Politiques de communication/Communication Policy Courseblog

Media Ownership Resources from COMS 225 blog

Our Cultural Sovereisngty: The Second Century of Canadian Broadcasting. Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, Clifford Lincoln, M.P.Chair, June 2003. and blurb from COMS 225.

UNESCO Portal on Public Service Broadcasting

The 2004 Spry Memorial Lecture – Graham Murdoch, BUILDING THE DIGITAL COMMONS: PUBLIC BROADCASTING IN THE AGE OF THE INTERNET

EU- Television Without Frontiers Directive

UNESCO Convention on Cultural Diversity – resources from Area 808 blog, note, some links are defunct

International Network for Cultural Diversity
http://www.incd.net/

Culturescope.ca a portal of information about Canadian cultural policy.

Canadian Conference of the Arts.

CBC Archives. Ruling the Airwaves: The CRTC and Canadian Content.

Statistics Canada. Canadian Framework for Culture Statistics, 2004.

Statistics Canada. Data Tables on Government Expenditures on Culture, 2000-2004.

Spotlight on Canadian Documentaries, presented by Telefilm Canada at the 2005 Doc Policy Summit during the 12th Annual Hot Docs Canadian International Documentary Festival.”

Digital Inclusion Map from Andy Carvin
http://www.andycarvin.com/photos/ictmap1.jpg
(click map to see full)

United Nations Millennium Development Goals
http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/

International Telecommunication Union Telecommunications/ICT Indicators
http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/publications/index.html

ITU’s Maitland Report
http://www.itu.int/osg/spu/sfo/missinglink/index.html

ITU- DD at a Glance, from WSIS
http://www.itu.int/wsis/tunis/newsroom/stats/

Robert McChesney and Dan Schiller.The Political Economy of International Communications: Foundations for the Emerging Global Debate about Media Ownership and Regulation. United Nations Research Institute for Social Development, 2003.
http://www.unrisd.org/unrisd/website/document.nsf/0/C9DCBA6C7DB78C2AC1256BDF0049A774?OpenDocument

World Trade Organization Telecommunications Services
http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/serv_e/telecom_e/telecom_e.htm

GATS – Annex on Telecommunications
http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/serv_e/12-tel_e.htm

Re DOT Force, G8, etc: LR Shade, Here Comes the Dot Force! The New Cavalry for Equity? in Gazette: The International Journal for Communication Studies 65(2)(2003): 107-120.
shade_gazette.pdf

Wikipedia – Mobile Phone Penetration Rates
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phone_penetration_rate

Apple’s 1984 Mac Commercial

Cisco Network’s The Human Network

Nortel- What Do You Want the Internet to Be?

IBM Innovation Man

IBM – Keep it Simple

MCI Anthem Ad
http://it.stlawu.edu/%7Eglobal/pagessemiotics/montagemci.html

WorldCom and Generation D

http://www.canadachristiancollege.com/

From CBC News,  February 29, 2008, Taxpayers Being Abused by Film Funding: Lobbyist.

An evangelical leader says it is an abuse of taxpayers’ money to put federal funding toward films such as Young People F—ing.

Charles McVety, president of the Canada Family Action Coalition, says he has been lobbying for years to get a change to funding rules for films and television shows. The Canada Family Action Coalition is an evangelical group that seeks to have what it calls “Judeo-Christian moral principles” restored in Canada.

Bill C-10, an omnibus bill now before the Senate, includes provisions in the Income Tax Act that would allow the federal government to deny tax credits for films that are offensive or not in the public interest.

The tax credits would be withdrawn from films already made at the discretion of a committee of the Justice and Heritage departments who would vet films for inappropriate content.

“I find it outrageous that government takes our hard-earned tax dollars and funds movies like Young People F—ing,” McVety told CBC News, a clergyman who is careful not to say the offensive word.

For an update see http://cancult.ca/2008/03/03/the-bill-c-10-roundup/

CIMA – Center for International Media Action

How can we assert the rights of all people to communicate within and beyond their communities, tell their own stories and access the information they need?

We need criticism and education, we need to hold media companies accountable and build strong alternatives. Locally, nationally and internationally we can use policy to make this happen. Activists working on a wide range of issues have realized that changing the media system is key to achieving authentic democracy, social justice and sustainable, healthy communities worldwide. This is the work that CIMA was created to support.

Remaking The Media: A Map of Public Interest Agendas and Strategies

Building a Media Justice and Communication Rights Movement

The Media Research Hub is part of the SSRC’s Necessary Knowledge for a Democratic Public Sphere program, which works to ensure that debates about media and communications technologies are shaped by high-quality research and a rich understanding of the public interest.

Edited by Geert Lovink and Ned Rossiter, Amsterdam, 2008. PDF here: 32.pdf.
From their introduction:

Policy as a genre isn’t exactly bedtime reading. It’s all too easy to ignore for that reason. But like any game, rules can always be broken. Where is the cheat-sheet for creative industries policy?

Governments are slowly acknowledging the human dimension to climatic change, but there is still a remarkable indifference by creative workers to connect their own conditions to the shaping effects of ministerial directives. It seems totally bizarre that many seem to have a non-secular version of working life. No matter how alien it appears, policy does not drift down from the heavens.

Yet so often policy seems to have forgotten its own material constitution and reason of existence. Why, for instance, have the experiences and conditions of creative workers been ignored in the policy realm for so long? This is no accident. Policy formation has been notable for its monopoly of expectations. But it’s the view of MyCreativity that a threefold shift is happening within the creative industries:
Read the rest of this entry »

March 12
IP
Tamara
Mel

March 19
Phil

March 26
Evan
Kenza

April 2
Dieudonne

Zoe?

Commentary from The Globe and Mail, Thur., February 21 2008, Amir Attaran

The Department of National Defence is intruding on academic financing, spending millions of dollars sponsoring think tanks and scholars to offer up agreeable commentary. When these intellectuals comment, they are not always quick to disclose that the military funds them.

….

Most people would find it strange that DND sponsors the salaries, research, travel and tuition of dozens of professors, postdoctoral fellows and graduate students. But DND’s Security and Defence Forum does exactly this. The list of Canadian universities getting over half a million dollars of SDF money is extensive: York University ($580,000), UQAM ($630,000), Wilfrid Laurier University ($630,000), Université Laval ($655,000), McGill ($680,000), UBC ($680,000), University of Manitoba ($680,000), UNB ($680,000), Carleton University ($780,000), Dalhousie University ($780,000), University of Calgary ($780,000) and Queen’s University ($1,480,000).

….

What’s the money for? It’s not for the technical work that militaries obviously require — building better airplanes, for example. Instead, it sponsors policy scholars, who create the ideas, news and views that shape Canadians’ perception of the military and the war. And the evidence suggests that the military and government have politicized some SDF grants. The same bureaucrat who administers SDF grants to scholars also manages DND’s liaison with cabinet and Parliament. When DND needs a kind word in Parliament or the media — presto! — an SDF-sponsored scholar often appears, without disclosing his or her financial link.

Kiki and Bubu and The Shift