future.

The cuts are putting a very public face on the financial turmoil hitting many sectors.

It is adding up to a culture shock for area residents.

They have welcomed the familiar faces of the veteran CHCH employees into their homes for years. Now, it seems part of the city's identity is disappearing.

ryan_mcgreal
Nov 28, 2008, 2:46 PM
I noticed in today's Spectator that the news section and the entertainment section had the same number of pages.

markbarbera
Nov 28, 2008, 9:53 PM
Actually, it's the GO section that was the same size as the news section at 22 pages. Entertainment is one of several subsections in GO, and covered five pages. Style and Food are other subsections in the GO section. There was a page for the stock market closing summary and a page for the 'Local People' too.

Is it unusual for a Friday paper to have a larger than usual GO Section? The Food columns in the Friday GO are usually several pages long, as opposed to the usual half-page bit Monday to Thursday.

thistleclub
Dec 12, 2008, 11:39 AM
End of an era in local TV (http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/480943)
Anchor Dan McLean wraps lengthy career at CHCH
Mark McNeil
The Hamilton Spectator
(Dec 12, 2008)

His deep throaty voice has become as familiar in Hamilton as dust clouds over the city's steel mills.

But today at the end of a 6 p.m. television newscast, Dan McLean will sign off for the last time, ending a 28-year career as anchor at CHCH News.

McLean, 61, had been in negotiations with the station's management in recent weeks and "it became apparent that perhaps now is the time to step back and they go in whatever direction they are going to go in and I go in whatever direction I am going to go in," he said.

CHCH spokesperson Rebecca West said a decision about who will replace McLean "has not been finalized." But speculation is that anchors Nick Dixon and Michelle Dube will fill the void.

The departure of McLean comes after layoffs that saw on-air host Connie Smith leave and about a dozen other jobs eliminated. After restructuring and some rehirings in other departments, the number of people out of work is down to nine, said Nick Garbutt, president of Local 1100 of the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, which represents workers at the station.

"We're not getting as many stories covered as we used to," he said. "I firmly believe that local management has the best interests of the station at heart. But decisions are being made in Winnipeg (by parent company Canwest Global Communications), and that concerns the employees in terms of job security and value to the viewer."

Canwest has been making major cuts in its media holdings to try to improve its beleaguered bottom line, and company head Leonard Asper was recently quoted as saying the amount of local programming produced by CH television was unsustainable.

"We're doing 35 hours a week in places like Hamilton and Victoria," the industry website Cartt.ca quoted Asper telling analysts in a conference call. "There's going to be a new norm in the obligations."

McMaster University sociology professor Imre Szeman said, "It is a real shame what Canwest is doing. I hope the (broadcasting regulator) CRTC will be strong in putting the onus on Canwest to maintain its local programming."

McMaster mass communications expert Graham Knight said he feels a void in local community coverage on television might be filled by new digital media offerings.

"The traditional role of television is changing. When something shrinks, it opens an opportunity for web-based alternatives to emerge," Knight said.

Councillor Bob Bratina, who is also a radio broadcaster at CHML, said, "They are not good changes at CHCH from a city perspective and I think things are going to get worse.

"Your credibility as a broadcaster loses somewhat when you get rid of people like Dan McLean.

"Everyone has to go at some time, but I am not sure that this is Dan's time. He still plays a prominent role in the community and has a level of respectability that someone else will have to work on for many years to attain."

McLean began at the station in 1971 as an announcer doing commercials and other voice parts. He moved on to host afternoon shows before being handed the anchor job in 1980. He said he will remember working with on-air personalities such as Tom Cherington and long-time anchor Norm Marshall.

McLean plans to work at marketing and public relations projects as well as on documentary films and educational television and to continue his community work.

"The future is something that I am looking forward to and Hamilton certainly hasn't seen the last of me yet."

SteelTown
Dec 12, 2008, 12:14 PM
I think Dan used to have a radio show on CHML? Maybe he'll return to radio.

SteelTown
Dec 13, 2008, 12:02 AM
He kept it professional right to the very end.

chris_erl
Dec 20, 2008, 6:08 AM
What we as Hamiltonians need to do, is invest in our own radio stations, newspapers and television stations. Communities from across the city should look to starting volunteer-run newspapers for their neighbourhoods and community radio stations that would service larger communities.

Starting a radio station, for example, could be a project in community building. Multiple community associations could come together, raise money by holding fundraisers or asking for donations from local businesses. They could then go to our many local high schools, to Mohawk or to Mac and recruit budding on air and behind-the-scenes personalities to host shows, mix tracks and gather news stories for the station. These stations could highlight local talent by having local bands and artists showcase their stylings on air, which could help them land their first big break!

If we can't find any quality media in this city, then we should be creating it ourselves! And if not going so far as to start our own stations or papers, then supporting the Hamiltonians who have already taken the initiative like Ryan and RTH or Kevin McKay and the Mayday team.

Hope is not lost for media in Hamilton!

bornagainbiking
Dec 29, 2008, 12:35 PM
I turned on the TV this morning to watch the news and it was "Vanity Insanity" Is this permanent?
I flipped to channel 3 Global and Kimberley Fowler was doing the traffic.
CH morning was second rate and corny but it was local.
CH TV is totally out of touch with the real Hamilton. E television is geared to who. Not the average citizen of Hamilton, who cares about Hollywood and all thier personal drama, we have enough real drama here with the economy.
It is like the Spec, the fashion section talking about $400 outfits for the office, give me a break many people shop at Walmart for the savings.
CH TV has sunk to total mind diversion, I for one will move on and must use Global as my morning information update and weather.
Good-bye CH and I already gave up on the Spec and cancelled my subsciption as it is losing it.

FairHamilton
Dec 29, 2008, 2:04 PM
I turned on the TV this morning to watch the news and it was "Vanity Insanity" Is this permanent?
I flipped to channel 3 Global and Kimberley Fowler was doing the traffic.
CH morning was second rate and corny but it was local.
CH TV is totally out of touch with the real Hamilton. E television is geared to who. Not the average citizen of Hamilton, who cares about Hollywood and all thier personal drama, we have enough real drama here with the economy.
It is like the Spec, the fashion section talking about $400 outfits for the office, give me a break many people shop at Walmart for the savings.
CH TV has sunk to total mind diversion, I for one will move on and must use Global as my morning information update and weather.
Good-bye CH and I already gave up on the Spec and cancelled my subsciption as it is losing it.

If you will be watching Global for your morning fix, then you'll be watching CH sometime in January.

http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/536023

John Douglas, spokesperson for the company, said the Global Ontario morning news, broadcasting from Toronto weekdays, will end in January and be replaced by a network show from Hamilton that has already proven more popular across Ontario.

I agree CH is a shadow of it's former self and seems to be getting to be an even smaller shadow with the loss of some long time on-air personalities and cancellations of local new programming.

But, at least they chose to cancel Toronto and air Hamilton in it's place. It could have been the other way around. The drawback on this is that the coverage will most likely take on a more Oakville & Toronto flavour.

markbarbera
Dec 29, 2008, 4:46 PM
Well, based on the assumption that it will be Hamilton coverage with an Oakville/Toronto taste. I suspect the format will be more the reverse, generic National news and limited local coverage.

Woke up this morning and tried tuning into CH Morning Live at the usual time and got muzak and the big red E! staring at me. Not good at all.

I'm assuming they eventually went on air. Was it a technical glitch, a later start because of the short week, or a permanent move to a later start?